In re T.L.

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal was accepted in this case on Proposition of Law No. I and held for the decision in State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-2742, 933 N.E.2d 775.

{¶ 2} We are unable to determine from the court of appeals’ opinion whether the juvenile court erroneously admitted statements by the child victim to child advocacy center employees. It is uncertain whether the statements were made for forensic or medical purposes and, if the statements were made for forensic purposes, whether their admission was harmless error. Accordingly, the portion of the court of appeals’…