and (2) “there were pending criminal charges against [Respondent] for sexually exposing himself to minors and allegedly molesting a nine year old girl in Texas County near the time of the dissolution.” Without citing a single case in support of (1) or (2), Appellant simply proclaims that exclusion of this relevant evidence was reversible error. As to (1), the trial court sustained Respondent’s hearsay objection. “Hearsay is a statement of another, reported in court by a witness, who offers it to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.” In Interest of A.M.K., 723 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo.App.1986). Without question, Appellant offered the rejected evidence for the truth of what the mothers told her. The evidence was not admissible. See C.R.K v. H.J.K., 672 S.W.2d 696 (Mo.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). As to (2), the trial court sustained
holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses holding that the opinion testimony of a guardian ad litem and the hearsay incorporated therein were erroneously admitted holding that the court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from adults concerning a childs statements to them regarding her fathers sexual abuse holding that testimony of childs mother during temporarycustody probablecause bearing regarding defendant fathers shaking of child where defendant proceeded without counsel was admissible under hearsay exception for former testimony because the defendants motive to develop the testimony in the chancery case was very similar to his motive in the criminal case ie to avoid any implications of child abuse holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas