933 S.W.2d 1 (1996)

S.V., Petitioner,
v.
R.V., Respondent.

No. 94-0856.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued February 8, 1996. Decided March 14, 1996. Rehearing Overruled November 15, 1996. Concurring Opinion November 15, 1996. Concurring Opinion on Rehearing November 15, 1996.

*2 Joann N. Wilkins, David M. Weaver, Dallas, for Petitioner.

Mike Patterson, Tyler, Jam Ferguson, Austin, for respondent.

Concurring Opinion by Justice Cornyn November 15, 1996.

Concurring Opinion on Rehearing by Justice Gonzalez November 15, 1996.

*3 HECHT, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court in which PHILLIPS, Chief Justice, and ENOCH, SPECTOR, BAKER and ABBOTT, Justices, join.

R. intervened in her parents' divorce proceeding, alleging that her father, S., was negligent by sexually abusing her until she was seventeen years old. (Given the sensitive nature of these allegations, we refer to the parties only by initials to avoid the use of proper names.) Because R. did not sue her father within two years of her eighteenth birthday as required by the applicable statutes of limitations, her action is barred as a matter of law unless the discovery rule permits her to sue within two years of when she knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged abuse. R. contends that the discovery rule should apply in this case because she repressed all memory of her father's abuse until about a month after she turned twenty, some three months before she intervened in the divorce action. The district court directed a verdict against R. on the grounds that the discovery rule does not apply in this case, and that R. adduced no evidence of abuse. A divided court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. 880 S.W.2d 804. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the district court on limitations grounds.

I

Before we review the evidence in this case it is important to have clearly in mind the issue that is crucial in determining whether to apply the discovery rule. To pose that issue we begin with an analysis of our discovery rule jurisprudence.

We have long recognized the salutary purpose of statutes of limitations. In Gautier v. Franklin, 1 Tex. 732, 739 (1847), we wrote that statutes of limitations

are justly held "as statutes of repose to quiet titles, to suppress frauds, and to supply the deficiencies of proof arising from the ambiguity, obscurity and antiquity of transactions. They proceed upon the presumption that claims are extinguished, or ought to be held extinguished whenever they are not litigated in the proper forum at the prescribed period. They take away all solid ground of complaint, because they rest on the negligence or laches of the party himself; they quicken diligence by making it in some measure equivalent to right...." [Joseph P. Story, Conflicts of Law 482.]

More recently, we explained:

Limitations statutes afford plaintiffs what the legislature deems a reasonable time to present their claims and protect defendants and the courts from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth may be seriously impaired by the loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading memories, disappearance of documents or otherwise. The purpose of a statute of limitations is to establish a point of repose and to terminate stale claims.

Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Tex.1990).

The enactment of statutes of limitations is, of course, the prerogative of the Legislature. At the time this case was filed and tried, the applicable statute was the one governing personal injury actions generally, which provided: "A person must bring suit for ... personal injury ... not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues." Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 959, § 1, 1985 Tex.Gen.Laws 3242, 3252, formerly codified as Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a). The code contains two other provisions relevant to this case. One is: "If a person entitled to bring a personal action is under a legal disability when the cause of action accrues, the time of the disability is not included in the limitations period." Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.001(b). The other is: "For the purposes of this subchapter, a person is under a legal disability if the person is: (1) younger than 18 years of age...." Id. § 16.001(a). Thus, a person has until his or her twentieth birthday (or the next business day, id. § 16.072) to bring suit for personal injury from sexual assault if—and here we come to the root of the problem in the case before us—the cause of action "accrued" while the person was a minor.

*4 In 1995, the Legislature enacted a special five-year statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases: "A person must bring suit for personal injury not later than five years after the day the cause of action accrues if the injury arises as a result of conduct that violates: (1) Section 22.011, Penal Code (sexual assault); or (2) Section 22.021, Penal Code (aggravated sexual assault." Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.0045(a); Act of May 27, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 739, 1995 Tex.Gen.Laws 3850. This new statute was not enacted until long after the present case was filed and tried and therefore does not govern. Raley v. Wichita County, 123 Tex. 494, 72 S.W.2d 577, 579 (1934). We mention it here to point out that under both the new statute and its predecessor, the prescribed period begins to run on the day the cause of action "accrues".

