{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f38\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f43\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f44\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f46\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f47\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f48\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f49\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f50\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f51\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}
{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;
\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*
\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid5460062 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid5460062 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid4094050\rsid5460062\rsid6294891\rsid9451953\rsid9508377\rsid10954767}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info
{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy13\hr11\min2}{\version5}{\edmins5}{\nofpages19}{\nofwords8295}{\nofchars47286}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}
{\nofcharsws55471}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120
\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot10954767 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid10954767 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10954767 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10954767 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10954767 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid10954767\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid10954767 
In the Interest of N.A., et al, Real Parties in Interest,}{\fs20\insrsid10954767  Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid10954767 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid6294891 19}}}{\fs20\insrsid10954767  of 30
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid10954767 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-9\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid6294891 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom9\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize9\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid10954767 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid10954767 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 IN THE INTEREST OF N.A., D.A., B.A., R.A., R.A., AND J. A., Minors}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Real Parties in Interest}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 M. A.}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Respondent-Appellant}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par Petitioner-Appellee}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 OPINION}{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Filed:}{\b\insrsid6294891  }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 April 10, 2001}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Cite as: 2001 Guam 7}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Supreme Court Case No. CVA99-042
\par Superior Court Case No. JSP0306-97}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Submitted on the briefs on November 20, 2000
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid6294891 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5040\clshdrawnil \cellx4920\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4320\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\ul\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Representing the Respondent-Appellant}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 :
\par David W. Hopkins, Esq.
\par Law Offices of Horecky & Associates
\par 1}{\super\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 st}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  Floor, J. Perez Building
\par 138 Seaton Blvd.
\par }{\insrsid6294891 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Representing the Petitioner-Appellee}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 :
\par John Weisenberger
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General
\par Prosecution Division
\par Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Building
\par 120 West O}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid6294891 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5040\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4920\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4320\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid6294891 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth9360\clshdrawnil 
\cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\ul\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Representing the Minors, D.A., R.A., B.A., R.A., and J.A.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 :
\par Daniel S. Somerfleck, Esq.
\par Guam Legal Services Corporation
\par 113 Bradley Place
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid5460062\charrsid6294891 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid6294891 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth9360\clshdrawnil 
\cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR. Chief Justice (Acting)}{\cs15\super\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid10954767 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 
 The Chief Justice recused himself from deciding this matter.  Justice Siguenza as senior member of the panel was designated as the acting Chief Justice.}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice, JOHN MAHER, Justice }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 SIGUENZA, J.:}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [1]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Respondent-Appellant, M.A. (hereinafter }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Appellant}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ), appeals the lower court}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s decision to proceed with a fact-finding hearing upon petition by the Government to determine whether two of his children were persons in need of services in Superior Court Case No. JSP0306-97.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The Appellant also assigns error to various evidentiary rulings made by the lower court and further argues that its findings of facts were contrary to the evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 We conclude that the Appellant}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s arguments lack merit and therefore affirm the trial court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s decision.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 I.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [2]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant is the father of eight children, J.A., A.A., N.A., D.A., B.A., R.A., R.A., and J.A..}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
On March 7, 1997, the Family Division of the Superior Court of Guam issued an }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ex parte}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 order which temporarily placed four of the children (R.A., R.A., B.A., and J.A.) into the custody of the Child Protective Services Division of the Department of Public Health and Social Services (hereinafter }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 CPS}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 At that time, two of the children, D.A. and N.A., already lived outside the home under their own arrangements.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court upheld its }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ex parte}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  order during a temporary foster care hearing on March 11, 1997.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [3]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab On March 31, 1997, CPS filed a Petition for Persons in Need of Services (hereinafter }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 first PINS petition}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ), seeking a declaration that six of the children, N.A., D.A., R.A., B.A., R.A., and J.A., were persons in need of services and to make provisions for the care and protection of the minors.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In Re N.A., }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Juv. Spec. Proceeding JSP0306-97 (Super. Ct. Guam Mar. 31, 1997) (PINS Petition).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In response to this petition, on May 5, 1997, the Appellant and CPS agreed upon a Pre-Fact-Finding Settlement Order.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Based on this agreement, the court granted the PINS petition and issued a Stipulation and Order to that effect on July 15, 1997.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In that Order, the court gave CPS temporary legal custody of the children.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Further, the court invoked the provisions of 19 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  13311(a), and ordered inadmissible in any other action the testimony, evidence, or admissions of the Appellant that were elicited during the first PINS proceedings.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid10954767 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 
 Title 19, section 13311(a) of the Guam Code Annotated (1994) provides: 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid10954767 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid10954767 Any testimony or other evidence produced by a party in a child protective pr
oceeding under this Chapter which would otherwise be unavailable may be ordered by the court to be inadmissible in any other territorial civil or criminal action or proceeding, if the court deems such an order to be in the best interests of the child.}}}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Finally, the court ordered CPS and the Appellant to form}{\insrsid6294891 ulate a Service Plan Agreement.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [4]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab On February 4, 1998, in light of new allegations of abuse, CPS filed a subsequent PINS petition (hereinafter }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 second PINS petition}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ) in Juvenile Special Proceeding JSP0306-97, asserting that D.A. and J.A., both of whom were the subject of the first PINS petition, were persons in need of services.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
On February 27, 1998
, the Appellant filed a motion to strike the second PINS petition, on the ground that it would be procedurally improper and violative of the his rights if the second PINS petition were carried on simultaneously with the first PINS petition.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court denied the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s motion to strike during a hearing on March 27, 1998.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 At that hearing, the Appellant also argued that the court must release him from the first Stipulation and Order before agreeing to commence the second PINS petition.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court denied this request on the ground that the first and second PINS petitions were separate proceedings and that the second PINS petition was based on new and separate facts and would stand on its own.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [5]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant denied the allegations of the second PINS petition and the court ordered a fact-finding hearing.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Prior to and during the fact-finding proceeding, the court made various evidentiary rulings to which the Appellant takes exception.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [6]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The court excluded four of the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s expert witnesses, including Doctors Pamina Hofer, Marcus Tye, Phillip Esplin and Betty-Ann Burns.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The facts surrounding the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s exclusion of these experts are more fully discussed later in this opinion.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [7]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Further, during the fact-finding hearing, at the request of the Guardian Ad Litem for D.A., R.A., B.A., R.A. and J.A. (hereinafter }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 GAL}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ), the court issued a protective order with respect to the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s cro
ss-examination of D.A., specifically disallowing a line of questioning wherein the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s attorney inquired into inconsistent statements made by D.A.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [8]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab On January 29, 1999, the Appellant filed a motion to admit the transcript and tape recording of Dr. Burns}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 interview with J.A. and a motion to permit limited expert testimony by Dr. Tye.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court denied both motions at a hearing on March 9, 1999.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Further, on that date, the court took judicial notice of the entire file of the first PINS petition, over the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s objection.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [9]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab 
