This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On two occasions, Michael (a 13-year-old), told his mother that his father was after his body. W discussed this with H and H denied the accusation. When brought to trial over these matters the boy was questioned in camera and both parties were allowed to submit inquiries that would be answered in camera after the transcript was given to them. The boy told of various episodes involving his father stroking his genitalia, committing what would be deemed first-degree sexual assault, and that when the boy informed his mother, she did not believe him. H and W denied any wrongdoing and laid the boy's story on the fact that he wanted revenge for punishment and for the failure to give him a motorcycle. The trial justice found the testimony credible and ruled that the parents' defense was a fabrication and that H's testimony was not worthy of belief. The boy was committed to the custody of DCF, and he was restrained from having further contact with H. H and W appealed; the in camera testimony violated due process, and the court erred in not allowing H to call the boy as an adverse witness. W claimed that the petition did not explicitly state the facts upon which DCF relied to show that the boy had been abused or neglected.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.