Many other statutes peg the beginning of the limitations period on the date the cause of action "accrues". Occasionally the date of accrual is defined. E.g., TEX.CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 16.003(b) (a wrongful death cause of action "accrues on the death of the injured person"). More often, however, the definition of accrual is not prescribed by statute and thus has been left to the courts. As a rule, we have held that a cause of action accrues when a wrongful act causes some legal injury, even if the fact of injury is not discovered until later, and even if all resulting damages have not yet occurred. Trinity River Auth. v. URS Consultants, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tex.1994); Quinn v. Press, 135 Tex. 60, 140 S.W.2d 438, 440 (1940). We have not applied this rule without exception, however, and have sometimes held that an action does not accrue until the plaintiff knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the wrongful act and resulting injury. Trinity River Auth., 889 S.W.2d at 262. (Deferring accrual and thus delaying the commencement of the limitations period is distinct from suspending or tolling the running of limitations once the period has begun.)

We first referred to this exception as the "discovery rule" in Gaddis v. Smith, 417 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.1967). We have sometimes used the phrase to refer generally to all instances in which accrual is deferred, including fraud and fraudulent concealment. Williams v. Khalaf, 802 S.W.2d 651, 657 (Tex.1990) (citing a case that "involved the `discovery rule' since there was a claim of fraudulent concealment"); Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex. 1990) (citing fraud case as one in which discovery rule applied). See also Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18, 24 n. 2 (Tex.1977) (Pope, J., dissenting) ("The `discovery rule' applies in actions based on fraud ... and fraudulent concealment in medical malpractice cases...."). At other times we have distinguished between fraudulent concealment and the discovery rule. Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.1988) (besides asserting the discovery rule, plaintiff also alleged that fraudulent concealment tolled limitations); Weaver v. Witt, 561 S.W.2d 792, 793-794 (Tex.1977) (per curiam) (noting that if defendant moves for summary judgment on limitations, the burden of proving fraudulent concealment to avoid summary judgment is on the plaintiff, but the burden of proving the date plaintiff knew or should have known of injury to obtain summary judgment is on defendant); Nichols v. Smith, 507 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex.1974) (noting that plaintiff asserted fraudulent concealment only and not the discovery rule). See also Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 831 (Spears, J., dissenting) ("Fraudulent concealment gives rise to another such practical exception [besides the discovery rule] to the injury based rule of accrual."); Moreno, 787 S.W.2d at 367 n. 6 (Doggett, J., dissenting) (referring to "common-law tolling principles such as the doctrine of fraudulent concealment and the discovery rule.") Strictly speaking, the cases in which we have deferred accrual of causes of action for limitations purposes fall into two categories: those involving fraud and fraudulent concealment, and all others. The deferral of accrual in the latter cases is properly referred to as the discovery rule. We observe the distinction between the two categories because each is characterized by different substantive and procedural rules. Weaver, 561 S.W.2d at 793-794. See American Petrofina, Inc. v. Allen, 887 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.1994); Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex.1988).

