| Summary: | 碩士 === 世新大學 === 法律學研究所(含碩專班) === 93 === Expert witness and testimony has been widely utilized in complicated cases with scientific evidence. Those professionals regarded as experts in courtroom are increasing in different fields. The professionals worked in child protection services as team members are quite frequently qualified as experts standing for evaluation of the abused child’s healthiness and development. To what extent could these professionals be competent to function as a useful mediator for fact-finding? This gate-keeping role is not subject to judge’s admissibility but expert’s competency to make evidence reliable, valid, credible, and relevant.
Frye, Daubert and further tests for admissibility shall be applied to make experts qualified and competent. General Acceptance Rule derived from Frye has ever been used for qualifying professionals to testify for years. Not any consequent amendment was ever made for this admissibility requirement until the Daubert test becomes dominantly by the end of Millennium. Abused children are divided into three different levels: suspected, probable and devastated. How could these abused be accurately, credibly and reliably examined and evaluated? A further relevancy to evidence-based facts are thus needed.
Rules for evidence are crucial for child protection services in different proceedings. The Doctrines of Reasonable Doubt and Burden of Proof sound appropriate in criminal proceeding, while the Profference rule weighed by clear and convincing evidence provides a burden of persuasion for those abused and their family. Some comparisons are made for clarifying the best interest of the child under different types of protection. Consequent rules in the Administration Law are also integrated as comprehensive tests on the necessity, proportion and appropriateness of the services provided for the tragically abused minors.
Empirical examples drawn from reliability (including credibility and relevancy as well) test standards, cases on repressed memory syndromes, testimony by abused child, problems generated from experts as jurors, the sexually abused or exploited and the battered women syndromes are thus discussed as topics for experts worked for legal services at different perspectives. For experts recognized as roles in acting participant-judge, consultant or amicus curiae, evaluator, expert witness, alternative disputation resolution solver, and ombudsman are also proposed without further exploration. The interdisciplinary practitioners in child protection services are suggested to formulate as a whole based on a legal framework.
|
|---|