Finally, on March 12, 1999, based upon the testimony and evidence presented during the fact-finding proceedings, the court entered oral findings that the Appellant physically and sexually abused D.A. and J.A.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court later amended its findings, deleting the finding of sexual abuse.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The Amended Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order were filed on September 24, 1999.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The Appellant subsequently filed a timely Notice of Appeal.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 II.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [10]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab This Court has jurisdiction over final orders of the Superior Court pursuant to 7 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  3107(a) and 3108(a) (1994).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 

\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 III.}{\b\insrsid10954767 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [11]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Each of Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s various arguments on appeal are discussed below.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 A.}{\b\insrsid6294891  }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The lower court}{\b\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s failure to release the Appellant from the first PINS petition.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [12]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant frames the first issue in this appeal as whether the court committed reversible error when it denied the Appellant relief from th
e Stipulation and Order issued in the first PINS petition.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The Appellant argues that the family court was required to grant relief from the first PINS petition in accordance with Rule 60(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [13]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab This Court reviews the grant or denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
See Midsea Industrial Inc. v. HK Engineering, Ltd.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1998 Guam 14, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 4.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Under this standard, a trial court decision will not be reversed unless we
 have a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of the relevant factors.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id. }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (citing }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1997 Guam 4, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 4 (citation omitted)).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
When using this standard, a reviewing court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 People v. Tuncap}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1998 Guam 13, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  12 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
There is an abuse of discretion if the trial court did not apply the correct law, erroneously interpreted the law, relied upon a clearly erroneous interpretation of the facts, or rendered a deci
sion of which the record contains no evidence in support thereof.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 . at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  13 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [14]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab However, the Appellant never requested Rule 60(b) relief in the court below.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In his brief, the Appellant asserts that he filed a 60(b) motion on February 27, 1998.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 This motion, however, was captioned }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 MOTION TO STRIKE PINS PETITION FILED FEBRUARY 4, 1998}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 GAL}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s Excerpts of Record, p. 1.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
This motion is a motion to strike the }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 second }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 PINS petition filed in JSP0306-97, and not the Stipulation and Order of the first PINS petition filed on July 15, 1997.}{\insrsid6294891  
}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The relief requested in Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s February 27 motion was not for 60(b) relief from the first PINS, and the court did not address it as such, thus, there is no denial of Rule 60(b) relie}{\insrsid6294891 f to be reviewed by this court.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [15]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab 
We note that during the March 27, 1998 hearing on the motion to strike the second PINS petition, the Appellant did briefly argue that before the second PINS petition can be adjudicated, he must first be relieved from the prior Order.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The basis of the 
argument was that the facts and allegations made in the second PINS petition were from the same time frame as the first PINS petition, and that it would be impossible for the court to base the decision in the second PINS petition on any new facts.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Thus, the Appellant appeared to be arguing for release from the first PINS Order, and a new full-blown consolidated hearing to determine the facts as to both PINS petitions.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court rejected this argument and denied the request, ruling:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [T]he latest PINS petition that has been filed is a PINS Petition that is based upon new facts.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The Court does not agree with the [respondent}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s] side that these are identical, similar, or same issues that were presented in the first Petition.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 And, therefore, the Court believes that the second Petition will stand on its own. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par GAL}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s Excerpts of Record at p. 11.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [16]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Even assuming we accept the arguments presented at the hearing as a request for Rule 60(b) relief from the first PINS and the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s ruling as a denial of relief, which is a stretch, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Midsea Indus., Inc.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 1998 Guam 14 at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  4 (setting forth the abuse of discretion standard).}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), on motion, the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or procee}{\insrsid6294891 ding for the following reasons:}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . .
 misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or if it is no longer eq
uitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Because the second PINS petition was based on new allegations of abuse not asserted in the fir
st PINS petition, and was therefore a completely separate proceeding, there were no grounds, under Rule 60(b), for relief from the Stipulation and Order of the first PINS petition.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [17]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant also argues that he agreed to the Stipulation and Order of the first PINS petition because he believed there would be no new allegations of abuse to surface.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 He contends that because new allegations were made, he should have been entitled to a release from the Stipulation and Order and be entitled to a fact-
finding hearing with regard to the allegations made in the first PINS petition.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 We do not agree.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The reasons the Appellant agreed to the Stipulation and Order in the first PINS are irrelevant to the issue of whether he should be released from the Stipulation and Order.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
There is no evidence or allegation that the government led the Appellant to believe that the first PINS petition contained all possible allegations of abuse, nor is there evidence that the government made misrepresentations which induced t
he Appellant to agree to the Stipulation and Order.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 B.}{\b\insrsid6294891  }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The exclusion of the Appellant}{\b\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s expert witnesses.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 

\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [18]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant argues that the lower court erred in excluding four expert witnesses on six different occasions.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Specifically, he contends that the court erred in excluding Dr. Hofer on July 8, 1998, Dr. Tye on November 20, 1998, December 3, 1998, and March 9, 1999, Dr. Esplin on December 3, 1998, and}{\insrsid6294891  Dr. Burns on December 7, 1998.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [19]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab As a general rule, we review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
J.J. Moving Services v. Sanko Bussan (Guam) Co.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1998 Guam 19, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 31 (citation omitted) (reviewing the trial court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s decision regarding the admissibility of hearsay statements).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Specifically, a trial court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s decision on the admissibility of expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion or manifest error. }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Duenas v. Yama}{\i\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s Co.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, Civ. No. 90-00062A, 1991 WL 255834, *3 (D. Guam App. Div. Nov. 18, 1991).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 "A trial judge 
abuses his [or] her discretion . . . when the decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision."}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Midsea Indus., Inc.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1998 Guam 14 at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  4 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Even if the lower court abused its discretion in excluding evidence, we will not reverse if the error was harmless.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Shad v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 799 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1986).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [E]rror is harmless if the decision is more probably than not untainted by the error.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  at 529; }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 see also Caspino v. Caspino}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, Civ. No. 87-00065A, 1988 WL 242619, *2 (D. Guam App. Div. Jun. 7, 1988) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [20]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Each point of contention with respect to the proffered experts is discussed below.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 1.\tab Doctor Pamina Hofer}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [21]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab On July 8, 1998, the lower court heard testimony by Dr. Hofer elicited at }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 voir dire }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
and excluded the doctor from testifying.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court stated:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [T]he Court finds that Dr. HOFER is professionally qualified to testify as an expert in the field of clinical psychology.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 However, in this particular case, which is, actually, a case of first imp
ression in my courtroom, with regard to the competency to testify, the Court has some question in light of the fact of the testimony given to this court.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Specifically, the court recalls the testimony of Dr. H
ofer, indicating that she is capable of giving an expert opinion, but she will not be able to completely give an unbiased opinion in light of her evaluation of [J.].
