Notes on Recent Appellate Cases
Winter 1996 Issue: 1/15/96
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE - DSS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. Woe betide the
citizen who relies on the 45-day limit for adjudicating whether a
child sex abuse case is "founded." The Court of Appeals points out
that the provision of Code Section 63.1-248.6 that a local agency
"shall make its determination" within 45 days is nothing to rely on,
if you are a private citizen. There is nothing mandatory about it. "We
hold the use of the word 'shall' in [the statute] was merely
directory, not mandatory...," the Court of Appeals says. Also, as the
Court explains in sustaining the "founded" finding against a 15-year
old boy accused of sexually abusing a 4-year old girl he baby-sat for,
failure to observe the 45-day deadline is harmless error. JB v. DSS,
21 Va. App. 300, 464 SE2d 166, 10 VLW 700 (11/28/95).
Notes on recent Appellate Cases
11/15/95
By Richard E. Crouch
CHILD SEX ABUSE. In a criminal case, Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 10 VLW
597 (10/31/95), the Court of Appeals reverses a conviction on the
ground that a psychologist should not be allowed to testify on the
ultimate issue that the child had been sexually abused, nor to repeat
for the jury the child's statement that he had been so assaulted. The
exception the judge had employed to let in the hearsay was that a
psychologist is allowed to testify as to his observations of a child
and to the results of any tests he administers. However, the Court
says, this was not observation and not a test result.
Notes on recent Appellate Cases
9/18/95
By Richard E. Crouch
CUSTODY -- REMEDIES -- ORDERS AGAINST THIRD PARTIES.
Acourt seeking to insulate the child in a custody case from adult
conflict has the authority to order a wife's new husband to stop
making derogatory remarks to the children against their father, the
Court of Appeals held in an unpublished opinion in Forrest v. Ruhlin,
10 VLW 206 (7/18/95). In seeking to achieve the best interests of the
child, or perhaps to determine it, a court can impose restrictions
which affect third parties, the Court of Appeals explains.
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------