Wife No Longer With Company, Required to Testify (others q's also)

[exuberocity]

Hello,

Working with Ohio as the state. My wife was a social worker with a hospital that interviewed kids that dealt with abuse of all types. I have a couple questions since she is no longer employed there:

1. Is she required to go to court and testify in the cases she interviewed on even after she's gone?
2. If so, how long is she required to do so?
3. The interviews are recorded, I believe, couldn't the company use those recordings instead of forcing my wife to spend her now personal time in court for a company she no longer works for?
4. IF they can force her to go back to court for this, since it's for her previous job, what are our options for child care? Should the company she's representing / state handle child care in some way shape or form for re-reimbursement?

It just feels off that she is no longer with the company and there are not other options available other than her going to court about these interviews for a company she no longer works for.

Thoughts?

 

[LdiJ]

Hello,

Working with Ohio as the state. My wife was a social worker with a hospital that interviewed kids that dealt with abuse of all types. I have a couple questions since she is no longer employed there:

1. Is she required to go to court and testify in the cases she interviewed on even after she's gone?
2. If so, how long is she required to do so?
3. The interviews are recorded, I believe, couldn't the company use those recordings instead of forcing my wife to spend her now personal time in court for a company she no longer works for?
4. IF they can force her to go back to court for this, since it's for her previous job, what are our options for child care? Should the company she's representing / state handle child care in some way shape or form for re-reimbursement?

It just feels off that she is no longer with the company and there are not other options available other than her going to court about these interviews for a company she no longer works for.

Thoughts?

They must compensate her for her time. They cannot require her to spend her personal time on this for free.

 

[Zigner]

To be clear - YES, your wife can be compelled to testify in court.

 

[Taxing Matters]

1. Is she required to go to court and testify in the cases she interviewed on even after she's gone?

If she is served a subpoena then she must show up and testify.

2. If so, how long is she required to do so?

There is no set limit for that. As long as there are cases timely filed for which her testimony may be relevant she can be compelled to testify.

3. The interviews are recorded, I believe, couldn't the company use those recordings instead of forcing my wife to spend her now personal time in court for a company she no longer works for?

In general, no. The recordings are hearsay and most hearsay evidence is not admissible in court.

4. IF they can force her to go back to court for this, since it's for her previous job, what are our options for child care? Should the company she's representing / state handle child care in some way shape or form for re-reimbursement?

Some courts may offer child care, though many don't. There is no legal obligation that the party who serves the subpoena on your wife must provide child care.

They must compensate her for her time. They cannot require her to spend her personal time on this for free.

She may only be compelled to attend as a necessary fact witness. But fact witnesses are not entitled to any fee for testifying other than the rather small fee and travel expense reimbursement allowed by statute. For most civil cases in state court, Ohio statute sets the witness fee as $12/day for each day the witness must attend, and $6 for a half day, plus mileage reimbursement at a rate set by the county. ORC § 2335.06. And in most criminal cases, the witness fees are essentially the same. ORC § 2335.08. So it's not like the witness here is entitled to pay for testimony at the same rate she would have got paid for hours spent at work when she was employed there.

If they want her as an expert witness she can be paid like any other expert witness.

 

[LdiJ]

If she is served a subpoena then she must show up and testify.



There is no set limit for that. As long as there are cases timely filed for which her testimony may be relevant she can be compelled to testify.



In general, no. The recordings are hearsay and most hearsay evidence is not admissible in court.



Some courts may offer child care, though many don't. There is no legal obligation that the party who serves the subpoena on your wife must provide child care.



She may only be compelled to attend as a necessary fact witness. But fact witnesses are not entitled to any fee for testifying other than the rather small fee and travel expense reimbursement allowed by statute. For most civil cases in state court, Ohio statute sets the witness fee as $12/day for each day the witness must attend, and $6 for a half day, plus mileage reimbursement at a rate set by the county. ORC § 2335.06. And in most criminal cases, the witness fees are essentially the same. ORC § 2335.08. So it's not like the witness here is entitled to pay for testimony at the same rate she would have got paid for hours spent at work when she was employed there.

If they want her as an expert witness she can be paid like any other expert witness.

I would think that could/would be a poor practice to subpoena former employees to testify in a social services situation. There is high turnover in that industry and it could even be difficult to find them. Those kind of cases could take a long time. I would think it more feasible to had the cases over to a new social worker and to reinterview the children if necessary.

I don't know what industry practice is but it would be interesting to find out.

 

[Just Blue]

I would think that could/would be a poor practice to subpoena former employees to testify in a social services situation. There is high turnover in that industry and it could even be difficult to find them. Those kind of cases could take a long time. I would think it more feasible to had the cases over to a new social worker and to reinterview the children if necessary.

I don't know what industry practice is but it would be interesting to find out.

I would think that re-interviewing children that have already been traumatized would cause the even more trauma. I would think it would be fairly easy, a majority of the time, to find the social worker and subpoena them to testify.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I would think it more feasible to had the cases over to a new social worker and to reinterview the children if necessary.

Re-interview the kids with each change of social worker in the office? That could result in multiple interviews for the kids, which could be quite traumatic and cause even more harm, with no benefit to the case. Indeed, as kids age and their memories and other evidence fades, the prospects for a successful case dim. And, of course, there are statute of limitations and speedy trial concerns. Compared to that, the inconvenience of a former social worker having to testify at a few trials is, I think, the lesser concern here.

