This study explored if adults (laypersons) are sensitive to the appropriateness of questions posed by lawyers to child witnesses in court. We examined whether this sensitivity, if present, was influenced by (a) the child's age (6 or 12-year old) and (b) the presence of judicial instructions. We also explored whether sensitivity to question appropriateness was related to adults' perceived credibility of a child witness. All participants (N = 217) were provided with an adapted trial transcript depicting a prosecution lawyer questioning a child in a physical abuse case in Canada. Results suggest adults are sensitive to different types of questions asked to children but that this sensitivity involves a significant bias toward labeling all questions as appropriate for use with a child. The presence of judicial instructions, designed to highlight developmental considerations of a child witness was found to influence this sensitivity. Specifically, the presence of the judicial instructions was found to encourage adults to better consider whether a question posed to a child was appropriate. We also found that increased perceptions of witness intelligence were related to a reduction in sensitivity but that this effect was reversed with older children. These findings have important implications for how legal decision makers (i.e., jurors) may assess testimony provided by a child in court. Public Significance StatementWhen providing testimony in abuse cases, children are frequently asked questions that are too complicated for them to provide clear, coherent answers. But do the jurors listening to children's testimony know when a question is not appropriate for children? Although adults were found to pay attention to questions asked to children, they could not identify when a question was inappropriate.