OPINION OF THE COURT
At issue in this child protective proceeding is the adequacy of the trial foundation laid by petitioner to support the admission of validation evidence intended to substantiate the claim that the subject children suffer from sexual abuse syndrome (see, Matter of Nicole V.,
I
To determine the above issues, a separate hearing was conducted (see, CPLR 4011). At that hearing, petitioner’s validation witness, Dr. Mary Beth Andrews, testified.
Dr. Andrews stated that she holds three degrees: a Bachelor of Arts in psychology, received from Molloy College in 1980; a Master of Science in occupational therapy, received from Columbia University in 1982; and a Doctor of Philosophy in clinical psychology, received from St. John’s University in 1992. According to Dr. Andrews, she initially was licensed to practice clinical psychology in October 1993. To date, her sole professional experience has been as a staff psychologist at St. Christopher-Ottilie, a child care agency in New York City.
Regarding specialized training in child sexual abuse, Dr. Andrews testified that she attended two separate day-long seminars (one in "the spring of 1992”; the other in December 1994). Other than these seminars, Dr. Andrews acknowledged that she never formally studied child sexual abuse in college, graduate school or otherwise. In lieu of additional formal training, Dr. Andrews attends weekly supervisory sessions concerning sexual abuse with a supervisor whose training and experience she could not adequately describe and also attends a monthly discussion group on the same subject. Notwith
When asked to describe the procedures she utilized in this case, Dr. Andrews testified that, as always, she used a "holistic approach” in which she spoke to and obtained background information from the referring caseworker, including information on "the status of the [respondent natural] parent.” Dr. Andrews then interviewed the children on two separate occasions; each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. During these interviews, Dr. Andrews inquired about family relationships, attempted to assess the children’s mental status, and asked the children to identify human body parts using a photograph of a clothed person she cut out of a Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog.
Dr. Andrews further explained that she uses anatomically correct dolls and pictures, but only after a child already has "disclos[ed]” sexual abuse during the interview and/or is having "a difficult time expressing [himself or herself].” In her testimony, Dr. Andrews did not describe how the anatomically correct dolls and pictures are used after being introduced.
In addition, Dr. Andrews utilized two separate indexes or outlines (copyrighted by other clinical psychologists) as part of her validation process. First, she completed a Sexual Abuse Schedule Inventory based on information provided by the caseworker; that inventory lists behavior by children that may possibly indicate sexual abuse. Second, she used a Child Post-Traumatic Stress Reaction Index to determine the existence of child post-traumatic stress disorder. This index consists of a series of questions that she posed to the children involving recent upsetting or emotional events. Dr. Andrews stated that she does not "score” this index in the manner its creator intended; rather, she uses it as a "general outline.”
Because of "time constraints”, Dr. Andrews did not interview the respondent father either alone or with the children. Dr. Andrews explained that she rarely interviews the alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse. In her view, this does not affect the validity of her assessment.
Finally, Dr. Andrews followed her customary practice and did not audio record her interviews with the children. She considers such audio recording to be overly "distracting”.
Dr. Andrews repeatedly stated that she could not identify the procedures generally accepted in the field as reliable for validating the existence of sexual abuse syndrome in children. As a result, even though she described the procedures she had used, Dr. Andrews was entirely unable to explain how they comport with the generally accepted methodology or to describe her rationale for using them. Rather, Dr. Andrews opined that sexual abuse syndrome is insufficiently "documented” and stated that her purpose as a validator is only to determine "whether or not a child’s [out-of-court allegations of sexual abuse] are credible” — not to address the existence of the syndrome itself.
Regarding the protocol she used, Dr Andrews: (i) noted that "some” validators interview the alleged perpetrator but offered no explanation for not doing so in this case other than her statement that such an interview was precluded by "time constraints”; (ii) did not know of the accepted procedures for when to use anatomically correct dolls or pictures; (iii) was unaware of whether the two indexes she used are part of the standard protocol and did not know of the research, if any, supporting their use; and (iv) did not address the audio recording of interviews with the children as a part of the accepted protocol.
II
Before the testimony of an expert witness can be received in evidence, the party seeking to offer that evidence has the burden of demonstrating the qualifications that make the witness an expert. (Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp.,
Here, although Dr. Andrews holds a doctorate in clinical psychology and is licensed to practice that profession in New York State, her qualifications as a sexual abuse validator fall
Contrary to the requirements of People v Wesley (supra), petitioner never proved that protocol in any other way. Absent such proof, the court is unable adequately to measure the procedures Dr. Andrews used by a common standard or to assess whether her conclusions represented anything more than a subjective belief or unsupported speculation.
In contrast to the recommended practices as set forth in existing precedent and published authorities, it appears that Dr. Andrews used procedures that actually were deficient in at least four important respects:
1. In its guidelines for the clinical evaluation of child sexual abuse, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry stresses that "[i]t is important to obtain a history from the perspective of each parent.” (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Guidelines for the Clinical Evaluation of Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse, j[ 6 [1988] [hereinafter Academy Guidelines].) Nonetheless, Dr. Andrews did not obtain such a history from respondent.
2. The use of anatomically correct dolls has created "intense controversy” within the validation field. (Newman, Assessing the Quality of Expert Testimony in Cases Involving Children, 22 J Psychiatry & L 181, 198 [1994].) Some courts have rejected testimony based on the use of such dolls because the methodology for using them is not yet scientifically established (e.g., In re Christie D., 206 Cal App 3d 469, 253 Cal Rptr 619 [Cal Ct App 1988]; In re Amber B., 191 Cal App 3d 682, 236 Cal Rptr 623 [Cal Ct App 1987]; United States v Gillespie, 852 F2d 475 [9th Cir 1988]). Other courts have endorsed their use (e.g., State v Oslund,
3. "As a matter of sound interviewing methodology, nearly all experts agree that” pretrial interviews of alleged child sex abuse victims should be recorded to reduce the danger that the children’s recollection is tainted by suggestive questioning. (State v Michaels, 136 NJ 299, 314, n 1,
4. The court notes that Dr. Andrews chose to use a picture from a department store catalog rather than a standardized model for her evaluation. While the picture may have been appropriate, the court has no assurance that it was not improper or otherwise suggestive.
Finally, Dr. Andrews did not seek to address the central issue identified in Matter of Nicole V (supra), upon which expert validation testimony is authorized: whether the subject child(ren) suffer from sexual abuse syndrome. Because Dr. Andrews focused on the "credibility” of the children instead of addressing whether they manifest the syndrome, her proffered testimony, if admitted, would usurp the role of the trier of fact; as such, it is also inadmissible as a matter of law. (People v Parks,
Allegations of child sexual abuse are among the most serious charges that can be made. It is the court’s responsibility to protect children from such conduct where competent evidence indicates that it has occurred; and it is likewise the court’s responsibility to protect the accused where no such evidence is offered. As observed in Matter of Smith (