 

[LdiJ]

Re-interview the kids with each change of social worker in the office? That could result in multiple interviews for the kids, which could be quite traumatic and cause even more harm, with no benefit to the case. Indeed, as kids age and their memories and other evidence fades, the prospects for a successful case dim. And, of course, there are statute of limitations and speedy trial concerns. Compared to that, the inconvenience of a former social worker having to testify at a few trials is, I think, the lesser concern here.

I see your point, but social workers have very high caseloads so its unlikely to be a "few trials". It is likely to be many. I am really curious as to how things actually work out there in the real world on this issue. I may do a little real life research if I have time.

 

[Ohiogal]

They must compensate her for her time. They cannot require her to spend her personal time on this for free.

You are wrong.

 

[Ohiogal]

If she is served a subpoena then she must show up and testify.



There is no set limit for that. As long as there are cases timely filed for which her testimony may be relevant she can be compelled to testify.



In general, no. The recordings are hearsay and most hearsay evidence is not admissible in court.



Some courts may offer child care, though many don't. There is no legal obligation that the party who serves the subpoena on your wife must provide child care.



She may only be compelled to attend as a necessary fact witness. But fact witnesses are not entitled to any fee for testifying other than the rather small fee and travel expense reimbursement allowed by statute. For most civil cases in state court, Ohio statute sets the witness fee as $12/day for each day the witness must attend, and $6 for a half day, plus mileage reimbursement at a rate set by the county. ORC § 2335.06. And in most criminal cases, the witness fees are essentially the same. ORC § 2335.08. So it's not like the witness here is entitled to pay for testimony at the same rate she would have got paid for hours spent at work when she was employed there.

If they want her as an expert witness she can be paid like any other expert witness.

If she is going to testify in JUVENILE court that is a different animal and she may not be paid unless she is out of county from where the court is located.

 

[Ohiogal]

I would think that could/would be a poor practice to subpoena former employees to testify in a social services situation. There is high turnover in that industry and it could even be difficult to find them. Those kind of cases could take a long time. I would think it more feasible to had the cases over to a new social worker and to reinterview the children if necessary.

I don't know what industry practice is but it would be interesting to find out.

You are wrong again. Re-interviewing children can re-traumatize them and how is that in their best interest? Oh yeah, it is not. Please don't comment on Ohio threads that deal with child abuse.

 

[Ohiogal]

I see your point, but social workers have very high caseloads so its unlikely to be a "few trials". It is likely to be many. I am really curious as to how things actually work out there in the real world on this issue. I may do a little real life research if I have time.

I live this in Ohio. They are NOT going to re-interview children and OP's wife can be subpoenaed. And she would have to testify about things she has done that are relevant to the case. Real life research? Good grief. How you going to do that? You are NOT in Ohio and YOU do not work with abused children. So now what?

 

[not2cleverRed]

Re-interview the kids with each change of social worker in the office? That could result in multiple interviews for the kids, which could be quite traumatic and cause even more harm, with no benefit to the case. Indeed, as kids age and their memories and other evidence fades, the prospects for a successful case dim. And, of course, there are statute of limitations and speedy trial concerns. Compared to that, the inconvenience of a former social worker having to testify at a few trials is, I think, the lesser concern here.

Additionally, the original social worker likely witnessed other things than just interviews of children. They were there, at that time, and saw directly the circumstances being investigated.

They can verify conditions and details that the photographic evidence might not have completely captured, for example.

A new worker cannot do that, since time machines have not been invented...

I see your point, but social workers have very high caseloads so its unlikely to be a "few trials". It is likely to be many. I am really curious as to how things actually work out there in the real world on this issue. I may do a little real life research if I have time.

Being a life long learner is a wonderful thing. However, the answers you seek on this subject are not here. They can be revealed, however, with under 1/2 and hour of google searches for the relevant information.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I see your point, but social workers have very high caseloads so its unlikely to be a "few trials". It is likely to be many.

I doubt that. Remember, on average in this country approximately 95% of both civil and criminal cases never reach trial. They settle/plea bargain out. So while the social worker may have had a lot of cases, only a very few of them are going to end up in a trial where he or she will have to testify. Even if that were not the case, I would still side with issuing subpoenas to the former social workers. They knew what was involved with their job when they took it. It does not strike me as at all unfair that they must testify when called upon. I had to testify on two cases for the IRS after I left. Same deal. I knew that was part of the job I had; I signed up for that. So I didn't begrudge having to do it even though I didn't get paid a salary for it. It's better that than having to burden the kids with more trauma – they certainly didn't sign up for that. And it is also not worth duplicating work that is already done or perhaps losing the case due to delay or loss of evidence. Do you really think sparing the former social worker some inconvience is more important than sparing the kids that trauma, the extra expense involved, and possibly jeopardizing the case?

 

[Taxing Matters]

If she is going to testify in JUVENILE court that is a different animal and she may not be paid unless she is out of county from where the court is located.

The witnesses in juvenile court don't get even a statutory fee for appearing that witnesses in other civil/criminal matters get? That seems a bit of an odd choice for the legislature if that's case as I can't think of a good reason for making that distinction. I did see, though, that the Ohio Code has differing fees for very specific matters. Like testifying in tax matters the fee, as I recall, was just $1/day. Probably a fee put in the Code a long time ago and never updated.