Opinion ID: 199909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Location of Forensic Evaluation

Text: 66 The district court accepted the need for further investigation into whether sexual abuse occurred. Danaipour, 183 F.Supp.2d. at 313. The GAL also found that an evaluation is necessary ... for the protection of the children. The district court then concluded that such an evaluation could be properly done in Sweden. Id. at 327. We now know the district court was wrong in concluding that a forensic sexual abuse evaluation would be done in Sweden, 15 as discussed in the next section. 67 We are also concerned about how the district court approached the problem. The focus of the district court's inquiry was on the adequacy of the Swedish procedures for conducting forensic sexual abuse evaluations. If these procedures had not been adequate, that, of course, would be significant. But even if the procedures were adequate, there still remained the highly relevant question of whether the effect of the return on the children would nonetheless undermine the validity of any examination by making it more likely that the children would not talk to those charged with determining whether or not abuse had occurred. 68 We give an example from the testimony. In a written report submitted to the court, Dr. Jenny had concluded that the children should be allowed to stay in the United States for further evaluation. Returning the children to Sweden ... would significantly decrease the likelihood of an effective evaluation of the girls, and would place their safety at risk. In an affidavit, Dr. Jenny stated: 69 Given this delay [of four to six months before an evaluation could be performed], given the interruption of what appears to be a trusting therapeutic relationship, and given that during such process [the children] may be returned to both the geographic and physical source of prior trauma, there is a significant likelihood that a dependable, accurate sexual abuse evaluation will not occur and any investigative and/or therapeutic benefits to these children will be jeopardized. This would be true even if any access to their father upon their return were supervised. 70 At trial, Dr. Jenny was asked her opinion as to whether an evaluation in Sweden could be viable. 16 The court, however, sustained Danaipour's objection, holding that it lacked foundation as to Dr. Jenny's knowledge of circumstances in Sweden, among other things. McLarey's counsel attempted to convince the court that the testimony did not go to the situation in Sweden, but rather to the children's likelihood of disclosure if returned to Sweden. The court then asked whether, given the proposed undertakings, a valid evaluation could be done in Sweden. Dr. Jenny responded that return to Sweden would set the children back and that they would be given the message that disclosing ... leads to chaos. And ... just being in the environment where abuse may have occurred could certainly affect their perceptions and their ability to communicate what happened to them. 17 71 In contrast, Danaipour's expert, Dr. Munson, testified only that evaluations are typically done in the child's home country. 18 He testified that there are some benefits to doing an evaluation there, including familiarity with the system, familiarity with all of the factors in the locale, the area, what kind of services are available, and even in terms of the culture of the person that has been abused, as well as the culture of the abuser. However, this testimony goes only to what is generally done, not to what is a reasonable option for these particular children. Moreover, he did not specifically respond to the numerous expert witnesses who had testified that these children would be extremely unlikely to discuss any abuse if they were returned to Sweden. Thus, plaintiff's experts were largely unrebutted on this very material point. 72 Next, the district court improperly allocated the burdens. The father's argument that the evaluation be done in Sweden was essentially an undertakings proffer, as to which he bore the burden. We do not know what the district court would have concluded had it properly allocated the evidentiary burdens. In the present posture of the case, we need not decide whether the father met his burden. We further discuss undertakings in the next section.