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par Transcript, vol. --, p. 92 (Hearing, July 8, 1998).
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [22]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The court then expressed great concern that the doctor}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 multiple relationships}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  in the case would hinder the doctor}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s objectivity.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
These relationships included: (1) that the doctor e
mployed the Appellant as an accountant for the preceding six months, and (2) that the doctor made an assessment of J.A. and released the report to the Appellant without authorization from either J.A. or the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Center.

\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [23]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Hofer on the ground that the doctor was biased.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 However, even if we assume that the exclusion on this basis was an abuse of discretion, the Appellant has not created a record adequate enough to allow this court to determine whether he was prejudiced by the exclusion.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Guam Rule of Evidence 103(a) provides in part:}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
103. Rulings on Evidence.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  (a) Effect of erroneous ruling.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Error may not be predicated upon a ruing which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial righ}{
\insrsid6294891 t of the party is affected, and}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 1.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Objection.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 2.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Offer of proof. }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In case the ruling is one}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 excluding evidence}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the cont
ext within which questions were asked.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  103(a) (1993) (emphasis added).
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [24]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab An offer of proof is a }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 method by whi
ch counsel places before the trial court (and ultimately the reviewing court) the evidence he or she wishes to present, to allow the court to determine the relevancy and admissibility of the proposed testimony.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Arhelger v. State}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 714 N.E.2d 659, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 An offer of proof serves dual purposes.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
First, it reveals the substance of the evidence to the court so as to enable it to make a ruling as to admissibility.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Second, and most importantly for our purposes, an offer of proof provides the appellate court with a record by which to review whether the exclusion was erroneous and whether the appellant was prejudiced by such exclusion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Thomas v. Wyrick}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 687 F.2d 235, 239 (8th Cir. 1982); }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 see also}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Arhelger}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 714 N.E.2d at 664; }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Polys v. Trans-Colorado Airlines, Inc.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 941 F.2d 1404, 1406-07 (10th Cir. 1991).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [25]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab At the very least, some record of the substance of the evidence must be made so as to enabl
e an appellate court to make a determination of admissibility and whether its exclusion was prejudicial to the proponent.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Thomas}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 687 F.2d at 239; }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Wagner v. Peterson}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 430 N.W.2d 331, 332-33 (N.D. 1988) (}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The
 language of 103(a)(2) may excuse the failure to make an offer of proof if the question was in proper form on its face and was framed as to clearly admit an answer favorable to the claim or defense of the party producing him.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [26]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Appellate courts have refused to review a trial court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s decision to exclude evidence where the appealing party has failed to preserve an adequate record on appeal via an offer of proof and the substance of the evidence is not clear from the record.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Gannett v. Booher}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 465 N.E.2d 1326, 1333 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (denying appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s claim that the trial court erred in excluding portions of a witness}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 direct examination testimony because the court could not glean the substance of the excluded testimony and an offer of proof was not submitted); }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Wagner}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 430 N.W.2d at 332-33 (holding that because there was no offer of proof, and the substance of the witness}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 testimony was not clear from the questions asked, there was thus no record by which the appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s claim of error could be evaluated) (citations omitted); }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Arhelger}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 714 N.E.2d at 666 (holding that the because the proponent of the evidence did not make
 the substance of the testimony clear to the court, identify the grounds for admission, and identify the relevance of the testimony, the appellant failed to create the necessary record for review on appeal).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [27]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The record reveals that on July 8, 1998, the Appellant made an offer of proof as to Dr. Hofer.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The Appellant stated:}{
\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
[W]e do offer and tender medical testimony that it is not in the best interest of the children to not be in a position to reconcile, to resolve this problem - - reconcile is the wrong word - - to resolve their problems with their father.}{\insrsid6294891 
 }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 They are not going to ever do that if the children are taken out of this environment, and the doctors are ready to}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
- - two doctors - -are ready to testify in that manner.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Transcript, vol. --, p. 13 (Hearing, July 8, 1998).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [28]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab 
The court subsequently asked the Appellant what his offer of proof was as to Dr. Hofer, in which the Appellant responded that he has a letter from Dr. Hofer which states that }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
from a medical viewpoint, a psychiatrists viewpoint, and from a clinical psychologist viewpoint, the only clinical psychologist involved in this case, [she] does not recommend [that the children be permanently placed in California], and we}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 d like to offer those to the Court at this time.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }
{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Transcript, vol. --, at p. 14 (Hearing, July 8, 1998).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The letters were never submitted to the court and the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s recitation to the court regarding the doctor}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s proposed testimony is all that we have to review.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [29]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Therefore, we find that the Appellant did not make a record sufficient for this court to conduct a meaningful review.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
While the record states what the doctor would testify to; we do not know enough of the substance of the testimony to enable this court to determine whether the testimony was relevant and how the exclusion specifically prejudiced the Appellant.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Because the Appellant failed to make the substance of the testimony clear to the lo
wer court, identify the grounds for admission, and specifically identify the relevance of the testimony, we decline to review the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s exclusion of Dr. Hofer.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Arhelger}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 714 N.E.2d at 666.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 2.\tab Exclusion of Dr. Marcus Tye}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [30]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The court below excluded Dr. Tye}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s testimony on three different occasions, November 20, 1998, December 3, 1998, and March 9, 1999.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The circumstances surrounding each exclusion are set forth below.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 a.\tab }{\b\ul\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 November 20, 1998}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [31]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab CPS filed a motion }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 in limine}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  to strike Dr. Tye as an expert witness on two grounds:}{\insrsid6294891  
}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (1) that Dr. Tye}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s opinions, as set forth in the Offer of Proof, are irrelevant and immaterial to the fact-finding, and (2) that Dr. Tye}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony would be duplicative of any testimony that Dr. Esplin could offer.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court heard arguments and granted the motion }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 in limine}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  during a hearing on November 20, 1998.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [32]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab At that hearing, the Appellant responded that while two witnesses, Dr. Esplin and Dr. Tye, would be testifying to the reliability of the government}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s evidence, the testimony would not be duplicative because Dr. Esplin}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s testimony would be based upon discovery material, while Dr. Tye}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s opinion will be based upon his observation of testimony elicited during the fact-finding hearing.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [33]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The court then inquired as to how Dr. Tye would determine whether the evidence was reliable.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The Appellant revealed, for the first time, that the doctor would rely on a technique called Statement Validity Assessment (hereinafter }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}
