Case Law:

In re Rachel T, 77 Md App 20, 549 A 2d 77 (1988) Rules of evidence apply in an adjudication hearing even though the hearing can be informal. The purpose of CINA hearings is to protect children, not to punish parents. Child’s statement to social worker on pediatric gynecological team about father’s “big secret” are admissible under two exceptions: Statements made to a physician consulted for treatment are treated as business records. The “tender years” exception is not recognized in CINA proceedings. Child’s statements to a psychologist are also admissible as data on which the psychologist formed her opinion.

In re Wanda, 69 Md App 105, 516 A 2d 615 (1986) The court does not need to conduct a hearing prior to ordering psychiatric evaluations of the parties, and therefore parents do not need counsel on this issue.. The testimony of the psychiatrist performing the evaluation is admissible at adjudication. A written report is admissible at disposition.

In re Collin, 63 Md App 684, 493 A 2d 1083 (1985). The results of lab tests are admissible without the testimony of the performer of the test if they are admitted through properly authenticated hospital records. The right of confrontation is not available to parents of an alleged CINA. The standard of evidence is preponderance of the evidence. Medical testimony regarding the child’s condition, physical evidence seized from the home and the complete absence of any response by the parents to inferences from the evidence can support a CINA finding. Persons evaluating parties pursuant to 3-316 are not required to prepare a written report and can testify in court unless it can be shown that the evaluator deliberately failed to put findings into written form in order to avoid discovery. Refusal is within the discretion of the court and will only be disturbed on appeal if there is an abuse of discretion.

Woods v Department of Social Services. 11 Md App 10, 272 A 2d 92 (Md App 1971), cert den. 405 US 965, evidence that five other siblings had died following incidents of difficulty breathing in mom’s presence and that the child was hospitalized following such an incident sustained a neglect finding. The right to confront witnesses is inapplicable in CINA proceedings. (Emphasis supplied).

In re Erica S. 71 Md App 148, 524 A 2d 108 (Md App 1987). Following a report of sexual abuse by mother’s long time live-in boyfriend, the court found that he was not a proper party to the proceedings and that the removal and CINA finding was not proper despite the fact that he had been named as the father in school records, which does not constitute a declaration of paternity.

In re Danielle B, 78 Md App 41, 552 A 2d 570 (1989). Juvenile court judges have broad discretionary powers over CINA matters. Juvenile court judges have an obligation to monitor cases in order to review, order and enforce the delivery of specific services and treatment for children who have been adjudicated CINA. This obligation flows from the Juvenile Court’s inherent parens patriae jurisdiction. The right to a de novo hearing is waived when an exception is filed before master’s report is served or filed.

In re Michael G. 107 Md App 257, 667 A 2d 956 (1995). A child’s out-of-court statement is not admissible hearsay under the party-opponent exception when the statement is offered against another party, such as a parent.