Opinion ID: 1425788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the unusual greeting of b.a. and r.t.

Text: This greeting, performed more than once at the day-care center, consisted of the girls running up to each other, grabbing their crotches, and giggling. As stated above, the State intentionally did not offer expert testimony on the meaning of this sexual acting out, presumably to avoid protracted argument. The Court of Appeals held that without such expert testimony, evidence of the greeting was useless as corroboration. A child's sexualized behavior at her day-care facility was seen as corroborative by the court despite an expert's uncertainty in State v. Hunt, 48 Wn. App. 840, 741 P.2d 566, review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1014 (1987). Day-care employees testified in that case that the child took naps with two blankets bunched under her crotch and thighs to elevate her bottom, and then tucked her blankets between her legs and rocked herself to sleep. Employees also observed the child lying face down with her underpants down and a little boy rubbing her buttocks. [30] A psychologist testified that such conduct could indicate that the child had been exposed to adult sexuality and sexual abuse. [31] The trial court found the expert's testimony very indefinite but in its own judgment concluded that the child's behavior at the day-care facility met the corroboration requirement of RCW 9A.44.120. [32] The Court of Appeals also found the expert's assessment somewhat equivocal, but proceeded to find ample corroboration based on the child's behavior and other evidence in the case. [33] Two recent Minnesota cases similarly considered abnormal and sexualized behavior as corroborative of children's hearsay statements regarding abuse. In M.N.D. v. B.M.D., 356 N.W.2d 813, 816 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), a psychologist testified that a child's behavior in inserting objects into her rectum was consistent with sexual abuse. In D.A.H. v. G.A.H., 371 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), the court found corroborative the child's fear of men as well as her behavior in grabbing at men's genital areas and having nightmares. In this Minnesota case, there was no mention of expert interpretation of such behavior. [5] While experts may not be needed to label certain behavior as symptomatic of abuse, it would seem that the less obviously sexual the behavior, the more experts might be able to assist in interpreting that behavior. The greeting employed by B.A. and R.T. would not appear to be strikingly abnormal, sexualized behavior. Without expert interpretation, it may be viewed as sexually oriented, but not as strongly corroborative of either girl's abuse.