(1) In this child sexual assault case the trial court did not err by admitting testimony from the victim’s therapist. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the therapist’s testimony constituted impermissible vouching for the victim’s credibility. The therapist specialized in working with children who have been sexually abused; she performed an assessment and used trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TFCBT) to help treat the victim. During treatment the victim talked about the sexual misconduct, how she felt, and wrote a “trauma narrative” describing what had happened. The court noted that the defendant was unable to point to any portion of the therapist’s testimony where she opined that the victim was in fact sexually abused by the defendant or stated that sexual abuse did in fact occur. Rather, the therapist explained how TFCBT is used to help treat sexual abuse victims and described therapeutic techniques that she employs in her treatment. She testified that the victim had symptoms consistent with trauma, and explained the process and purpose of writing a trauma narrative. The court found that her explanation laid the foundation for the State to introduce the victim’s trauma narrative, which included her written statement about what happened to her. It noted that the narrative was introduced solely for the purpose of corroborating the victim’s testimony. It added, “[t]he mere fact that [the therapist’s] testimony supports [the victim’s] credibility does not render it inadmissible.” (2) The trial court did not err by allowing a nurse practitioner to testify that she recommended the victim for therapy despite finding no physical evidence of abuse, and that she referred to the victim’s mother as the “non-offending” caregiver. The defendant argued that this testimony impermissibly bolstered the victim’s credibility and constituted opinion evidence as to guilt. The court noted that the nurse never asserted that the victim had been sexually abused or explicitly commented on her credibility. Rather, her testimony simply recounted what she did at the conclusion of her examination of the victim and was within the permissible range of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. As to her use of the term non-offending caregiver, the witness explained that her organization uses that term to refer to the person with whom the child will be going home and that any parent or caregiver suspected of being an offender is not allowed in the center. The court noted that the witness never testified that the defendant was an offending caregiver.