A. In any civil proceeding involving alleged abuse or neglect of a child pursuant to this chapter or pursuant to § 16.1-241, 16.1-251, 16.1-252, 16.1-253, 16.1-283, or 20-107.2, an out-of-court statement made by a child 14 years of age or younger at the time the statement is offered into evidence, describing any act of a sexual nature performed with or on the child by another, not otherwise admissible by statute or rule, may be admissible in evidence if the requirements of subsection B are met.
B. An out-of-court statement may be admitted into evidence as provided in subsection A if:
1. The child testifies at the proceeding, or testifies by means of a videotaped deposition or closed-circuit television, and at the time of such testimony is subject to cross-examination concerning the out-of-court statement or the child is found by the court to be unavailable to testify on any of these grounds:
a. The child's death;
b. The child's absence from the jurisdiction, provided such absence is not for the purpose of preventing the availability of the child to testify;
c. The child's total failure of memory;
d. The child's physical or mental disability;
e. The existence of a privilege involving the child;
f. The child's incompetency, including the child's inability to communicate about the offense because of fear or a similar reason; and
g. The substantial likelihood, based upon expert opinion testimony, that the child would suffer severe emotional trauma from testifying at the proceeding or by means of a videotaped deposition or closed-circuit television.
2. The child's out-of-court statement is shown to possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability.
C. A statement may not be admitted under this section unless the proponent of the statement notifies the adverse party of his intention to offer the statement and the substance of the statement sufficiently in advance of the proceedings to provide the adverse party with a reasonable opportunity to prepare to meet the statement, including the opportunity to subpoena witnesses.
D. In determining whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability under subdivision B 2, the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:
1. The child's personal knowledge of the event;
2. The age and maturity of the child;
3. Certainty that the statement was made, including the credibility of the person testifying about the statement and any apparent motive such person may have to falsify or distort the event including bias, corruption, or coercion;
4. Any apparent motive the child may have to falsify or distort the event, including bias, corruption, or coercion;
5. The timing of the child's statement;
6. Whether more than one person heard the statement;
7. Whether the child was suffering pain or distress when making the statement;
8. Whether the child's age makes it unlikely that the child fabricated a statement that represents a graphic, detailed account beyond the child's knowledge and experience;
9. Whether the statement has internal consistency or coherence, and uses terminology appropriate to the child's age;
10. Whether the statement is spontaneous or directly responsive to questions;
11. Whether the statement is responsive to suggestive or leading questions; and
12. Whether extrinsic evidence exists to show the defendant's opportunity to commit the act complained of in the child's statement.
E. The court shall support with findings on the record, or with written findings in a court not of record, any rulings pertaining to the child's unavailability and the trustworthiness and reliability of the out-of-court statement.
1988, c. 892, § 63.1-248.13:2; 2002, c. 747; 2019, c. 413.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case:
Snowden v. State, 846 A.2d 36 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004).
Snowden v. State, 846 A.2d 36 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004).
“803(25); Va.Code Ann. § 63.2-1522 (2003); Wash Rev.”
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 48× “Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
Andre Morman, Sr. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 28× “Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) denying his motion to continue and his “motion objecting to the admission of statement(s) and/or video-taped statement(s) into evidence pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 63.2-1522 and 1523;” (2) overruling his objections and…”
Faye Ferrell v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 25× “Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the child regarding alleged sex abuse under Code § 63.2-1522, and specifically that (1) the testimony did not meet the indicia of reliability and safeguards required under the statute and (2) the…”
B.W. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Code § 63.2-1522 allows a trial court to admit out-of-court statements made by a child under twelve in civil proceedings involving abuse and neglect when the court finds that the child is unavailable to testify and that the statements being offered “possess particularized…”
Hans Phillip Olson v. Colleen Catherine Conlon (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “was unavailable prior to admitting the notes pursuant to Code § 63.2-1522. A. In any civil proceeding involving alleged abuse or neglect of a child .”
Minor Child v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. 210 (Ark. 2025).
“804A; Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522 . 8 any confusion or misapprehension” left by the defense’s cross-examination of a minor victim); Doucoure v.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(A) — 3 cases
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
Faye Ferrell v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the child regarding alleged sex abuse under Code § 63.2-1522, and specifically that (1) the testimony did not meet the indicia of reliability and safeguards required under the statute and (2) the…”
Andre Morman, Sr. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) denying his motion to continue and his “motion objecting to the admission of statement(s) and/or video-taped statement(s) into evidence pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 63.2-1522 and 1523;” (2) overruling his objections and…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(B) — 4 cases
Faye Ferrell v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the child regarding alleged sex abuse under Code § 63.2-1522, and specifically that (1) the testimony did not meet the indicia of reliability and safeguards required under the statute and (2) the…”
Andre Morman, Sr. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) denying his motion to continue and his “motion objecting to the admission of statement(s) and/or video-taped statement(s) into evidence pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 63.2-1522 and 1523;” (2) overruling his objections and…”
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(B)(1) — 3 cases
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
Faye Ferrell v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the child regarding alleged sex abuse under Code § 63.2-1522, and specifically that (1) the testimony did not meet the indicia of reliability and safeguards required under the statute and (2) the…”
Andre Morman, Sr. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) denying his motion to continue and his “motion objecting to the admission of statement(s) and/or video-taped statement(s) into evidence pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 63.2-1522 and 1523;” (2) overruling his objections and…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(B)(1)(g) — 1 case
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(B)(2) — 4 cases
Faye Ferrell v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the child regarding alleged sex abuse under Code § 63.2-1522, and specifically that (1) the testimony did not meet the indicia of reliability and safeguards required under the statute and (2) the…”
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
Andre Morman, Sr. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) denying his motion to continue and his “motion objecting to the admission of statement(s) and/or video-taped statement(s) into evidence pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 63.2-1522 and 1523;” (2) overruling his objections and…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(C) — 2 cases
Andre Morman, Sr. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) denying his motion to continue and his “motion objecting to the admission of statement(s) and/or video-taped statement(s) into evidence pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 63.2-1522 and 1523;” (2) overruling his objections and…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(D) — 3 cases
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
Faye Ferrell v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the child regarding alleged sex abuse under Code § 63.2-1522, and specifically that (1) the testimony did not meet the indicia of reliability and safeguards required under the statute and (2) the…”
B.W. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“Code § 63.2-1522 allows a trial court to admit out-of-court statements made by a child under twelve in civil proceedings involving abuse and neglect when the court finds that the child is unavailable to testify and that the statements being offered “possess particularized…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1522(E) — 3 cases
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“Mother contends that the language of Code § 63.2-1522 uses the word “statement” in the singular form, indicating “the legislature’s intent that each disclosure be analyzed separately.”
B.W. v. Richmond Dep't of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“Code § 63.2-1522 allows a trial court to admit out-of-court statements made by a child under twelve in civil proceedings involving abuse and neglect when the court finds that the child is unavailable to testify and that the statements being offered “possess particularized…”
Faye Ferrell v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the child regarding alleged sex abuse under Code § 63.2-1522, and specifically that (1) the testimony did not meet the indicia of reliability and safeguards required under the statute and (2) the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.