## Facts

- The county social services agency filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that Ron B. sexually molested his three-year-old daughter, Amber, and that her one-year-old sister, Teela, was at risk.
- A psychologist, Dr. Henry Raming, examined Amber in three sessions and testified over objection that Amber had been sexually molested and believed her father was the perpetrator.
- Dr. Raming’s opinion relied largely on (1) Amber’s repeated descriptions of abuse, with variations he characterized as consistent with a child recounting lived events, and (2) Amber’s conduct using anatomically correct dolls, including vigorous simulated vaginal and anal penetration of a female doll.
- The juvenile court found Amber had been sexually molested while in her parents’ custody and that she believed her father was the abuser, and adjudged both children dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300.
- Ron B. appealed, challenging the admissibility of Dr. Raming’s opinion testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether diagnosing child sexual abuse by interpreting a child’s behavior with anatomically correct dolls and analyzing patterns in the child’s reports constitutes a “new scientific method of proof” subject to the Kelly–Frye general-acceptance requirement.
2. Whether admitting expert opinion based on that technique without a showing of general acceptance was reversible error in a dependency proceeding.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the dependency orders and remanded.
- It held the doll-play/report-pattern diagnostic technique was a new scientific method of proof within Kelly–Frye.
- Because no foundational showing of general acceptance in the relevant scientific community was made, the juvenile court erred in admitting Dr. Raming’s opinion testimony.
- The error was prejudicial because the expert opinion was central to the abuse finding.

## Legal Principles

- In California, evidence derived from a novel scientific technique is admissible only upon a foundational showing that the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community (Kelly–Frye).
- Kelly–Frye applies when expert testimony presents a technique as systematic, literature-based, and capable of diagnosing a fact (here, sexual abuse), creating a risk that the factfinder will treat it as unusually certain.
- Expert testimony diagnosing child sexual abuse from a child’s interactions with anatomically correct dolls and from assertedly diagnostic patterns in the child’s reports is subject to Kelly–Frye.
- Absent proof of general acceptance, admitting such technique-based diagnostic opinions is error, and reversal is warranted when the testimony materially affects the adjudication.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that diagnosing child sexual abuse through anatomically correct doll demonstrations and analysis of a child’s reporting patterns is a novel scientific technique requiring Kelly–Frye general acceptance; because that foundation was not established and the opinion testimony drove the dependency findings, the dependency orders were reversed and the matter remanded.


In re Amber B., 236 Cal. Rptr. 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)