*5 We have considered the applicability of the deferred accrual exception to the legal injury rule in an assortment of settings. See Willis, 760 S.W.2d at 646 (attorney malpractice in drafting divorce decree led to forced partition of home; held discovery rule applies when lawyer's expertise and client's ignorance of the law make wrong undiscoverable); Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918, 923 (Tex.1984) (child born with muscular dystrophy after doctor informed parents that mother did not carry muscular dystrophy gene; held statute precluding discovery rule was unconstitutional); Weaver, 561 S.W.2d at 794 (negligently performed hemorrhoidectomy damaged plaintiff's rectal nerves and muscles, causing loss of bowel control; held doctor's affidavit of last examination date was insufficient to negate discovery rule); Robinson, 550 S.W.2d at 22 (misdiagnosis when one disc repaired and another later removed; held discovery rule did not apply when fact of injury was unclear and no physical evidence established negligence); Kelley v. Rinkle, 532 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tex.1976) (false and libelous credit report unsuspected until plaintiff refused credit; held discovery rule applies despite strong counterargument based on "intangible nature of the evidence and of the injury"); Nichols, 507 S.W.2d at 519-520 (nerves severed during operation and plaintiff assured that nerves would heal, and plaintiff's digestive disorders attributable to mistake; held accrual not delayed because fraudulent concealment not shown and discovery rule not alleged); Hays v. Hall, 488 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex.1972) (negligence in performing vasectomy confirmed by subsequent pregnancy; held discovery rule applies); Gaddis, 417 S.W.2d at 580 (foreign object left in patient's body during surgery; held discovery rule applies); International Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Holloway, 368 S.W.2d 567, 580 (Tex.1963) (corporate officers and directors engaged in self-dealing, received commissions on stock sales, and sold personal shares of corporate stock in competition with corporation's own offerings; held accrual was delayed for property sale and commissions, and fact issue existed as to whether personal stock sales were discoverable by board); Slay v. Burnett Trust, 143 Tex. 621, 187 S.W.2d 377, 394 (1945) (secret dealings by trustee who conceded application of discovery rule; held facts did not alert beneficiary to delve into transactions); Ruebeck v. Hunt, 142 Tex. 167, 176 S.W.2d 738, 740 (1943) (use of inferior, noncomplying felt under roof shingles, spaced too far apart, discovered only when roof completely torn up; held fraud delayed accrual because roof and felt were invisible from ground and because homeowner trusted general contractor to inspect); Quinn, 140 S.W.2d at 441 (loan contract fraud discovered, but suit not brought until remedies under contract exhausted; held fraud action accrues from time of discovery, not when damages ascertained with certainty); Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. Beaumont Rice Mills, 105 Tex. 514, 143 S.W. 926, 929 (1912) (fraud in chattel mortgage admitted; held discovery rule applies when plaintiff did not and could not have discovered defendant's representations were false); Houston Water-Works Co. v. Kennedy, 70 Tex. 233, 8 S.W. 36, 38 (1888) (property damage to building; held discovery rule did not apply); Rowe v. Horton, 65 Tex. 89, 92 (1885) (mutual mistake in land conveyance; held even if discovery rule applied, plaintiff did not show due diligence); Kuhlman v. Baker, 50 Tex. 630, 637 (1879) (land fraud in giving an illiterate a quitclaim deed representing it as warranty deed; held while fraud tolls limitations, plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in discovering fraud); Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool, 813 S.W.2d 658, 679 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1991), writ granted, 35 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 674 (Apr. 29, 1992), writ denied as improvidently granted, 36 Tex. Sup.Ct.J. 162 (Nov. 11, 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 909, 113 S.Ct. 2339, 124 L.Ed.2d 250, 509 U.S. 923, 113 S.Ct. 3037, 125 L.Ed.2d 724, 509 U.S. 933, 113 S.Ct. 3064, 125 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993) (report stated plaintiff's chest x-ray consistent with asbestosis, but plaintiff was not informed of the report; held discovery rule applied); Turner v. PV Int'l Corp., 765 S.W.2d 455, 468 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1988), writ denied per curiam, 778 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.1989) (extramarital affair admitted in alienation of affections suit; held discovery rule applied).

The justifications we have offered for deferring accrual have been diverse, somewhat *6 inconsistent, and often overly broad. Fraud, we have said, in and of itself prevents running of the statute of limitations, e.g., Ruebeck, 176 S.W.2d at 739; Port Arthur Rice Milling, 143 S.W. at 929, as does fraudulent concealment, e.g., Nichols v. Smith, 507 S.W.2d 518, 519-520 (Tex.1974); Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex.1979); Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907, 908-909 (Tex.1983). We have applied the discovery rule because of a special relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. E.g., Willis, 760 S.W.2d at 645-646 (attorney and client); Slay, 187 S.W.2d at 388-393 (trustee and beneficiary). Even apart from such a relationship, we have indicated that the discovery rule applies when it is otherwise difficult for the injured party to learn of the wrongful act. Gaddis, 417 S.W.2d at 580 (leaving surgical sponge in plaintiff's body). We have characterized barring claims before plaintiffs knew they had them "shocking results". Id. at 581. On the other hand, we have observed:

Statutes of limitations are not directed to the merits of any individual case, they are a result of legislative assessment of the merits of cases in general. The fact that a meritorious claim might thereby be rendered nonassertible is an unfortunate, occasional by-product of the operation of limitations. All statutes of limitations provide some time period during which the cause of action is assertible. However, preclusion of a legal remedy alone is not enough to justify a judicial exception to the statute. The primary purpose of limitations, to prevent litigation of stale or fraudulent claims, must be kept in mind.

Robinson, 550 S.W.2d at 20. A principal factor in deciding whether to apply the discovery rule has been to what extent the claim was objectively verifiable. E.g., Gaddis, 417 S.W.2d at 581 (leaving a surgical sponge in a body "is a peculiar type of case which is not particularly susceptible to fraudulent prosecution"); Robinson, 550 S.W.2d at 21 ("Unlike Gaddis v. Smith there exists in the present case [alleging misdiagnosis of herniated intervertebral disc] no physical evidence which in-and-of-itself establishes the negligence of some person."); Kelly, 532 S.W.2d at 949 (credit defamation clear from written report).

