The applicant child protection agency sought to qualify an expert in child maltreatment.
The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the expert's opinion evidence.
The court found that "child maltreatment" as a general field of scientific inquiry lacked threshold reliability as a novel science, as there was no evidence of tested theories/techniques, peer review of the general discipline, or established standards for information quality.
Furthermore, the court determined that the expert was engaged for litigation purposes, not as a "participation expert," and thus failed to comply with Rule 20.2(2) of the Family Law Rules.
Consequently, the expert was not qualified, and his report was not admitted, as the risks of admitting unreliable evidence outweighed any benefit.
