Adjudication; Ruling prohibiting the forensic interviewer’s testimony at trial about the children’s statements during the interviews; Admissibility of hearsay statements by a child related to child abuse; MCR 3.972(C)(2); In re Archer; Untimely jury trial request; Judicial bias; Presumption of judicial impartiality; Decision not to exercise jurisdiction over the children; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (2); Credibility assessments; Child Advocacy Center (CAC)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when, after a tender-years hearing, it prohibited the forensic interviewer from testifying at trial about statements the children made in the interviews. Concluding that the DHHS did not rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality, the court also held that the trial court did not err in denying its untimely motion for a jury trial. Finally, the DHHS did not show that the trial court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction over the children was clearly erroneous. As to the children’s statements, the trial court determined that they “lacked sufficient indicia of trustworthiness when evaluated under the totality of the circumstances standard. [Its] findings were grounded in a detailed assessment of the mother’s influence on the children’s narratives.” The trial court noted the “interview transcripts suggested the children had participated in multiple interview sessions at the CAC, and that their initial disclosures were made to their mother rather than to neutral third parties. Critically, the record was devoid of evidence elucidating the spontaneity or contextual circumstances surrounding these initial disclosures to the mother.” In addition, the trial court “noted a conspicuous lack of consistent repetition or corroborative detail across the children’s accounts during the” interviews. The DHHS did “not substantively challenge the trial court’s factual determinations” as to the content of the interviews. It instead argued “the mere fact that these statements were elicited during forensic interviews conducted in accordance with established protocols suffices to establish their reliability. This position, however, is inconsistent with prevailing jurisprudence, which holds that the reliability of statements obtained through forensic interviews is not presumed but must instead be established through a holistic assessment of the totality of the circumstances.” The court found that the trial court rigorously applied “this standard, taking into account relevant factors articulated in” Archer. It saw no basis for concluding “the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the requisite indicia of reliability were lacking under the totality of the circumstances.” Affirmed.