Court Opinion

ID: 9739414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:14:35.964213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:12.099872
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
Our primary responsibility in this case is to Stephanie, a child who was the center of a bitter struggle between her divorced parents and who, at three and one-half years of age, allegedly reported to her mother’s fiance that her father had engaged in inappropriate sexual contact. The child’s allegations could not be either verified or discounted by a physical examination. The mother reported the matter to the police. As the majority points out, the police interviewed the child, the mother, and the father, the mother’s fiance, and the father’s wife. The father denied the conduct and took a he detector test that he passed. The State elected not to prosecute the father in a criminal action but a child in need of assistance petition was filed. The trial court considered the testimony concerning the child’s truthfulness introduced by the State, rejected a report on the issue of the child’s credibility offered by the father, and did not consider the results of the he detector test that the father attempted to introduce. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse by the father.
The father urges, among other issues on appeal, in cases such as this, the results of a he detector test should be considered. I am inchned to agree the unique facts of this situation and our need to protect the child provide a compelhng reason to allow the admission of polygraph evidence under limited circumstances and in closely tailored circumstances such as these where the only evidence of abuse is based on hearsay and opinions as to the truthfulness of the child. I recognize polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible. I also recognize the polygraph results are still determined to be of questionable reliability. But I suggest their reliability is on par or greater than the evidence the trial court considered in making its factual consideration.
The focal issue is whether the father engaged in the conduct. His visitation rights should be severely restricted if he did commit the acts with which he is charged and, if so, it is critical the child have the necessary protection from him.
But, if the child’s complaints have been fabricated or coached, then it is the mother and her fiance who should be limited in their access to the child. A second nagging issue may be lurking as to whether the child was abused but allegedly identified the wrong perpetrator and, if so, there may be a prob*501lem with the mother not giving the child the required protection.
On one side of the coin is the fact the chñd allegedly detañed the abuse to her mother’s fiance a week after it was to have happened and repeated it to several people who found it credible. The trial judge found there was clear and convincing evidence the abuse occurred.
On the other side of the coin is the fact this is a classification of case where false reporting is the most likely to occur; the chñd was only three and one-half years old, an age when a chñd is easüy influenced and confused. Furthermore, evidence of others as to the truthfulness of the chñd has no proven reliability; and a recent study suggested, particularly where the witness may have an agenda, such testimony is not reliable. See Thomas M. Horner & Melvin J. Guyer, Prediction, Prevention, and Clinical Expertise in Child Custody Cases in Which Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Have Been Made, Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XXV, No. 3, 381 Fall 1991. Thomas M. Horner, a clinical assistant professor of psychology and director of the Infancy and Early Chfldhood Clinic in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan School of Medicine, and Melvin J. Guyer, a professor of social psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan School of Medicine, who holds a Ph.D. in psychology and a J.D. from the University of Michigan, point out in their article that, as a victim, the chñd is vulnerable to an adult’s ulterior purpose cloaked in suggestive tones and the chñd is easüy led to say and do things that fit the adult’s conception. See Thomas M. Horner & Melvin J. Guyer, Prediction, Prevention, and Clinical Expertise in Child Custody Cases in Which Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Have Been Made, Farmly Law Quarterly, Vol. XXV, No. 3 at 389, Fall 1991.
When aü these factors are considered, I am of the opinion the polygraph test results may bear a greater indication of reliability than the other evidence considered. For the child’s protection, I feel, under these limited circumstances, the polygraph should be considered.
The State suggests this polygraph test was not a credible test. The father’s attorney aüeged it is and it was given at the direction of the West Des Moines Police Department. The record is confusing. Because I see the only real issue is the ehñd’s protection, I would remand to the trial court to receive evidence of how the polygraph test was given, the qualifications of the examiner, and the results of the test.
I note the majority has resolved several issues on error preservation and the State has suggested the record in this ease does not lend itself to resolving the issue of the admission of a polygraph test under this special circumstance. I suggest error preservation is not controlling where applying it may result in a court not considering evidence that gives it guidance in how to protect a chñd.