}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 SVA}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court focused on Dr. Tye}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s use of SVA, and whether it was one method that has been scientifically accepted in the counseling community.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court made reference to a separate case a year earlier wherein Dr. Tye testified that SVA was commonly accepted in Germany but not the United States.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [34]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab After the above discussion, the court granted the motion }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 in limine }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 to exclude the doctor}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The bases for the exclusion were that: (1) Dr. Tye}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s testimony would be a waste of time and cause undue delay under 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
403; and (2) the SVA technique that the doctor proposed to employ in assessing whether the child}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s statements were reliable would invade the province of the fact-finder.}{
\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Under Rule 702 of the Guam Rules of Evidence, an expert witness may testify if he or she is qualified and the proposed testimony would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  702 (1994).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Expert testimony should not be permitted under Rule 702 if it concerns a subject improper for expert testimony, for example, one that invades th
e province of the jury.}{\i\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See United States v. Binder}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 769 F.2d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 1985).
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [35]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab It is improper for an expert to testify as to the credibility of a witness.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See id.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 (holding that the trial court abused its discretion where it admitted the testimony of three expert witnesses who testified that the three child victims were able to distinguish truth from fantasy which had the effect of improperly }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 bolstering the children}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s story and to usurp the fact-finding function}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ).}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 An expert is not permitted to offer an opinion as to the believability or truthfulness of a victim}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s story.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
See Bachman v. Leapley}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 953 F.2d 440, 441 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 It is the fact-finder who has the duty of judging credibility after assessing a victim}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s statements and the circumstances surrounding the making of those statements.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Accordingly, an expert}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s opinions regarding the reliability of a witness}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  statements usurp the province of the fact-finder.}{\insrsid6294891 
 }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See id.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [36]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab In the instant case, Dr. Tye was proposing to testify that a scientific technique, SVA, could explain that Ms. Stinette}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s interviewing technique with J.A., in light of J.A.}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s age and mental state, produced unreliable responses, and that therefore, J.A.}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s allegations of abuse at the hands of the Appellant were inaccurate.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Such evidence would have been an expert opinion regarding the reliability and credibility of the victim, J.A.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Such expert testimony usurps the function of the fact-finder and was therefore properly excluded.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [37]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s other basis for exclusion was under Guam Rule of Evidence 403.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 We review the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s application of Rule 403 to the evidence for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
See People v. Evaristo}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1999 Guam 22, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  6.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Under Rule 403, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the court determines that }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by cons
iderations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  403 (1995).
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [38]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Here, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The probative value of the testimony is diminished when, as discussed above, such opinion invades the role of the fact-finder and that it was not necessary to help the fact-finder appreciate whether the Ms. Stinette}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s questions were suggestive or leading nor whether J.A.}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s answers were affected by the form of the questions.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 These are conclusions that a fact-finder can make without an expert.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In our estimate, such testimony would have taken an inordinate amou
nt of time when compared with its probative value.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Therefore, Doctor Tye}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s testimony could rationally be seen as unduly delaying the fact-finding hearing and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence under Rule 403.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\ul\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 b.}{\b\insrsid6294891  }{\b\ul\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 December 3, 1998}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [39]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab 
During the December 3, 1998 fact-finding hearing, and after the court excluded Dr. Esplin, the Appellant requested that Dr. Tye be allowed to testify as an expert in order to present the evidence that Dr. Esplin would have proffered.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In response, CPS argued that they were ready to proceed with the fact-finding and emphasized that the Appellant had months to prepare.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [40]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab After hearing the above arguments, without commenting on the specific reason for excluding the testimony, the court denied the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s request to have Dr. Tye testify.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Presumably, the court accepted CPS}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s argument that the testimony should be excluded because of the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s lack of preparation.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Where a party fails to disclose an expert prior to trial, the court may exclude that expert}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Habtu v. Woldemichael}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 694 A.2d 846 (D.C. App. 1997).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Habtu}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , the trial court refused to grant a motion to designate a new expert as a replacement for an expert who asked to be removed from the case.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  at 847.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the party the opportunity to designate the new expert.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\i\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The appellate court made its analysis under the local rule that allowed the court the discretion to modify pre-trial orders regarding expert witnesses if }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 necessary to prevent manifest injustice}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 . at 849.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The appellate court employed a thre
e-part test in determining whether the lower court should have modified the order, with one factor being whether the motion to supplement the pre-trial order was made on the eve of trial.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  at 849.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Expert witnesses offered on the eve of trial are disfavored due to the hardship on the opposing party in obtaining discovery in time for trial.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See id.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Habtu}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 court found that the lower court should have allowed the party the opportunity to name a new expert when, in addition to other factors, the request for the designation of a new expert was made three months prior to the trial.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\i\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [41]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab By contrast, in the instant case the Appellant made the request for a substitute expert on the first day of the fact-finding hearing.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court could reasonably conclude that allowing the expert to testify would work a hardship on the opposing party and it was within the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s discretion to exclude the expert on this ground.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Accordingly, the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s exclusion of the expert was not an abuse of discretion.

