a child’s accusations of sexual abuse is improper. State v. Dawkins, 297 S.C. 386, 393-94, 377 S.E.2d 298, 302 (1989) (finding therapist indicating he believed victim’s allegations were genuine was improper); see also State v. Dempsey, 340 S.C. 565, 571, 532 S.E.2d 306, 309 (Ct.App.2000) (finding therapist’s testimony children were being truthful in ninety-five percent of instances in which sexual abuse was alleged was improper vouching for child). In the instant case, Father made no contemporaneous objection when Dr. Reyes testified Child had no reason to make a false allegation and Child did not appear to have been coached. Consequently, any error regarding those specific comments as to truthfulness is not preserved. See State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) (<HOLDING>). However, Father did object to Dr. Reyes’
holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review holding a contem poraneous objection is required at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial