J.T. v. Hinds Cnty. Youth Court, 2015–CA–00160–SCT.

• Decision Date: 21 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2015–CA–00160–SCT.,2015–CA–00160–SCT.
• Citation: 188 So.3d 1192
• Parties: In the Interest of J.T., a Minor, D.T. and M.T. v. Hinds County Youth Court.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

188 So.3d 1192

In the Interest of J.T., a Minor, D.T. and M.T.
v.
Hinds County Youth Court.

No. 2015–CA–00160–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 21, 2016.

188 So.3d 1193

E. Stephen Williams, Matthew Toxey Vitart, Ridgeland, attorneys for appellants.

Bridget R. Todd, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

DICKINSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. The Hinds County Youth Court found that three-year-old J.T. had been sexually abused by her father, based on a statement she made which could describe either sexual abuse or innocent contact between a father and daughter. Because the State produced no evidence to show that the child's facially ambiguous statement described abuse, and because the youth-court judge openly and admittedly disregarded the Mississippi Rules of Evidence throughout the adjudication, we reverse and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. On October 30, 2014, a daycare teacher contacted the Mississippi Department of Human Services (DHS). The record does not reveal who received the teacher's call and contains no memorialization of the call itself. According to the youth-court intake order, which first documented the report, the teacher informed DHS that three-year-old J.T. "told her teacher ... that dad put his fingers in her," and that J.T. "pointed at her vagina."

¶ 3. DHS initiated an investigation. Cirby Scott, a DHS family-protection specialist, spoke with J.T.'s mother—M.T.—who stated that she knew of no abuse. Scott also spoke to J.T.'s father—D.T.—who denied the allegations. Scott permitted J.T. to remain in her mother's custody but required D.T. to leave the home and have no contact with J.T.

¶ 4. Scott then set up a medical examination with the Children's Justice Center (CJC), which discovered no physical evidence of abuse. Scott also referred the matter to the Children's Advocacy Center (CAC) for a forensic interview, but the CAC declined because J.T. had been questioned and videotaped by the daycare center about her statement.

¶ 5. On November 3, 2014, the Hinds County Prosecuting Attorney filed a petition in the Hinds County Youth Court, seeking to adjudicate J.T. a sexually abused child. Two days later, the youth court held a shelter hearing, at which Scott detailed the DHS investigation. Based on the information provided, the youth court determined that it had jurisdiction and that probable cause existed that J.T. had been sexually abused. The youth court ordered DHS to continue its investigation, that a forensic interview be conducted, and that D.T. have no contact with J.T. The court also appointed an investigative guardian ad litem.

¶ 6. On November 10, 2014, the youth court held a second shelter hearing because the forensic interview results had been provided. Scott testified that, during the forensic interview, J.T. had made a statement similar to the one reported by the school. So the youth court left its prior orders in force.

¶ 7. On December 30, 2014, the case proceeded to adjudication. The State first called Scott, who testified that she had observed J.T. state that D.T. "touched her in her booty" during the forensic interview. Scott explained that J.T. "pointed to the pictures showing that her booty was

188 So.3d 1194

her vaginal area." Scott reported that J.T. also disclosed that she had been touched by a friend at school.

¶ 8. Scott testified about J.T.'s medical examination and explained—based on the doctor's report and Scott's conversation with the doctor—that the examination had produced no physical evidence of abuse. The CJC medical-examination report and the CAC forensic-interview report were then admitted in evidence over the parents' hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections.¹ The CJC report concluded that J.T.'s "physical exam today was normal, which neither confirms nor denies previous maltreatment. It is important to remember that many forms of sexual contact do not leave physical evidence. In the rare cases where there is injury, the body is often able to heal genital injuries without scar."

