This comment will examine the Amber B. court's decision to characterize evidence provided by the mental health professionals as scientific evidence and not as expert opinion. Secondly, this comment will explore the desirability of imposing the scientific evidence standard, usually applied in criminal cases, to dependency hearings. Finally, this comment will discuss the implications of the Amber B. decision in light of the already present evidentiary difficulties of proving child sexual abuse claims and the social policy of protecting the welfare of the abused child.
Matthew J. Dulka,
Raising the Standard for Expert Testimony: An Unwarranted Obstacle in Proving Claims of Child Sexual Abuse in Dependency Hearings, 18 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.