In re E.D.

B.D. and E.J.D. (defendants) were the parents of four young children—three girls, E.D., C.D., and C.S.D., and a boy, W.D.—who were removed from their custody for allegations of child sexual abuse. First, the Department of Family Services (the department) for the State of Utah (plaintiff) removed only the three girls because of allegations that their father, B.D., was sexually abusing them. About six months after the girls were removed, the department developed a treatment plan that required B.D. to receive treatment for sexual abuse pursuant to the goal of reunifying the family. The plan permitted B.D. and E.J.D. to have unsupervised visits with the girls on the weekends. After one visit for Thanksgiving, C.D. disclosed to her foster mother that both B.D. and E.J.D. had sexually abused her and her younger brother, W.D. E.D. confirmed C.D.’s report, saying that their parents had abused them using their hands and with a spoon. The department then removed W.D. and placed him in the same foster home as his sisters. During the following year, the department implemented two additional treatment plans for the parents in an effort to reunify the family. By Labor Day, the children were permitted to have another unsupervised weekend visit with their parents and one of their grandmothers. After the visit, the children reported being sexually abused by their parents, in their grandmother’s presence, with a lot of the abuse involving kitchen utensils. Indeed, medical examinations of the children revealed abnormalities and scarring on the three girls consistent with signs of chronic sexual abuse. At the time of the examinations, the children were between three and eight years old. All four children were found to have been sexually abused. The department petitioned for the termination of B.D.’s and E.J.D.’s parental rights, which was granted after a two-day trial at which various doctors, therapists, caseworkers, and others testified. However, the children were not required to testify based on their therapist’s recommendation due to the potential damage to the children’s mental health. B.D. and E.J.D. appealed, arguing, for the first time at the appellate level, that they had been denied the right to confront witnesses under the state and federal constitutions. B.D. and E.J.D. also argued that a rule governing admission of a child’s out-of-court statements in criminal proceedings had not been followed, allowing the admission of hearsay.