1. Whether the admission of expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), which by the expert's own admission cannot determine whether abuse occured, violated the Petitioner 's constitutional rights by prejudicing the jury and improperly bolstering the credibility of the complaining witness.

2. Whether the trial court erredby relying heavily on testimony that lacked probative value while dismissing or minimizing important exculpatory evidence, including the complainant's initial denial of abuse, inconsistencies in her accounts, and the presence of multiple adults in the shared household-making the allegations implausible.

3. Whether the alleged incident was fabricated in retaliation for the Petitioner's act of reporting the complainant's mothet] for engaging in an extramarital affair, providing a clear motive to harm the Petitioner's credibility and future.

Whether the admission of expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights by prejudicing the jury and improperly bolstering the credibility of the complaining witness