Despite research acknowledging the importance of alternatives to in-court testimony for child victims, there is no national standard for these practices. By applying Supreme Court decisions and case law from around the country with research on the topic, a national standard can be reached to ensure that every case using alternatives to in-court testimony satisfies the defendant’s right to confront and considers the victim’s emotional well-being. Psychological studies have shown the impact of in-court testimony on the long term mental and emotional recovery of children, and empirical studies have shown that children testifying out of court doesn’t increase the chances of a guilty verdict. Given that laws are written to protect vulnerable populations, a procedural standardization of alternatives to in-court testimony would protect both child victims and defendants by ensuring the defendant’s rights are met and the child isn’t unnecessarily traumatized.