type of home in which many abused children live, such information does not educate the jury about certain misconceptions the public may hold, nor does it rehabilitate the child once the child’s credibility is at issue as a result of his or her apparent inconsistent conduct. Dr. Gos-lin’s proffered profile testimony was offered simply to prove the commission of a crime, and, as such, it should have been declared inadmissible. Moreover, Dr. Goslin did not testify about any studies comparing homes of children who were known to have been molested with homes of children who had not been molested. If such studies exist, they could conceivably qualify the profile as an accurate predictor of child sexual abuse. Cf. In re Sara M., 194 Cal.App.3d 585, 593, 239 Cal.Rptr. 605, 610-11 (Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>); Seering v. Department of Social Servs. of
holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served holding wife unreasonably exposed neighbors children to danger because she invited the children over in spite of knowing her husband had molested children in the past holding that proper foundation existed for qualified experts testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome where expert had extensive training and experience with sexually abused children expert testified regarding the characteristics of the syndrome and its recognition by specific agencies and defense counsel rigorously crossexamined witness concerning the basis of her knowledge of the victims conduct holding that kellyfrye precludes the introduction of generalized syndrome testimony during the states caseinchief for the purpose of demonstrating that the particular child had been abused in that the experts knew of no studies comparing the reactions of children known to be molested with those who claim to be molested or those who were not molested holding that a wife who invited and encouraged children to visit her premises even though she knew that husband had molested women and children in the past and might do so again could be held liable in negligence