While the language in the opinions in these cases varies, a general principle unites them. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.1996). Accrual of a cause of action is deferred in two types of cases. In one type, those involving allegations of fraud or fraudulent concealment, accrual is deferred because a person cannot be permitted to avoid liability for his actions by deceitfully concealing wrongdoing until limitations has run. The other type, in which the discovery rule applies, comprises those cases in which "the nature of the injury incurred is inherently undiscoverable and the evidence of injury is objectively verifiable." Id. at 456. These two elements of inherent undiscoverability and objective verifiability balance the conflicting policies in statutes of limitations: the benefits of precluding stale or spurious claims versus the risks of precluding meritorious claims that happen to fall outside an arbitrarily set period. Restated, the general principle is this: accrual of a cause of action is deferred in cases of fraud or in which the wrongdoing is fraudulently concealed, and in discovery rule cases in which the alleged wrongful act and resulting injury were inherently undiscoverable at the time they occurred but may be objectively verified. This principle, while not expressed in every deferred accrual case, is derived from them and best defines when the exception to the legal injury rule has been and should be applied.

We have considered the "inherently undiscoverable" element of the discovery rule in several cases. Willis, 760 S.W.2d at 645 (lawyer's error could not be discovered by client who was ignorant of the law); Nelson, 678 S.W.2d at 923 (malpractice in muscular dystrophy gene screening could not be discovered by parents until child showed symptoms); Kelley, 532 S.W.2d at 949 (false credit report could not be discovered until credit denied); Hays, 488 S.W.2d at 414 ("One who undergoes a vasectomy ... and then after tests is told that he is sterile, cannot know that he is still fertile ... until either his wife becomes pregnant or he is shown to be fertile by further testing."); Gaddis, 417 S.W.2d *7 at 578 ("it is often difficult, if not impossible, to discover that a foreign object has been left within the body within the statutory period of limitation"); International Bankers, 368 S.W.2d at 580-581 (disinterested directors could not discover certain corporate self-dealing); Ruebeck, 176 S.W.2d at 739 (homeowner could not discover faulty construction of roof); Sherman v. Sipper, 137 Tex. 85, 152 S.W.2d 319, 321-322 (Tex.1941) (allegedly fraudulent deed was available for perusal by attorney of illiterate plaintiff); Houston Water-Works, 8 S.W. at 37 (cut into plaintiff's building not discoverable until walls cracked). The common thread in these cases is that when the wrong and injury were unknown to the plaintiff because of their very nature and not because of any fault of the plaintiff, accrual of the cause of action was delayed.

To be "inherently undiscoverable", an injury need not be absolutely impossible to discover, else suit would never be filed and the question whether to apply the discovery rule would never arise. Nor does "inherently undiscoverable" mean merely that a particular plaintiff did not discover his injury within the prescribed period of limitations; discovery of a particular injury is dependent not solely on the nature of the injury but on the circumstances in which it occurred and plaintiff's diligence as well. An injury is inherently undiscoverable if it is by nature unlikely to be discovered within the prescribed limitations period despite due diligence. Computer Associates, 918 S.W.2d at 456.

We have also considered the "objectively verifiable" element of the rule in a number of cases. In Gaddis, a patient claimed that her doctors were negligent in leaving a sponge inside her body after surgery. The presence of the sponge in her body—the injury—and the explanation for how it got there—the wrongful act—were beyond dispute. The facts upon which liability was asserted were demonstrated by direct, physical evidence. In contrast, Robinson involved a claim by a patient against his doctors for misdiagnosis of his back condition. We summarized the issue this way:

Plaintiff, to prove his cause of action, faces the burden of proving both a mistake in professional judgment and that such mistake was negligent. Expert testimony would be required. Physical evidence generally is not available when the primary issue relevant to liability concerns correctness of past judgment. Unlike Gaddis v. Smith there exists in the present case no physical evidence which in-and-of-itself establishes the negligence of some person. What physical evidence was to the cause of action alleged in Gaddis v. Smith, expert testimony is to the cause of action in the present case. Even the fact of injury is a matter of expert testimony.