\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 c.\tab }{\b\ul\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 March 9, 1999}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [42]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Finally, during the March 9, 1999 hearing, the Appellant requested, for the final time, to have Dr. Tye testify as an expert witness.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The argument was made as follows:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [I]n addition to what is different now is the Cour
t has heard testimony which it had not heard before, testimony from both Mr. and Mrs. Stinette, and Dr. Burns, and [D.A.], and we submit that in light of their testimony, this expert witness}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  opinions would be helpful to the Court in interpreting the relia
bility of the testimony, and the assertions or observations evidenced to the Court in terms of dreams, separation anxiety, suggestive questioning, repeated questions, infant memory, and adolescent memory, and on that basis we would offer Dr. Tye}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony, consistent with the exhibits that are attached, and the reasoning spelled out in our memorandum of points and authorities.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par Transcript, vol. --, p. 78 (Fact-Finding, Mar. 9, 1999).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [43]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The court denied the motion, citing Guam Rule of Evidence 702, and emphasized that admitting evidence under Rule 702 is discretionary.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Specifically, the court reasoned that:}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
(1) testimony regarding dream interpretations, child and adolescence memory, post-traumatic stress disorder, and separation anxiety was irrelevant 
as it relates to dream interpretation; (2) the court did not need an expert to assist the trier of fact to understand any evidence of the existence of post-traumatic stress disorder, assuming there was an indication of the disorder; and (3) as to separati
on anxiety, child and adolescent memory, suggestive questions and repeated questions, the court did not need an expert to interpret the evidence that has been presented.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [44]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Thus, we must decide whether the court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Tye}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s testimony on the ground that the evidence would not be helpful to interpret the evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See United States v. Recio}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 226 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir. 2000);}{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  United States v. Thomas}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 74 F.3d 676, 682 (6th Cir. 1996).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Analysis of a Rule 70
2 issue encompasses a two-part test: (1) whether the witness is qualified via knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; and (2) whether the witness}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 testimony will assist the trier of fact.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Coleman v. Parkline Corp.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 844 F.2d 863, 865 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s determination that the evidence would not aid the fact-finder in interpreting the evidence implicates the second prong of the above test.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
If a court determines that the evidence should be excluded under the second prong of the test, the court is not required to undertake an inquiry into the first prong.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See United States v. Hall}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 165 F.3d 1095, 1103, n. 4 (7th Cir. 1999).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 We thus proceed to determine whether the court properly excluded the evidence under the second prong.}{\insrsid10954767 

\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [45]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab We do not decide whether we would have excluded the testimony if we had sat as the trier of fact.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Tuncap}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1998 Guam 13 at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  12 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Trial courts have considerable discretion to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 702 and we will only reverse if the trial court abused its discretion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
See United States v. Barta}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 888 F.2d 1220, 1223 (8th Cir. 1989); }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 see also Thomas}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 74 F.3d at 682.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Dr. Tye.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [46]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Under the second prong of Rule 702, the evidence should be admitted if the testimony will assist the trier of fact to interpret the evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Coleman}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 844 at 865.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In the present case, the trier of fact was the judge, as opposed to a jury.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Sitting as the trier of fact, a trial judge is obviously more cognizant of what type of testimony would be helpful in interpreting the evidence, especially in light of the judge}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s understanding of the evidence already presented.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
A trial judge sitting as the trier of fact thus has more discretion in determining whether the particular testimony would be helpful than in a case where the trier of fact is an average jury.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Accordingly, we defer to the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s determination that in light of the judge}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s experience dealing with psychologists for over 15 years, the particular testimony offered by Dr. Tye would not assist in interpreting the evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The exclusion was not an abuse of discretion.
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 3.\tab Exclusion of Dr. Phillip Esplin}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [47]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab In a pre-fact-finding hearing on November 12, 1998, CPS made a request that Dr. Espl
in provide them with the documents the doctor planned to rely on to enable them to prepare for the doctor}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court ordered that the requested information be available within one week before the fact-finding, specifically, on or about November 19, 1998.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
On November 25, 1998, CPS notified the court that they had not yet received the requested materials.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court, on that date, ordered that the doctor send the materials by 3:00 p.m. on November 27}{
\super\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 th}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 CPS stated that they needed the materials for use during the telephonic testimony of the doctor.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 On December 3, 1998, CPS notified the court that the Appellant failed to submit the material by the date previously set by the court.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In response to the failure to comply with the previous order, the}{\insrsid6294891  court excluded the testimony.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [48]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Courts may exclude expert testimony or evidence based upon their inherent powers, not governed by rule or statute, to manage their affairs and control their docket.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Unigard Sec. Ins. Co v. Lakewood Eng}{\i\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 g & Mfg. Corp.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992)}{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (recognizing the district court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s inherent powers).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Within this inherent power lies the broad discretion to make evidentiary rulings that will facilitate the }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Id.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Particularly, the court has discretion to exclude witnesses whose presence at trial would }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 unfairly prejudice an opposing party.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Planning effective cross-examination of adversary witnesses, especially expert witnesses, is one of a trial lawyer}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s most important responsibilities in preparation for trial.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Rickett v. Hayes}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 473 S.W.2d 446, 448-49 (Ark. 1971).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 It is important that a party receive pre-trial discovery of a proposed expert}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s opinions in order to effectively prepare for cross-examination of that witness.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Thus, where a court directs a party to make 
information available regarding an expert witness, a party}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s failure to comply with the order is sufficient grounds for exclusion of that expert, especially where the inclusion of the expert will delay the proceedings.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Accordingly, the lower court did not
 abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Esplin as a sanction for the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s failure to comply with the discovery order.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [49]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab As a final note, the Appellant argues that under Guam Rule of Evidence 705, he was not required to disclose the underlying data that formed the basis of Dr. Esplin}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s argument cannot withstand scrutiny.}
{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The rule provides: 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 705.}{
\b\insrsid6294891  }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 unless the court requires otherwise.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 705 (1994) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 As pointed out above, the court did }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 otherwise require}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  that the Appellant disclose information regarding the Dr. Esplin}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 4.\tab Exclusion of Dr. Betty-Ann Burns}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [50]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab During the testimony of Dr. Burns on December 7, 1998, the court halted the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s attempts to question the witness regarding basic psychological principles.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court reasoned that the doctor was not qualified as an expert.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Because the Appellant was attempting to elicit expert testimony from a witness not so qualified, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 702 (providing that a witness may testify as an expert if he or she is so qualified and the testimony will assist the trier of fact).}{\b\ul\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 C.\tab Exclusion of a tape-recorded interview of J.A.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [51]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab On March 9, 1999, the Appellant attempted to offer into evidence a tape-recorded interview of J.A., and corresponding transcript, made by Dr. Burns.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Respondent-Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s Excerpts of Record, p. 307.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court denied its admission after objection by CPS and GAL on the ground that the evidence was not properly authenticated.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
