In Interest of M.S.

In Hall County, Georgia, M.S. was interviewed regarding allegations of sexual abuse according to the procedure followed for interviewing children. The procedure was designed to ensure that children could give testimony without parental intimidation. The county’s Department of Children and Family Services set up an interview room that was wired for sound and a room for observing child interviews. The child was not aware of the observation room or any persons observing the interview, which was both transcribed and videotaped. Other than audio technicians and court personnel, such as court reporters, the only persons in the observation room were the judge and the attorneys for the parties. Parents were not permitted in the observation room. The only persons allowed in the interview room with a child were the child’s guardian ad litem and the guardian ad litem’s attorney, who questioned the child first, followed by the parents’ attorneys. The guardian ad litem’s attorney was fitted with an earpiece so that questions, objections, and rulings could be heard. Additionally, the parents’ attorneys asked questions of a child using a microphone, and the guardian ad litem’s attorney could hear the questions through an earpiece and repeat them verbatim for the child. During the questioning, if there was an objection to any question, the objection was made and then ruled on by the judge in the observation room immediately. The attorneys for M.S.’s parents (defendants) did not make any objections to questioning of the child by the guardian ad litem’s attorney. The mother’s attorney did not ask the child any questions, and the father’s attorney questioned the child through the prescribed procedure and made no objections either. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of M.S.’s parents, and they appealed, arguing that the procedure for interviewing M.S. did not comport with due process or the requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution that a person has the right to confront witnesses. M.S.’s parents also argued that the evidence against them provided by the State of Georgia (plaintiff) was not sufficient to terminate their parental rights. An appellate court determined that the evidence presented was sufficient for termination and considered whether the procedure for interviewing children was defective.