--- title: "Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Grave Risk of Harm Admitted" meta: "og:description": "Psychology expert is allowed to testify about the grave risk of harm from repatriation" "og:title": "Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Grave Risk of Harm Admitted" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "Psychology expert is allowed to testify about the grave risk of harm from repatriation" --- # Psychology Expert’s Testimony on the Grave Risk of Harm Admitted Posted on May 15, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler Petitioner brought this action under the [1980 Hague Convention](https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=24) and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, seeking the return of his minor child, S.A.M., to Switzerland. He alleged that Respondent wrongfully removed the child to Missouri in April 2025 without his consent and was unlawfully retaining custody. Asserting joint custody rights, Petitioner identified Switzerland as the child’s habitual residence and requested repatriation. Respondent raised affirmative defenses, claiming that the child’s return would pose a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or create an intolerable situation. She also invoked the Human Rights Exception of Article 20 of the Convention, arguing that the repatriation would violate the human rights and fundamental freedoms. Petitioner filed a motion to exclude the testimony of expert [David Finn](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/David-Finn/1564322) and to block a medical examination of the child. ## **Psychology Expert Witness** [David Finn](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/David-Finn/1564322) is a doctor of psychology and licensed clinical psychologist with a practice focused on forensic assessment in good standing in the State of Illinois of the United States of America [Want to know more about the challenges David Finn has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1564322&pId=2) ## **Discussion by the Court** Petitioner moved to exclude David Finn’s testimony under _[Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ and [Federal Rules of Evidence 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702), [401](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401), and [403](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403), because his opinions were unreliable, cumulative, based on selectively provided documents and unsupported by sufficient testing. Respondent opposed the motion to exclude. It was clear that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate Respondent acted outside her authority as the custodial parent in obtaining the examination of the minor child by Finn. Finn also reviewed the reports from the Department of Children and Family Services. Finn evaluated S.A.M. and reviewed all documents regarding S.A.M. Finding that Finn’s opinions were based on a sufficient factual foundation and methodological approach, the Court ruled his testimony admissible. While Petitioner’s concerns could impact credibility, they did not warrant exclusion and would be properly addressed through cross-examination. ## **Held** The Court denied the Petitioner’s motion to exclude the testimony of David Finn. ## **Key Takeaway:** The Court found Finn’s testimony admissible, supported by interviews and a review of documents, including Department of Children and Family Services reports. It held that the objections against Finn’s testimony concerned credibility, not admissibility, and could be addressed on cross-examination. Expert testimony, it emphasized, should only be excluded if so unsupported that it offers no help to the factfinder. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Corrections Expert's Standard of Care Testimony Admitted](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-23T161938.085.jpg) [**Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-grave-risk-of-harm-admitted/corrections-experts-standard-of-care-testimony-admitted)![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-grave-risk-of-harm-admitted/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-grave-risk-of-harm-admitted/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-grave-risk-of-harm-admitted/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychology-experts-testimony-on-the-grave-risk-of-harm-admitted/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)