CPS specifically stated that during the testimony of Dr. Burns on December 7, 1998, the making of the tape was discussed yet the Appellant did not attempt to introduce the tape into evidence at that time.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court agreed, ruling:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The Court will sustain the objection.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 It}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s an improper way to bring in evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 First of all you}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 re trying to bring in a transcript that has not been verified by the persons who actually were speaking in the tape, then you haven}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 t had Dr. Burns identify the tape.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 So based on the way you}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
re presenting it, that you}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 re going to offer it, it}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s improper, so the Court will not allow it at this time.}{
\insrsid10954767 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Transcript, vol. --, at p. 97 (Fact-Finding, Mar. 9, 1999).
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [52]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab CPS is correct in relying on Guam Rule of Evidence 901(a) regarding the admissibility of evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  That section provides:}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 901.}{
\b\insrsid6294891  }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Requirement of Authentication or Identification}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 . }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (a) General Provision}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent of admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  901(a) (1994).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [53]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab All evidence must be authenticated before the court can admit it into evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See id.}{\i\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Here, the court made it clear that the Appellant failed to provide any testimony regarding whether the tape or transcript was what the Appellant claimed at the time the Appellant attempted to admit the evidence.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 A review of the record reveals that there was no attempt to authenticate the evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 D.\tab The court}{\b\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s taking of judicial notice of the entire case file.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [54]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab During the March 9, 1999 hearing, the Appellant requested that the court to t
ake judicial notice of paragraph number 6 of the first PINS Stipulation and Order filed on July 15, 1997, which stated that the Appellant and CPS would endeavor to enter into a service plan agreement.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In response to this request, the GAL made a further request that the court take judicial notice of everything in the file up until that point.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The Appellant objected to GAL}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s request.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Notwithstanding, the court granted both requests.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [55]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant argues that the court improperly took judicial notice of the entire file, citing Guam Rule of Evidence 201, and specifically, Rule 201(e).}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The relevant portions of the rule are as follows:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 201.}{
\b\insrsid6294891  }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (a)}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Scope of Rule}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 . (a) Th
is Rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (b) }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Kinds of facts}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) 
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot readily be questioned.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 . . . }{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (e) }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Opportunity to be heard.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 A party is entitled }
{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 upon timely request}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  201 (1993) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [56]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The 
Appellant argues that the court erred because the court failed to give him the opportunity, as provided in Rule 201(e), to be heard on the issue of whether it was proper to take judicial notice of the entire file.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 We disagree.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In accordance with }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 201(e), a party is entitled to be heard only if a }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
timely request is made}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 A party who desires a hearing must affirmatively make a request or he will be foreclosed from challenging the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s decision on appeal.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Chen v. Metro. Ins. & Annuity Co.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 907 F.2d 566, 569 (5th Cir. 1990) (implying that whether a party properly preserved for appeal the propriety of taking judicial notice depends on if the party filed a motion requesting an opportunity to be heard.); }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
see also}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Matter of King Resources Co.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 651 F.2d 1326, 1337, n. 12 (10th Cir. 1980) (recognizing that a party can request a hearing to determine the propriety of taking judicial notice at the time the court takes notice).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Furthermore, making an objection at the time the court takes judicial notice is not enough to entitle the party to a hearing.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 21 C}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 HARLES}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  A}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 LAN}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  W}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 RIGHT}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  & A}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 RTHUR}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  R. M}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ILLER}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , F}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 EDERAL}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  P}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 RACTICE AND}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  P}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ROCEDURE}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  5109 (-- ed. 19--).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In order to obtain a hearing on the propriety of taking judicial notice, a party must request a hearing.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Rule 201(e) establishes no f
ormal requirements for the request; presumably an oral demand will suffice.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In making the request, [however,] }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
counsel should make clear that he is not simply objecting to the court}{\i\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s taking of judicial notice but is insisting on his right to a hearing}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id. }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [57]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Because the Appellant merely objected to GAL}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s request that the court take judicial notice of the file, and did not request a hearing as required under Rule 201(e), the trial court committed no error in not granting a hearing on the propriety of taking judicial notice.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Moreover, the failure to properly request a hearing under Rule 201(e) amounts to a failure to preserve the issue for appeal.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Chen}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 907 F.2d at 569}{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [58]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab It is proper to take judicial notice of court files.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In Re S.S.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 334 N.W.2d 59, 61 (S.D. 1983) (holding that in a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court did not err in taking judicial notice of prior proceedings because of the rule that }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
trial courts may take judicial notice of their own records or prior proceedings in the same case}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 However, in taking judicial notice, a court may only take judicial notice of }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 the truth of facts}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  in certain documents, including past court orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See In Re Snider Farms, Inc.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 83 B.R. 977, 986-87 (Bankr. N. D. Ind. 1988) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
As for all other submissions in the file, a court should only take judicial notice of the fact of their existence, and not the truth of the facts within.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [59]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab In the instant case, the court took judicial notice of }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}
}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 all the pleadings}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, the July 15, 1997 Stipulation & Order of the first PINS petition, and the }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 entire file}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
It is unclear whether the court merely took judicial notice of the existence of the documents in the file, as opposed the truth of the facts contained within the documents in the file.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
