Opinion ID: 1222695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: circuit court's findings

Text: The circuit court reviewed the findings of fact submitted by the family law master, the transcripts of the hearings, and the videotapes of the proceedings and of the girls' interview. The circuit court specifically rejected each and every finding of fact and conclusion of law as presented by the family law master and issued its own findings. Unlike the family law master, the circuit court was impressed by Dr. Gardner, and found his testimony persuasive. [8] The circuit court discussed articles written by experts in the area of child interview techniques, particularly in the context of child sexual abuse situations. Based on the literature reviewed, the circuit court determined the family law master's finding that the interview techniques used were not sufficiently leading or suggestive to invalidate the truthfulness of Ashley's answers was plainly wrong. The circuit court found that [e]ven a cursory examination of the available literature reveals that the statements of Linda Workman concerning suggestibility and those of Pam Rockwell concerning fabrication are wrong. The circuit court agreed with Dr. Gardner's criticisms of how Ashley was interviewed. It relied on these conclusions to find the reports of Ashley's abuse were not credible, Ms. Workman and Ms. Rockwell's opinions were not credible, and Dr. Preville's report illustrated a lack of physical evidence of abuse. Therefore, the circuit court found the allegations against Stephen H. were not substantiated. [9] The circuit court declined to address what factors lead to the motivation of Sherry H. to pursue what it believed to be fabricated charges: Much has been made by all parties to this action about the presence or absence of motivational factors on the part of Sherry [H.] That is not for this Court to determine. Even if such a determination were to be made it would be mere speculation and certainly could not be used as a basis for determining whether or not sexual abuse occurred. Therefore, this Court will not address the issues of motivation but rather leave them to be debated by the experts such as Dr. Gardner. In response to the family law master's finding of fact No. 61, which concerned Stephen H.'s exhibition of certain pedophilic indicators, the circuit court discounted her findings. However, the circuit court did agree with the family law master that Stephen H.'s conduct during the hearing was less than ideal: This Court must admit that Dr. [H] did not make the best of witnesses. His evasive, argumentative answers did nothing to help his case. Yet, this Court must not let that interfere with its consideration of Dr. [H.]'s firm, adamant denial of abusing his children. Based on its conclusion that Stephen H. did not sexually abuse Ashley or Chelsey, the circuit court ordered Stephen H.'s visitation rights reinstated. The circuit court requested the parties to provide written proposals of how to best reunite Stephen H. with his daughters with the least amount of emotional and psychological trauma to all parties involved in this action.