In re Amber B.

Ron B. (defendant) was a father who was accused of sexually molesting his three-year-old daughter, Amber, in a petition by the Solano County Department of Social Services (the department) (plaintiff). Ron’s one-year-old daughter, Teela, was also deemed to be at risk. Dr. Henry Raming, a psychologist, offered his opinion at a hearing that Amber was the victim of sexual molestation and that Amber’s belief was that her father was the perpetrator. Dr. Raming based his opinion on the fact that Amber’s descriptions of the abuse were varied and on the way she behaved with a female doll that was anatomically correct. Amber handled the doll with regard to the doll’s genitalia in a way that was consistent with children who had been molested. The department’s other two witnesses also testified regarding Amber’s descriptions of abuse and her conduct with the doll. Without identifying Ron as the abuser, a juvenile court held that Amber had experienced sexual molestation while in her parents’ custody and that Amber believed that Ron had committed the abuse. The juvenile court adjudicated Amber and Teela dependent. Ron, who had testified denying the abuse, appealed, arguing that Dr. Raming’s opinion testimony should not have been admitted, because it was premised on a new psychological means of determining whether child sexual abuse had occurred—namely assessing a child’s sexual-abuse reports and the child’s conduct with an anatomically correct doll—without having established that the new means met the requirements for admissibility under the Kelly-Frye test. Various scientific methods had an air of infallibility to laypersons such as the average juror. The Kelly-Frye test was developed to prevent fact-finders from the misleading impact of the air of infallibility that sometimes came with scientific methods that were not yet proven. Although the Kelly-Frye test was normally applied only to new procedures or devices connected with assessing physical evidence such as gunshot residue, voiceprints, or lie detectors, the California Court of Appeal considered whether Dr. Raming’s methods were a new scientific means of proving whether a child had experienced sexual abuse to which the Kelly-Frye test was applicable or whether Dr. Raming’s testimony was merely expert testimony that did not become scientific evidence.