or her and the therapist has a resultant incentive to diagnose and treat carefully and competently. Furthermore, the risks to the parent of a misdiagnosis of parental alienation do not rise to the level of criminal repercussions or even termination of parental rights, such as those associated with an accusation of sexual abuse. A false allegation against a parent of child sexual abuse can cause substantial injury. See, e.g., Montoya v. Bebensee, 761 P.2d 285, 288 (Colo.App.1988); Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166, 1170 (2000) (noting that being "falsely accused of sexual abuse is undoubtedly a substantial harm, a harm which is readily foreseeable"); Heather J. Rhoades, Zamstein v. Marvasti: Is A Duty Owed To Alleged Child Sexual Abusers?, 30 Conn. L.Rev. 1411, 1412 (1998) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Thomas M. Horner & Melvin J. Guyer,
holding that the fouching for the purposes of abuse language in section 1834014 means touching for the purposes of sexual abuse not abuse in general holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse recognizing that the climate surrounding child sexual abuse is such that allegations alone are quickly raised to the status of evidence signifying abuse holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse