Sec. 3. A statement or videotape described in section
2 of this chapter is admissible in evidence in an action to determine
whether a child or a whole or half blood sibling of the child is a child
in need of services if, after notice to the parties of a hearing and of their
right to be present:
(1) the court finds that the time, content, and circumstances of the
statement or videotape and any other evidence provide sufficient
indications of reliability; and
(2) the child:
(A) testifies at the proceeding to determine whether the child or
a whole or half blood sibling of the child is a child in need of
services;
(B) was available for face-to-face cross-examination when the
statement or videotape was made; or
(C) is found by the court to be unavailable as a witness because:
(i) a psychiatrist, physician, or psychologist has certified that
the child's participation in the proceeding creates a
substantial likelihood of emotional or mental harm to the
child;
(ii) a physician has certified that the child cannot participate
in the proceeding for medical reasons; or
(iii) the court has determined that the child is incapable of
understanding the nature and obligation of an oath.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-6-15-3 part.]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.17.
Notes of Decisions
Townsley v. Marion Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs., 848 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 22× “Upon appeal, Father challenges the CHINS adjudication by claiming that the admission of child hearsay evidence during the hearing did not comport with the requirements of Indiana Code § 31-34-13-3 (Burns Code Ed.”
In re Jq, 836 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 26× “[1] Indiana Code § 31-34-13-3 allows an otherwise inadmissible statement made by a child under fourteen (14) years of age to be admitted: in an action to determine whether a child is a CHINS if, after notice to the parties of a hearing and of their right to be present, the court…”
L.H. v. State, 878 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Code § 35 — 37—4—6(i) ("If a statement or videotape described in subsection (d) is admitted into evidence under this section, a defendant may introduce a transcript or videotape of the hearing held under subsection (e)(1) into evidence at trial.”
LH v. State, 878 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Code § 35-37-4-6 (i) ("If a statement or videotape described in subsection (d) is admitted into evidence under this section, a defendant may introduce a transcript or videotape of the hearing held under subsection (e)(1) into evidence at trial.”
In the Matter of A.S.G., A.M.G., S.T.B., & A.G.B., Child. Alleged to be Child. in Need of Servs., B.G., Mother, & S.B., Father v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., No. 02A03-1304-JC-158 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 2013).
· cites it 4× “part that a statement or videotape that is made by a child who at the time of the statement or videotape is less than fourteen years of age, concerns an act that is a material element in determining whether a child is a CHINS, and is not otherwise admissible in evidence under…”
Ind. Code § 31-34-13-3(1): 1 case
In re Jq, 836 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“[1] Indiana Code § 31-34-13-3 allows an otherwise inadmissible statement made by a child under fourteen (14) years of age to be admitted: in an action to determine whether a child is a CHINS if, after notice to the parties of a hearing and of their right to be present, the court…”
Ind. Code § 31-34-13-3(2)(C)(i): 1 case
In re Jq, 836 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“[1] Indiana Code § 31-34-13-3 allows an otherwise inadmissible statement made by a child under fourteen (14) years of age to be admitted: in an action to determine whether a child is a CHINS if, after notice to the parties of a hearing and of their right to be present, the court…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.