In Re Dependency of Penelope B.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the confrontation clauses of the federal and state constitutions do not apply in dependency proceedings, “since by their terms they . . . apply only in criminal cases”
• child's statements made to child psychiatrist as to alleged acts of sexual contact between the child and her father admissible under ER 803(a)(4)
• unidentified telephone callers directing the placing of bets on sports events admissible as nonhearsay evidence that the premises were used for illegal bookmaking
• unidentified telephone callers directing the placing of bets on sports events admissible as nonhearsay evidence that the premises were used for illegal bookmaking
• five-year-old child's gestures with anatomically correct male doll indicating her familiarity with male genitalia and the act of fellatio
• \The test is whether [the utterance] was intended as an assertion or not.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).