E. B. v. Wicomico County Department of Social Services, et al.

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), this Court specifically overturned Ohio v Roberts 448 U.S. 56 (1980), and found that the concepts of reliability and particular guarantees of trustworthiness do not trump a defendant’s Constitutional Sixth Amendment right to confrontation in a criminal matter. This Court required an out of court declarant to testify and be subject to cross examination in order for their testimonial hearsay statements to be admitted into evidence. In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990), this Court outlined criteria that should be considered when determining particularized guarantees of trustworthiness of a child’s non-testimonial hearsay statement to determine its admissibility into evidence in a criminal trial. This Court has not addressed whether the criteria that it outlined in Idaho v. Wright survived its Crawford decision in civil dependency cases seeking to utilize a child’s testimonial hearsay, where the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause does not apply and the child may not be required to testify. The 5th and 14th Amendment due process rights of parents to protect their fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, which has been long recognized by this Court, See, Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), is implicated in these dependency proceedings. In In re: J.J. and T.S, 174 A.3d 372 (Md. 2017), the Maryland Court of Appeals held that Crawford had overturned Idaho and thereby avoided addressing the violation of Petitioner’s due process rights in this civil dependency case. (i)