In the Interest of: N.B., a Minor, In the Interest of: N.B., a Minor No. 2952 EDA 2016

Juvenile appellant N.B. was adjudicated delinquent for multiple sexual-offense charges based on allegations by his half-siblings (female, age ~4½; male, age ~6½) with no physical or forensic corroboration.
Allegations arose while N.B. lived primarily with Mother; a long-running, contentious custody dispute existed between Mother and N.B.’s father.
N.B. sought pretrial “taint” and competency hearings, claiming interview-induced false memories and parental coaching/fabrication.
The court held taint hearings with expert testimony (Dr. Datillio for defense; CAC interviewer Kristen Fetcho for Commonwealth). Dr. Datillio concluded potential taint; Fetcho testified the interviews complied with CAC methods and were reliable.
The court held an in camera Tender Years hearing, found both children competent, admitted their CAC statements under the statutory hearsay exception, and denied N.B.’s dismissal motions.
On appeal, N.B. challenged denial of dismissal for taint (competency) for each child; the Superior Court affirmed, finding no clear and convincing proof of taint and that any suggestiveness did not render the children incompetent.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether N.M. (female) was tainted by parental influence or CAC interviewing	Mother and stepfather fabricated/led the child; CAC techniques were unduly suggestive, so testimony was incompetent	Interviews and circumstances did not show clear-and-convincing taint; child competent; statements reliable	Denied dismissal — no clear-and-convincing evidence of taint; competency preserved
Whether N.M. (male) was tainted by parental influence or CAC interviewing	Same: parental fabrication and leading CAC interview produced false or distorted memories	Although some leading questions occurred, overall interview and child’s responses showed capacity to observe, recall, and communicate; not incompetent	Denied dismissal — taint not established to overcome competency presumption
Admissibility of CAC interview statements / competency under Tender Years exception	CAC interviews were unreliable and suggestive; thus out-of-court statements should be excluded	In camera Tender Years hearing showed sufficient indicia of reliability and children competent; contemporaneous alternative methods permitted	Court admitted CAC statements; children found competent; contemporaneous alternative testimony allowed if needed

Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (establishes framework for taint inquiries and competency presumption)
Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 859 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2004) (discusses suggestibility, taint, and expert testimony in competency hearings)
Rosche v. McCoy, 156 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1959) (competency review standard and consideration of child’s testimony)
Commonwealth v. Pukowsky, 147 A.3d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2016) (parental conflict/divorce does not, by itself, prove taint)
Commonwealth v. Fox, 282 A.2d 341 (Pa. 1971) (inconsistencies go to credibility, not competency)
Commonwealth v. Trimble, 615 A.2d 48 (Pa. Super. 1992) (appellate review may consider both competency hearing and the child’s actual testimony)