Should a 3-year-old child's testimony to his teacher (on child abuse) be admitted in court?

[Igel]

10. Probably not very.

And that's the problem. Youngsters' testimony's a can of worms.

1. Kids will often say what they think they need to say. Perhaps to protect a parent, possibly out of fear or confusion. Yeah, they're "lying," but they're not of age and it's hard for a kid that's three to consistently stand up to an adult or take sides against a caregiver s/he's bonded with. "I fell" is a lot better than "Daddy beat the crap out of me."

2. Memories are flexible and reconstructed every time you recall something. You don't usually remember words or details. You fill them in. They can be altered, adapted, revised, even planted or created. And that's with adults. You don't recall the original event, you recall the event as you last remembered it.

With kids it's very easy for this to happen. It happens with adults, but it's fairly common with kids. Even without manipulation.

The kid at first said he fell. Then the story changed. Did it change because mommy talked to him? Because the guy he's accusing now didn't give him something he wanted and the kid's being vindictive? Because some other adult asked and planted the idea in his head? It could go either way. But the veracity of that initial, more spontaneous claim can be evaluated. It's harder to evaluate how true the revised story is: You already know it's revised. Heck, that first story might already be revised from what happened.

Teachers make mistakes, as do all people, but at least that's a kind of corroboration as to what the kid said at a given time. The closer to the actual event, the better--it's why contemporaneous records matter in law suits. Even if we assume that a 3-year-old really can distinguish clearly between saying the truth and saying things that aren't true (but which he might sincerely believe to be true).