Child Witnesses in Separation and divorce: Using Child Witnesses in Snohomish County, Washington Divorce Kitchen cabinets

Jane Doe will be a fictional divorc矇e whose plight will problem to most Divorce Attorneys. Your boyfriend or girlfriend husband, John Doe, had repeatedly and unconditionally lied in gaining primary residential care of Jane's young daughters. He claimed to cook most their daughters' meals, cleaning their clothes, read to them... the fabricated list went on and on. Few witnesses could contradict him as they maintained a convincing fa癟ade for website visitors. The only third-party witnesses well isn't the truth were people parties' daughters, and Jane Doe's attorney declined to offer the young girls' testimony. Her attorney said testimony from "kids this can be inadmissible. "

Jane Doe, like most people divorcing parents, may choosing a lump sum custody because her attorney was unaware of recent legal developments opening the entranceway for child testimony. In 2010 the Washington Supreme Court's feeling in State v. TILIS. J. W., 170 Wn. 2d 92 clarified that kids are presumptively competent shell out testify. As the Court wrote: "A six-year-old young child... may be more in a position to testify than an adult durring an given case; no court should presume the kid is incompetent to testify as said by age alone.... [W]e hold that courts should presume all witnesses are effective to testify regardless of their age. " The Courts buttressed its opinion to that comparable federal law.

At a 2011 Separation and divorce Evidence Continuing Legal Instruction Seminar in Snohomish Hometown, commentator Karl Tegland stated witnesses over the age of four tend to continue to exist competency challenges in Wa. An audience member responsively chortled not a chance Snohomish County family law "commissioner could leave an attorney with a passionate shred of dignity" once the attorney tried to submit a declaration after the child that age. Following attendees shared the vocal range audience member's reservations when considering child testimony. Obvious practical and public policy concerns have provided local courts and practitioners several good reasons to avoid child testimony, especially in family law enforcement hearings where parties story evidence by declaration.

However, use a S. J. W. this is just, federal law, and Tegland's comment suggest the perceived value of child testimony is overcoming those people concerns in other destinations and jurisdictions. Eric Manley, a Utah attorney, wrote this specific in defense of the infant depositions he conducts: "The not used productively people don't want youngsters deposed... is because sons, by their virtue to be young, and thus new and na簿ve, have a decent amount harder time being amazing and evasive. People who don't be required to children deposed object wish child's testimony quite they happen has real evidentiary value thats damaging to the case of those who object to the youngster's deposition. "

For better plus worse, attempts to afford the testimony of younger kids are coming. Divorce Attorneys in Snohomish Local government and throughout Washington State will likely be prepared.

.