Background
In June 2023, a young child disclosed to his mother and maternal grandmother that his father had touched his genitals during an overnight visit. The child also alleged that the father urinated on him and that they bathed together. The mother filed a dependency, neglect, and abuse (DNA) petition, and the child underwent a forensic interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center of Kentucky. The father agreed to no contact pending proceedings.
At the adjudication hearing spanning September 2024 through January 2025, the family court heard testimony from the child’s treating therapist, the mother, a police detective, and the father. Critically, the child himself did not testify, and there was no medical or physical evidence of abuse. The family court found the child to be abused and neglected based primarily on behavioral changes the child exhibited after returning from the father’s care and the therapist’s opinion that the child’s behavior was consistent with trauma and that the child had not been coached.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated the adjudication and remanded for reconsideration, holding that the family court improperly admitted hearsay and improper bolstering evidence in violation of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence. Specifically, the court found that the child’s statements made during the forensic interview—that the father asked him to touch the father’s genitals—constituted inadmissible hearsay because no recognized exception applied. The statements were not excited utterances or made for medical treatment purposes, and since the child did not testify, they could not be admitted as prior consistent statements.
The court also found that the treating therapist’s testimony violated the prohibition against improper bolstering. The therapist’s opinion that the child had not been coached and her statement that she had no reason not to believe the child were designed to vouch for the child’s truthfulness, which is improper. Additionally, the therapist’s conclusion that the child’s behavioral resistance when discussing the allegations was consistent with trauma and therefore proved abuse was also improper. The court emphasized that mental health professionals cannot testify that a child has been sexually abused based on demeanor, nor can they introduce evidence that an entire class of trauma victims behaves a certain way to prove an individual was abused.
Key Takeaways
- In child abuse cases, forensic interview statements are hearsay and require a recognized exception for admission; statements about the perpetrator do not qualify under the medical treatment exception.
- Mental health professionals cannot vouch for a child’s truthfulness, credibility, or freedom from coaching—such testimony constitutes improper bolstering regardless of whether admitted without objection.
- Expert testimony that a child’s behavior is consistent with sexual trauma cannot establish that abuse occurred; behavior patterns of a class of victims do not prove an individual was abused.
- When a child does not testify and no medical evidence exists, the case hinges on credibility assessments, requiring heightened vigilance against prejudicial professional bolstering.
- Even bench trials (judges without juries) are subject to evidentiary rules; the court cannot rely on improper evidence simply because no jury might be swayed by it.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms and strengthens Kentucky’s long-standing prohibitions against improper hearsay and bolstering evidence in child abuse cases, citing recent Kentucky Supreme Court decisions in Boggs v. Commonwealth and Stephens v. Commonwealth. The opinion underscores that these rules continue to resurface precisely because trial courts repeatedly violate them. For practitioners handling DNA cases, the decision clarifies that even well-intentioned professional testimony designed to support a child’s credibility—such as a therapist’s assurance that a child was not coached—crosses an impermissible evidentiary line.
The court’s emphasis on the need for vigilance when cases lack medical evidence or child testimony is particularly significant for future DNA litigation. The vacatur and remand signal that adjudications built on a foundation of hearsay and bolstering, rather than properly admitted evidence of abuse, cannot stand—even when a judge, rather than a jury, is the fact-finder. This decision will likely influence how family courts handle expert testimony and forensic interviews in similar cases going forward.