Case Update (14 May 2025): Muehlbauer v. Muehlbauer; forensic expert who relied on selected information from retaining party can be cross-examined

The parties are parents to one minor child.  The Petitioner Father argues that the Respondent Mother wrongfully removed the child from Switzerland, bringing the child to the Missouri in April 2025, and seeks the child’s return pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. In response to the petition, the Respondent plead Article 13(b) grave risk and Article 20 human rights exceptions to the child’s return. Before the court at this stage is a Motion to exclude testimony of a forensic who examined the minor child.

The Respondent had the child evaluated by a forensic, presumably to support her arguments on the exceptions she plead. The Petitioner argued, under Daubert, that the forensic’s “report is merely a rehashing of testimony Respondent will ‘undoubtedly’ provide herself. Petitioner claims [the forensic’s] opinions derives from selected documents provided by Respondent and is therefore cumulative and unreliable. Petitioner also challenges the lack of testing performed.”  The court interpreted the challenge to the forensic as a challenge to the factual basis of the forensic’s opinion and testimony.  The court noted, however, that “[g]enerally, such a challenge goes to the credibility of the expert testimony, rather than its admissibility.”  The court deems that the party who is challenging the forensic can use cross-examination to examine the factual basis for the forensic’s opinion. “Only if the expert’s opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the factfinder must such testimony be excluded.” 

The motion is denied.