We do not have to make this determination, however, because even assuming the court did the latter, which would have been improper, the error was harmless.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 Guam R. Civ. P. 61.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Error is harmless if it is more probable than not th
at the error did not affect the outcome of the trial.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Caspino}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , Civ. No. 87-00065A, 1988 WL 242619, at *2 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Reviewing the oral and written Findings of Facts and Order issued in the second PINS petition, we find that while the court stated that it came to its conclusions based on numerous pieces of 
evidence including all facts judicially noticed, there was more than enough evidence presented at the fact-finding to support the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s conclusion even in the absence of the file.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Cf.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Hennegan v. Holden}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , Civ. No. 81-0072A, 1983 WL 30214, * 5 (D. Guam Ap
p. Div. Nov. 28, 1983) (holding that because the exhibit reflected and was cumulative of other admitted evidence, the admission of the exhibit was harmless error).}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 E.\tab The court}{\b\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s limit on the cross-examination of D.A.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [60]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab During the fact-finding hearing o
n February 19, 1999, the Appellant conducted a cross-examination of D.A. in which he probed into inconsistent statements made by D.A. on several occasions.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The Appellant specifically asked D.A. to explain why on one occasion he stated that he remembers specific incidents where the Appellant hit him in the groin, and a contradictory statement that D.A. made that he did not remember any specific incident.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Respondent-Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s Excerpts of Record, p. 272.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The GAL objected and requested a protective order on the ground that the Appellant was repeating questions with the purpose of harassing D.A.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court sustained the objection and issued the protective order.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court found that the D.A. was being harassed because the questions posed repeatedly took the minor}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s prior statements out of context.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [61]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab A court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s decision to limit cross-examination of a witness is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See People v. Viloria}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , Crim. No. 92-00023A, 1993 WL 470409, *4 (D. Guam App. Div. Oct 12, 1993) (citing }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 United States v. Dischner
}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 960 F.2d 870, 881 n. 12 (9th Cir. 1992), }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 cert. denied}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 113 S.Ct. 1290 (1993)).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In determining whether the court abused its discretion, reference to the Child Protective Act is necessary.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In accordance with the Act, th
e court has discretion to control the manner in which a child testifies in a child protective proceeding.}{\cs15\super\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid10954767 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid10954767  Title 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid10954767  13101(f) (1994), defines }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid10954767 child protective proceeding}{\fs20\insrsid10954767 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid10954767  as }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid10954767 
any action, hearing or other civil proceeding before the court under this Chapter.}{\fs20\insrsid10954767 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid10954767   }{\i\fs20\insrsid10954767 Id.  }{
\fs20\insrsid10954767 A fact-finding hearing is a proceeding under the chapter.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid10954767 See }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 Title}{\i\fs20\insrsid10954767  }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid10954767 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid10954767  13101(m), 13318 (1994). }}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The Act provides:}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 13311.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 (b) The court may direct that a child testify under such circumstances as the court deems to be in the best interests of the child and the furtherance of justice, which may include or be limited to an interview on the record in chambers with only those p
arties present as the court deems to be in the best interests of the child.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par Title 19 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  13311(b) (1994).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [62]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab We read this section to allow a court to limit the examination of the child if it is within the best interest of the child.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  Title 19 GCA }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 13100 (1994) (}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
This Chapter shall be liberally construed to serve the best interests of the children and the purposes set out in this Chapter.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 )}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Here, the trial court cited that the attorney}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s questioning amounted to harassment because the attorney took the child}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s past statements out of context.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Based upon a read
ing of the record, the attorney did refer to isolated and specific statements made by the child during prior interviews.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The judge presided over the hearing and heard the questions being presented, the manner by which they were being asked, as well as the points the Appellant was trying to make.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The judge was clearly in the best position to assess the situation and we thus defer to the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s judgment that the circumstances surrounding the questioning constituted harassment.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Because the court issued the protective order in an effort to protect the child from this harassment, the court was clearly looking out for the best interests of the child.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Such protection of the child was well within the discretion afforded the family court in fact-finding proceedings.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of D.A.
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 F.\tab The court}{\b\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s findings of facts. }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [63]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The court entered an oral Decision and Order in the second PINS petition on March 12, 1999.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court defined the burden of proof, explaining that the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child or children has been harmed or subject to threatened harm.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The court found that based upon the totality of the evidence, including the direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, stipulations, judicially noticed matters, and transcripts, J.A. and D.A. were persons in need of services.}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [64]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab An amended Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Order was filed on September 24, 1999, which incorporated the oral pronouncement of March 12, 1999.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In the findings of facts, the court made the following findings:}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 5.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [J. A.] has been subject to ha
rm and threat of harm while residing with his father, due to physical abuse of him by his father, in that on a number of occasions his father struck him on and about his groin using a stick or other implement, and on a number of occasions his father squee
zed his penis, both types of behavior causing pain to J.A.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 5
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 6.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
[D. A.] has been subject to harm and threat of harm while residing with his father, due to physical abuse of him by his father, in that on two oc
casions [D.] was kneed in the groin by his father, and on one of those occasions extreme pain was caused to [D. A.]. }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 6
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In the Interest of N.A.,}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  Juv. Spec. Proceeding No. JSP0306-97 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 24, 1999).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [65]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The Appellant argues that the fact-finding court relied upon }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 materially false or unreliable information}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 in rendering its findings of facts in the second PINS petition.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
He points out numerous occasions where the testimony the court accepted was contradicted by other witnesses or of which the evidence fails to support.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The Appellant cites one finding of fact, that the Appellant struck J.A. in the groin, where he asserts there is no evidence in the record of such finding.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Reliance on this evidence in making its findings, the Appellant argues, was a violation of the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s due process rights and was an abuse of discretion. 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [66]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Findings of facts made by a judge sitting as the trier of fact are reviewed for clear error.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
See Estate of Benavente v. Maquera}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 2000 Guam 9, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  7 (quoting }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Yang v. Hong}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1998 Guam 9, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 4); 
}{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 see also Craftworld Interiors, Inc. v. King Enterprises, Inc. }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 2000 Guam 17.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
