See also Dwyer, Candelora, & Zirk
Chase v. Chase (1993), Findings of fact and conclusions of law, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Probate and Family Court No. 91E0078, Attleboro District Court No. 9134 RO 639
Commonwealth v. Cappas, 1993, Memorandum and order, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court no.s 92-2287-89, 92-2303-04
DSS ex. rel. Jenny S. v. Mark S., 156 Misc 2d 393, 593 NYS 2d 142 (NY Fam. Ct. 1993)
A New York family court held that a child with autism, who was an alleged victim of sexual abuse, would not be permitted to testify through facilitated communication because the technique is not generally accepted within the scientific community (the Frye test)
The case is also abstracted in Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, July-Aug 1993, 17, 4, 385
E.M. v. Millville Board of Education, 849 F. Supp, 312 (D.N.J. 1994)
Special education litigation; cited in Zirk's Phi Beta Kappan article, q.v. Does not mention FC by name, just as 'an alternative teaching methodology' whose use was successfully negotiated by parents.
In the Matter of Anne Therese McDonald and In the Matter of the Public Trustee Act 1958, Supreme Court of Victoria, 25 September 1979, Unreported case
In The Matter of Luz P., 189 App. Div. 2d 274, 595 NYS 2d 541 (1993) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division
The test for the court in these cases is a pragmatic one. Can the interpreter, or in this case the facilitator, effectively communicate with the witness and reliably convey the witness's answers to the court? A determiantion of these questions does not corequire expert testimony. To the contrary, the proferred facilitated communication lends itself to empirical rather than scientific proof.
In The Matter of M. Z. , et al. 155 Misc. 2d. 564, 590 NYS 2d 390 (Fam Ct 1992) (Onondaga County, Sep. 14, 1992, Buck, J.)
John T. P. Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit No. 13, 22 IDELR 104 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
Kansas v. Warden, (State of Kansas v. Marc R. Warden) F. 2d 1995 WL 97443 (Kan.) (Supreme Court of Kansas)
Appeal of conviction for sexual abuse with some evidence proffered by FC. Kansas Supreme Court held that Frye did not apply to FC, which was a matter of fact for the determination of the jury. R. v. Health Commission of Victoria, ex parte Anne McDonald, Supreme Court of Victoria, 17 May 1979, unreported case
Laumaili v S, 1994 NZFLR 413-422 (District Court, Judge Frater)
Held (making a declaration that M was in need of care and protection) ... The validity of the evidence produced by facilitated communication was accepted, particularly having regard to the distinctive language used by M in her answers which was consistent with the language and style she used in her written work.
People v. Webb, 157 Misc 2d. 474, 597 NYS 2d 565, (Co. Ct. 1993)
I would very much appreciate any suggestions for additions to this bibliography. I can be reached by e-mail at cborthwick@vichealth.vic.gov.au.
Back to Contents page
Back to Facilitated Communication Training page
Back to DEAL Communication Centre page