Childrens voice vs. Grown Mans

Why is it that a childs voice is considered to be more truthful than a grown mans? When a child says that something happend isnt it possible that the child could be lying? Why in the court of law the child is automatically considered to be the one telling the truth?

For the most part when a child is used as a witness in a case their view pf the events is seen as more truthful because:

A. They are usually naive of certain situations and when they describe a situation that they have never seen before, or experienced then they are more than likely telling the truth. Children don't usually know enough to lie about things that are serious enough to be taken to court.

B. The older you get the more likely you are to lie. An adult will lie when they think they'll get away with it, a child cannot process the statistics of their chances of getting away with a lie and for the most part will tell the truth.

C. If something has been done to them that they understand to be wrong, or that they think is wrong, they will tell somebody and not even think about possible consequences. Also they have a bit of a difficult time keeping secrets, whether of the good variety or not.

Well, in the point that I am trying to understand. If a child is Coached to lie, by someone that they love or trust or even if that child was told that they were going to get into trouble if they didn't lie, say the child was 9 years old. Old enough to know how to lie. Why is it that in the court system they are automatically being truthful. I really am not here to debate on this topic really, I am just frustrated with some things that I have seen in my life and I need to know why. Why wouldn't they put the man on a lie detector and the child also? I don't understand. If a child is coached to lie one time then the next time don't you think it would be easier for the child to lie. He would get used to lying and it would become normal. Then because he is a child the man that is being lied about will go to jail. Now wouldn't the person who coached that child feel guilty for putting their child thru that? Wouldn't they then stop the lies. Wouldn't they not want to put that child thru drama that will effect the rest of their lives?

Obviously that's a rare situation and usually the child, if used as a witness, is asked specific questions to see if they've been compromised or coerced into lying, also they are not allowed to have contact with anybody that could coerce them into lying.

But when they live with their mother and their mother is telling them what to say, that would do what to the child. They wouldnt take the child away from their mother. The child would get away with it. Am I correct? My question is in this situation why would they not use a lie detector test? Wouldnt that make things alot more simple.

They would take the child away from the mother if they had reason to believe that the mother might attempt to compromise the child's accounts of the happenings. The child might get away with it but with child testimonies they are fairly cautious.

I'm not entirely sure but I think that lie detector tests are less accurate with children because they're fidgety and things like that can compromise their testimony. Also, those tests are not admissible in court.