## Facts

- Michael C., age thirteen, had been adopted by John C. in 1984 and lived with John C. and Michael’s mother.
- Michael’s mother left early for work; John C., receiving workers’ compensation, stayed home and was responsible for preparing Michael for school.
- In spring 1987, Michael twice told his mother that his father was “after his body.” The mother relayed this to John C., who denied wrongdoing; she told Michael to stay away from his father.
- The Department of Children and Their Families (DCF) filed a Family Court petition alleging Michael was sexually abused by his father and neglected by both parents.
- At the hearing, DCF called both parents as adverse witnesses; John C. denied any sexual activity with Michael.
- Michael expressed significant anxiety and embarrassment about testifying in open court.
- The trial justice took Michael’s testimony in camera with only the judge and a stenographer present; the testimony was recorded and then read to the parents’ attorneys.
- For cross-examination, counsel submitted extensive written questions, which the judge asked Michael in camera; the answers were transcribed.
- Michael described multiple incidents of sexual conduct by his father, including genital touching and conduct described as consistent with first-degree sexual assault; he testified his mother did not believe him.
- A psychiatrist testified Michael had post-traumatic stress disorder and that Michael’s history, complaints, and reactions were consistent with sexual abuse by his father.
- The Family Court found Michael sexually abused by his father and neglected by both parents, awarded DCF temporary custody, and barred the father from contact with Michael.

## Issues

1. Whether taking the child’s testimony in camera outside the parents’ presence, with cross-examination conducted through judge-asked written questions, violated the parents’ confrontation and due-process rights in an abuse/neglect proceeding.
2. Whether the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard to support findings of sexual abuse and neglect.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Family Court judgment.
- The in-camera procedure did not violate due process or any confrontation-based protections applicable in a civil child-protection proceeding.
- The procedure provided meaningful cross-examination because counsel received the recorded testimony and could submit extensive written cross-examination questions that were asked and transcribed.
- The findings of sexual abuse and neglect were supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the child’s detailed testimony, corroborative circumstances from the mother’s testimony, and expert psychiatric evidence.
- The trial justice’s credibility determinations were entitled to deference on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Abuse and neglect findings in child-protection proceedings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
- In civil child-abuse/neglect proceedings, due process requires fundamental fairness and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, not the full measure of Sixth Amendment confrontation protections applicable to criminal prosecutions.
- A court may take a child’s testimony in camera when the record shows a substantial need to protect the child from trauma or severe distress associated with open-court testimony.
- Alternative procedures can satisfy due process where the testimony is stenographically recorded, disclosed to counsel, and counsel are permitted to conduct effective cross-examination (including through written questions posed by the judge), absent an unjustified restriction on questioning.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a Family Court order finding a child sexually abused and neglected, holding that in-camera child testimony with recorded disclosure and extensive written cross-examination through the judge satisfied due process and that the abuse and neglect findings were proven by clear and convincing evidence.


In re Michael C., 557 A.2d 1219 (R.I. 1989)