¶ 9. The CAC forensic-interview report concluded that J.T. had "disclosed that her father touched her genital area and buttocks with his finger under her clothes one time in her parents' bedroom. The interviewer was unable to determine the contexts of these touches." The report further explained that J.T. stated that her father had touched her once, then had pulled up her pants and told her to go in the kitchen with her mother. When asked why her father touched her, J.T. responded that he got a "tiny cat" out of her "booty."

¶ 10. Scott also relayed her conversations with M.T. Scott testified that J.T.'s mother had told her that J.T. had once mentioned someone poking a finger in her booty, but that J.T. then had said this wasn't true. She testified that the mother never expressed concern that D.T. may have done something wrong, but she feared that something could have occurred at school.

¶ 11. Scott also explained that she had talked to D.T., and that he had denied the allegations. She held a meeting with various friends and family members, who also denied the allegations. Scott recalled that, during the family meeting, D.T. said he remembered J.T. commenting that he had poked her while he was helping her get dressed, but that this was "more like a poke with his fingernail." Scott testified that the family has no prior history with DHS.

¶ 12. Finally, Scott testified that J.T. had been seeing a licensed counselor while this case was pending, and that the counselor reported that J.T. never had mentioned sexual contact and had shown no sexually inappropriate play during her sessions. Based on this information, Scott recommended that the youth court adjudicate J.T. a sexually abused child and maintain the no-contact order against her father.

¶ 13. Next, the State called Shaquita Jones, who works as an investigative guardian ad litem for the Mississippi Youth Court Guardians for Justice in Hinds County. She and the other investigative guardian ad litem for Hinds County—Keisha Graham—performed an investigation. Through Jones's testimony, the State admitted the investigative guardian ad litem report in evidence over the parents' hearsay objection.

188 So.3d 1195

¶ 14. The report reiterated that both D.T. and M.T. had denied the allegations. Both suggested that this was all based on a misunderstanding. The report confirmed the statement made during the forensic interview, and that the interviewer could not determine the context of the touching. The report noted that the physical examination was normal and disclosed that the guardian ad litem had spoken with the parents' attorney, and that he had stated this allegation centered on a misrepresentation of what the child actually said in the school's videotaped interview.

¶ 15. The report revealed that potential criminal charges would be presented to a grand jury, and that no allegations had been revealed to J.T.'s counselor. Finally, the report noted that M.T. had remained in the parking lot after the forensic interview for an hour, reading to J.T. and talking on the telephone. Based on this information, the report recommended that J.T. be adjudicated a sexually abused child. At this point, the State rested and J.T.'s attorney declined to call any witnesses.

¶ 16. The attorney for J.T.'s parents then called D.T. to testify. D.T. testified that J.T. is an outgoing and very sociable three-year-old. He also testified that J.T. is very imaginative and "you can't take everything she says at face value." He explained that on a typical morning, M.T. would make breakfast, and he would help the children get dressed. He also was the parent who usually bathed the children. When asked if he could explain her statement at the school, D.T. stated that he gets her dressed every day, which includes helping her put on her underwear and helping her clean herself as she goes through potty training.

¶ 17. He stated that because he has this much close contact with his daughter "I'm not surprised that she would go to daycare and say that I touched her in her bottom, but it wasn't a sexual comment, and if it was taken that way, it was misunderstood." D.T. also stated that J.T. had told her mother after the forensic interview that she was talking about D.T. "pulling her panties up and poking her with [his] finger by accident." D.T. admitted that he did not suggest this misunderstanding when he first spoke with Cirby Scott. He testified that he never has and never would harm his daughter in any way. He also stated that he believed that it was in J.T.'s best interest for the family to be reunited.

¶ 18. Next, J.T.'s mother testified. She agreed with D.T.'s assessment of J.T.'s imaginative personality. She explained that sometimes she struggles to determine whether J.T. is talking about something that actually happened, something that someone told her, or something that she saw on television. She testified that J.T. had never reported to her that her father had done anything wrong to her.

¶ 19. She also described how hurt J.T. has been by being separated from her father. She testified that they have had ongoing issues with the daycare center. She gave her opinion...