550 S.W.2d at 21. Expert testimony, we concluded, did not supply the objective verification of wrong and injury necessary for application of the discovery rule.

We have adhered to the requirement of objective verification fairly consistently in our discovery rule cases, although we have not always emphasized the requirement because the alleged injury was indisputable. Willis, 760 S.W.2d at 643 (attorney's error apparent in divorce decree); Nelson, 678 S.W.2d at 923 (child born with muscular dystrophy after doctor informed parents that mother did not carry muscular dystrophy gene); Weaver, 561 S.W.2d at 793 (negligent hemorrhoidectomy damaged nerves and muscles of plaintiff's rectum, causing loss of bowel control); Robinson, 550 S.W.2d at 21-22 (misdiagnosis of back condition not susceptible to objective verification); Hays, 488 S.W.2d at 414 (negligent vasectomy confirmed by subsequent pregnancy); International Bankers Life, 368 S.W.2d at 580 (stock transfer records and board meeting minutes proved officers' and directors' misdealing); Slay, 187 S.W.2d at 385-387 (paper trail detailed self-dealing); Ruebeck, 176 S.W.2d at 739 (improper construction and inferior underlying materials proved by examining and tearing up roof); Sherman, 152 S.W.2d at 319-321 (land title records showed defendants could not warrant good and merchantable title); Quinn, 140 S.W.2d at 438-439 (value of notes and subsequent value of property showed defendant's misrepresentations); Houston Water-Works, 8 S.W. at 37 (misconstruction of building was apparent).

*8 In the present case plaintiff R. claims that her father sexually abused her and that she unconsciously repressed all memory of it for years. If the legal injury rule were applied, R.'s claims against S. would each have accrued on the date the alleged incident of abuse occurred. In applying the statute of limitations, however, the years of her minority are not included. In effect, then, under the legal injury rule, R. is in the same position as if her claims all accrued on her eighteenth birthday and limitations began to run on that date, expiring about four months before she filed suit. R.'s claims are therefore barred unless she is entitled to an exception to the legal injury rule. R. does not allege fraud or fraudulent concealment, nor could she. R. was not deceived into thinking that she was not being abused when she was. To the contrary, R.'s contention is that she was fully aware of the episodes of abuse, so painfully so that she repressed all memory of them for years. Thus, for accrual to be deferred the discovery rule must apply. For the discovery rule to apply, R.'s claim must have been inherently undiscoverable within the limitations period and objectively verifiable.

We have twice held a fiduciary's misconduct to be inherently undiscoverable. Willis, 760 S.W.2d at 645 (attorney); Slay, 187 S.W.2d at 394 (trustee). The reason underlying both decisions is that a person to whom a fiduciary duty is owed is either unable to inquire into the fiduciary's actions or unaware of the need to do so. Willis, 760 S.W.2d at 645 ("Facts which might ordinarily require investigation likely may not excite suspicion where a fiduciary relationship is involved."); Slay, 187 S.W.2d at 394 (knowledge of facts did not cause trust beneficiaries or co-trustees to suspect wrongdoing by other co-trustees). While a person to whom a fiduciary duty is owed is relieved of the responsibility of diligent inquiry into the fiduciary's conduct, so long as that relationship exists, when the fact of misconduct becomes apparent it can no longer be ignored, regardless of the nature of the relationship. Because parents generally stand in the role of fiduciaries toward their minor children, see Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247, 253 (Tex. 1962), R. was not obliged to watch for misconduct by her father as long as she was a minor. Again, however, R. does not claim to have been misled.

Nevertheless, given the special relationship between parent and child, and the evidence reviewed in detail below that some traumas are by nature impossible to recall for a time, we assume without deciding that plaintiff can satisfy the inherent undiscoverability element for application of the discovery rule. We therefore focus on the second element of objective verifiability. The question is whether there can be enough objective verification of wrong and injury in childhood sexual abuse cases to warrant application of the discovery rule. To answer this question, we look first at the facts of this case and then at the general nature of such cases.

II

In reviewing a directed verdict, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the person suffering an adverse judgment. Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 544 S.W.2d 649, 650 (Tex.1976). Here that is the plaintiff, R. If the question to be decided were whether R. raised a material fact issue that she was entitled to have the jury resolve—such as when she knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed abuse—we would limit our consideration to the evidence in her favor and discard all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. However, as our focus is on a legal issue—namely, the applicability of the discovery rule in this context—we consider all of the evidence adduced at trial, viewing it, nevertheless, as much in R.'s favor as the record allows. From this perspective, the evidence is as follows.