A finding is clearly erroneous when, even though some evidence supports it, the entire record produces the definite and firm conviction that the court below commit a mistake.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The appellate court accords particular weight to the trial judge}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s assessment of conflicting or ambiguous evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The applicable standard of appellate review is narrow; the test is whether the lower court rationally could have found as it did, rather than whether the reviewing court would have ruled differently.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Craftworld Interior, Inc.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 2000 Guam 17 at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  6 (quoting }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Yang}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1998 Guam 9 at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  4).}{\insrsid10954767 
\par }{\insrsid6294891\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [67]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab The appellate court gives due regard to the trial court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 See Donicker Corp. v. Pittsburgh Nat}{\i\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 l Bank}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , Civ. No. 90-0072A, 1991 WL 255854 *4 (D. Guam App. Div. Nov 18, 1991) (quoting Guam R. Civ. P. 52).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 This cou
rt will not reverse if, viewing the record in its entirety, the trial court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s findings were plausible. }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Yang}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, 1998 Guam 9 at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  6 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Findings of facts are only reversible if it }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 tends to defy logic and common sense.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  7 (citation and internal quotation omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [68]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab In determining whether the lower court made clearly erroneous findings of facts, a few cases are instructive.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In }{
\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Guam Hearse and Funeral Services, Inc. v. Mendiola}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , Civ. No. 86-0009A, 1987 WL 109398 (D. Guam App. Div. Feb. 12, 1987), the plaintiff sued for money due under a promissory note.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 . at *1.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The issue was whether the promissory note contained all material terms when the defendant signed it.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The plaintiff alleged that it did, and the defendant claimed otherwise.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff, finding the plaintiff}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s story more credible.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 On appeal, citing }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.,}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1512 (1985), the appellate division affirmed, stating that where the trial court observed witnesses who gave conflicting stories, the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s findings should be given great deference.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [69]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab Similarly, in }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Coffey v. Government of Guam}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 , 1997 Guam 14, the court deferred to the trial court}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s determinations regarding credibility of witnesses.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Coffey}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, the appellant challenged the family court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s order terminating her parental rights.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id. }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 at }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  4.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In the disposition hearing below, the government bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was not able to provide a safe home for the child.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  7.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
One issue on appeal was whether the family court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 . at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  5.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
The appellant argued that the testimony provided by Dr. Richardson, Dr. Kiffer, and Mrs. Cruz, whose testimony supported termination of parental rights, was not enough to meet the burden of proof.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Further, the appellant all
eged that the trial court failed to adequately consider her testimony that she was willing and able to care for the child, as well as testimony that Mr. Coffey would take care of the child and make sure the child was not subjected to abuse if reunificatio
n with the appellant occurred.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
On appeal, the court reviewed the evidence on the record, and held that the trial court was presented with enough evidence to support the termination order, notwithstanding the mother}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s assertions that she would be able to care for the child.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court stated:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
In light of the overwhelming evidence presented in favor of termination, it was reasonable for Judge Maraman, after considering its totality, to have found that Drs. Richardson and Kiffer, and Ms. Cruz, were more convin
cing and more credible witnesses than the Respondent-Appellant and Mr. Coffey.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
That, in turn, supported a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent-Appellant could not provide a safe home for [the child].}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 We see no reason to disrupt Judge Maraman}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s factual findings; rather, we give deference to the fact that she had the opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Id.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  at }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
 19 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [70]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab In the instant case, the Appellant specifically argues that the evidence as presented revealed that he never struck the two children, J.A. and D.A., in the groin area.}{
\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In its oral Decision and Order, the court explained the evidence that the findings of fact were based upon.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Specifically, the court found that the Appellant hit D.A. in the groin on two occasions and J.A. on one occasion.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 In regard to D.A., the court relied on the following evidence:}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 (1) Dr. Burns}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  testimony that D.A. told the doctor that the Appellant struck him in the groin area twice, (2) Dr. Burns}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 
'}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  testimony that one of D.A.}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s two sisters corroborated the allegations that the father struck D.A. in the groin; (3) D.A.}{
\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony that on one occasion the Appellant kneed him or kicked him on the }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 side}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
, as corroborated by a statement that D.A. made on this occasion, }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
You better not do this to me again or I}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ll tell somebody}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 ; and (4) D.A.}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s testimony that on another occasion, he stated that }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 My penis had been hit by [the Appellant}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s] knee}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 .}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
We find that this evidence is sufficient for the family court to determine that Appellant hit D.A. in the groin area on two occasions.
\par }{\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [71]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab One issue of contention is the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s reliance on Dr. Burns}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  testimony that J.A. told him that Appellant squished his bottom.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The Appellant asserts that the doctor never gave this testimony.}{\insrsid6294891  }{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 However, the record does reveal that one witness, Ms. Stinette, offered testimony that would support the conclusion that the Appellant touched J.A.}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
s bottom.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 The court, in its findings of facts, also relied upon the testimony by Ms. Stinette.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Thus, the record does contain evidence by which the court could find that the Appellant hit J.A. in the groin area.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [72]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab 
Based on all the testimony the court relied upon, which are part of the record and which the court was at liberty to accord due weight, the findings of fact were supported by the evidence.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Thus, the trial court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s findings of facts were not clearly erroneous.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 IV.}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\b\insrsid6294891 
\par }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 [73]}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 \tab We find that the lower court did not commit error in proceeding with the second PINS petition.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 
Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings made prior to and during the fact-finding hearing.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Finally, the court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s findings of facts were supported by the evidence and were thus not clearly erroneous.}{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Accordingly, we }{\b\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 AFFIRM}{
\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891  the lower court}{\insrsid9451953\charrsid6294891 '}{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 s decision.}{\insrsid6294891 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 JOHN A. MANGLONA\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 JOHN B. MAHER
\par Designated Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid6294891  }{\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Justice }{\i\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid6294891 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6294891 {\insrsid10954767\charrsid6294891 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR.
\par Chief Justice (Acting)
\par }}