abused child

In November 1973, after incidents reflecting parental neglect, respondent Kramer, Commissioner of the Ulster County Department of Social Services, initiated a neglect proceeding under the Family Court Act and removed Tina Santosky from her natural home. About ten months later, he removed John III and placed him with foster parents. On the day John was taken, Annie Santosky gave birth to a third child, Jed, who was transferred to a foster home three days later on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health. In October 1978, respondent petitioned the Ulster County Family Court to terminate petitioners' parental rights in the three children. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the fair preponderance of the evidence standard specified in the Family Court Act. The Family Court Judge rejected this constitutional challenge, weighed the evidence under the statutory standard, acknowledged that the Santoskys had maintained contact with their children but found those visits at best superficial and devoid of any real emotional content, decided that the agency had made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, concluded that the Santoskys were incapable even with public assistance of planning for the future of their children, and after a dispositional hearing ruled that the best interests of the three children required permanent termination of the Santoskys' custody. Petitioners appealed, again contesting the constitutionality of the standard of proof. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, holding application of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard proper and constitutional on the ground that it recognizes and seeks to balance rights possessed by the child with those of the natural parents. The New York Court of Appeals then dismissed petitioners' appeal upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider petitioners' constitutional claim.

Maurice M. was hospitalized at three months old with a fractured left femur and other indications of severe physical abuse. Hospital personnel observed respondent Bouknight shaking Maurice and handling him improperly. This led them to notify the Baltimore City Department of Social Services of suspected child abuse. In February 1987, the Department secured a court order removing Maurice from Bouknight's control and placing him in shelter care. Several months later, the shelter care order was modified to return Maurice to Bouknight temporarily. Following a hearing, the juvenile court declared Maurice a child in need of assistance and placed him under the Department's continuing oversight pursuant to a protective supervision order. The order required Bouknight to cooperate with the Department, continue in therapy, participate in parental aid and training programs, and refrain from physically punishing Maurice. Eight months later, the Department returned to juvenile court fearing for Maurice's safety. BCDSS caseworkers related that Bouknight would not cooperate with them and had in nearly every respect violated the terms of the protective order. On April 20, 1988, the court granted BCDSS' petition to remove Maurice from Bouknight's control for placement in foster care. BCDSS officials also petitioned for judicial relief from Bouknight's failure to produce Maurice or reveal where he could be found. The court issued an order to show cause why Bouknight should not be held in civil contempt for failure to produce the child. Maurice was not produced at subsequent hearings. At a hearing one week later, Bouknight claimed that Maurice was with a relative in Dallas. Investigation revealed that the relative had not seen Maurice. The next day, following another hearing at which Bouknight again declined to produce Maurice, the juvenile court found Bouknight in contempt for failure to produce the child as ordered. The court directed that Bouknight be imprisoned until she purged herself of contempt by either producing Maurice before the court or revealing to the court his exact whereabouts. Bouknight's claim that the contempt order violated the Fifth Amendment was rejected by the juvenile court. The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated the judgment upholding the contempt order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In August 1985, appellant was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls earlier that month while they were camping out in the backyard of the house next door to him. According to the girls, the assailant entered their tent after they were asleep wearing a stocking over his head, shined a flashlight in their eyes, and warned them not to look at him; neither was able to describe his face. In November 1985, at the beginning of appellant’s trial, the State made a motion pursuant to a recently enacted statute, Act of May 23, 1985, § 6, 1985 Iowa Acts 338, now codified at Iowa Code §910A.14 (1987), to allow the complaining witnesses to testify either via closed-circuit television or behind a screen. The trial court approved the use of a large screen to be placed between appellant and the witness stand during the girls’ testimony. After lighting adjustments in the courtroom, the screen would enable appellant dimly to perceive the witnesses, but the witnesses to see him not at all. Appellant objected strenuously to use of the screen, based first of all on his Sixth Amendment confrontation right. He also argued that his right to due process was violated, since the procedure would make him appear guilty and thus erode the presumption of innocence. The trial court rejected both constitutional claims, though it instructed the jury to draw no inference of guilt from the screen. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction, 397 N. W. 2d 730 (1986). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction, 483 U. S. 1019 (1987).

In October 1984, Sandra Ann Craig was charged in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, with child abuse, first- and second-degree sexual offenses, perverted sexual practice, and battery. The named victim in each count was a six-year-old girl who had attended a kindergarten and day-care center owned and operated by Craig. Before trial, the State moved to invoke Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Annotated § 9-102(a)(1)(ii) (1989). That statute permits a judge to receive the one-way closed-circuit television testimony of an alleged child victim in a child-abuse case upon a finding that live, in-court testimony would cause the child serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate. At a December 12, 1985 hearing, the trial court heard expert testimony that the named victim and three other children expected to testify would suffer serious emotional distress if required to testify in the defendant's presence. The trial court further found that the children would not be able to communicate effectively with the jury or the court in the defendant's presence. The trial court made individualized findings and therefore permitted the four children to testify via one-way closed-circuit television from a separate room. Craig was convicted on all counts. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The petitioner, Michael M., was seventeen and one-half years old when, on June 3, 1978, he and two friends approached Sharon, a sixteen-and-one-half-year-old female, and her sister at a bus stop. Petitioner and Sharon had been drinking. They moved away from the others and began to kiss. After petitioner struck Sharon in the face for rebuffing his initial advances, she submitted to sexual intercourse with him. In July 1978, a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of Sonoma County. The complaint alleged that petitioner had unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of eighteen in violation of section 261.5 of the California Penal Code. Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on the ground that the statute unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender. The trial court denied the motion, and petitioner was convicted after a jury trial. The California Court of Appeal denied petitioner's request for relief.