S. was born in 1942. He received a B.A. degree and an M.B.A. degree, entered the U.S. Army as a commissioned officer, and served eighteen months in the medical corps in Vietnam. In March 1970, a few months after his discharge from the Army, S., then 27, married B., then 22, who had received her B.A. degree in elementary education and had just begun teaching when she met S. Neither had previously been married. Shortly after the birth of their first child, R., on October 15, 1970, S. was fired from his job, *9 and the family moved to Texas. S. and B.'s only other child, H., was born in August 1975.

While S. testified that he considered B. a good sexual partner for most of their marriage, B. testified that she felt early on that S. had become dissatisfied and that the problems were hers more than his. B. specifically recalls S.'s wanting to tie her hands while being intimate, something she particularly disliked. Though S. and B. each characterize the problems differently, it is fair to say that their sexual relationship deteriorated slowly but steadily after R. was born until it ceased altogether some three to five years before the couple separated in 1989.

B. and S.'s marriage was also adversely affected by S.'s inability to remain employed. B. felt S. was mostly to blame for being terminated from one job after another; S. attributed his misfortune to changes in his employers' businesses. B. had sufficient income to support the family from a large trust set up by her father. Eventually she provided S. an office from which he conducted a commercial real estate business. While he appears to have worked diligently at the business, he was largely unsuccessful.

S. and B. agree that after B.'s parents died in 1978 and 1979, their marriage began a steep decline. From all outward appearances, however, they seemed a model family. R. and H. were bright, well-behaved children. They attended a private girls' school. R. was at least an average student and her teachers liked her. She was a class officer in junior high school. In high school, she was awarded several prizes for citizenship, won speech contests, and was active in community service. In fact, R. graduated with over 500 hours of community service, more than any other senior at her school. Much of her work was devoted to tutoring children with learning disabilities and serving food to the homeless.

R. expressed interest in the subject of incest. She participated in an improvisational theater group for teenagers, taking part in a sketch dealing with incest. In 1988, her junior year in high school, she wrote a term paper on father-daughter Incest. Citing several books on the subject, the paper described the impact of incest on the victim daughter, the abusing father, and innocent family members. R. worked on another paper on incest her freshman year of college.

R. considered her relationship with her own father growing up as satisfactory but somewhat distant. S. was not, in her view, comfortable showing affection, and S. admits that this was true. R. recalls that S. hugged her only occasionally and never kissed her on the cheek or forehead, as a father might. She felt that when she was a little girl she could never sit in his lap and be close. He came to her school whenever parents were invited but never seemed very interested. Once, she recalls, he approached her at a school event and shook her hand, which she thought was silly. S. seemed cold to R., expressing no emotion and little or no interest. He was, she testified, "just there". H. shares essentially the same view of her father.

By contrast, R.'s relationship with her mother was very close. In college, R. came to believe that she and her mother were "enmeshed", a term R. and her counselor used to refer to an overly dependent relationship. Until she left high school, R. was very dependent on B. And B. was very protective of her daughters, watching them, she said, "like a mother hawk" and even spying on them occasionally to make sure they were all right.

R. dated several young men in high school and college. None of these relationships included sexual intercourse, but several did involve other sexual activities. She recalls being tied up during one encounter, although she does not remember whether that was her idea.

In January 1989, as R. was nearing the end of her high school senior year, S. and B. separated. B. and the girls stayed in their home, and S. moved in with his mother. In July, B. filed for divorce. R. was very angry with her parents for divorcing and sought counseling from a psychiatrist during the summer. She looked forward to getting away to college out of state, and as it turned out, she very much enjoyed her freshman year. She kept a diary in which she expressed *10 how glad she was to be making her own decisions. She again involved herself in community service and still maintained the necessary grade point average to rush and join the sorority she wanted.

At the end of her first year she returned to Dallas. On May 18, 1990, B. told R. that she, B., had been sexually abused as a child. B.'s first recollection of her own experiences had come to her a year earlier during an annual physical examination administered by her physician. She remembers that he asked her without warning, "Who sexually abused you as a child?" Instantly she recalled two instances, both involving her mother's father, that she had never before remembered. On one occasion, when she was 12 or 13 years old, her grandfather came into the kitchen partially exposed, and she picked up a knife and said, "No!", or, "Stay away!" Her grandfather did not do anything. The other incid