Have name changed for this as there's some sensitive information involved, but I've often wondered about this.
Basically a number of years ago my BIL was accused of molesting some young children. Both he and my SIL were adamant that it was a misunderstanding.
In addition, they had kids of their own and as my SIL refused to leave him, they were told that the children were going to be removed from the family for their own safety. We volunteered to take them in rather than let that happen, the children had been through enough already.
Unfortunately this meant, that initially we were also expected for facilitate and supervise contact between the kids and their parents. We really didn't want this, but were told by social services that if we didn't, they would have to look at moving the children to a non-relative family who would do this.
Anyway everything came to a head, when my BIL stated at one of these meetings, that it was all the fault of the children that accused him, that they started it. In other words, while blaming the children, he also admitted that it had happened.
After that we went back to social services, told them what had been said and made it clear that we could no longer have these people in our home and in the vicinity of our children, regardless of the consequences. At that stage they agreed to compromise and move the meetings elsewhere to be supervised by a social worker.
But it took three years for the case to go to court while the police and social services built up their evidence and I know that his statement to us about the kids starting it had been noted. But I often wondered why it was never suggested that either my husband or myself should be called to repeat his statement (admission of guilt).
Would it have been considered hearsay, even though the defendant himself had made the statement or would anyone with more knowledge of these things know why this admission was never used?