By Richard Luthmann
Psychologist David Finn, PhD, has become a polarizing figure in the ongoing debate about family court systems in America. Accusations against him allege that he produces biased reports favoring abusers, leaving children vulnerable and families shattered.
But is Finn a criminal, or is he a professional grappling with the immense challenges of child custody cases?
In one distressing case, a teenage girl attempted suicide by injecting poison into her veins. After ten months of hospitalization, she disclosed years of alleged abuse by her father. Medical experts supported her claims, but a CPS investigation deemed the abuse "unsubstantiated," redirecting blame toward the mother instead.
Finn entered the case as a court-appointed psychologist to assess custody. His report dismissed medical evidence and accused the mother of "brainwashing" the child. Critics claim Finn fabricated interactions and overlooked critical evidence. This led to the alleged abuser being awarded full custody, further isolating the child from her protective mother.
The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC), a watchdog and advocacy non-profit led by Jill Jones-Soderman, says that Dr. Finn belongs in prison. Soderman argues that Finn’s actions constitute "coordinated fraud." The allegations have focused on his reliance on the controversial and widely criticized theory of "parental alienation.”
Originally developed by Dr. Richard Gardner, this theory has been called a "pseudoscientific smokescreen" by opponents who claim it lacks validation by mainstream psychological standards.
However, the debate over parental alienation is far from settled. Proponents argue it reflects legitimate concerns about manipulation and emotional abuse by one parent to alienate a child from the other. Some research indicates techniques of alienation, including bad-mouthing, limiting contact, and undermining the other parent's authority.
Many advocates and parents, like Dr. Luigi DiRubba of Cheshire, Connecticut, call for recognizing parental alienation as a serious issue, suggesting it can constitute a form of child abuse when weaponized in custody battles.
However, the claims against Finn are not just limited to the use and/or abuse of parental alienation as a medical and diagnostic tool.
Further allegations against Finn include withholding reports from accused parents, fabricating test scores, and breaching HIPAA laws by sharing confidential information. Additionally, he has been charged with issuing "therapeutic directives" beyond his qualifications, raising questions about ethical boundaries and professional oversight.
One particularly troubling accusation is Finn’s unauthorized communication with young children, including alleged intimidation tactics that critics say inflicted lasting trauma.
If these claims are valid, they demand serious investigation. Yet some question whether Finn acted with malicious intent or was constrained by systemic flaws in the family court system.
Financial incentives further complicate the picture. Federal programs like Title IV-D and Title IV-E provide substantial reimbursements for child support cases, which some argue incentivizes prolonged custody battles.
“This financial dynamic has led to courts and their appointed experts prioritizing monetary gain over child welfare as part of their fraudulent business model,” said Wall Street’s David Weigel, the Family Court Fraud Warrior.
Critics, including FCVFC and Weigel, paint a damning picture of family courts as "racketeering enterprises" where judges, lawyers, and experts like Finn profit from the devastation of families.
However, systemic issues, such as limited resources, high caseloads, and insufficient oversight, may also significantly influence these outcomes.
The debate over Finn’s reliance on parental alienation theory exemplifies the broader controversy. While many discredit the theory, others highlight evidence suggesting alienation tactics are real and harmful. Is the theory being misused to discredit protective parents, or does it have a legitimate place in identifying manipulation?
These questions highlight the need for clarity and reform in how psychological expertise is applied in courtrooms.
The consequences of these practices are profound. Families face financial ruin. Children endure ongoing trauma, and, in extreme cases, lives are lost. While courts and experts often operate under the shield of judicial immunity, these protections can create barriers to accountability.
FCVFC and similar advocacy groups are calling for transparency and accountability. They have filed complaints with professional licensing boards, malpractice claims, and IRS reports to expose alleged wrongdoing. At the heart of their demands is a call for systemic reform to prioritize the safety and well-being of children.
We contacted Dr. Finn before this article was published. As of press time, we have not received a response. Here is what we asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Tuesday, January 21st, 2025 at 7:14 AM
Subject: Request for Comment on Allegations from FCVFC
To: dfinn@ahdcllc.com <dfinn@ahdcllc.com>
CC: RALafontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>
Dear Dr. Finn,I hope this email finds you well. My name is Richard Luthmann, and I am an investigative reporter. One of my topics of interest is the family courts. I am reaching out regarding serious allegations made by the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC) concerning your professional conduct as a court-appointed psychologist.
As part of an investigative piece, I would like to provide you with an opportunity to respond to the specific claims raised against you. Below are detailed questions based on the FCVFC's allegations:
1. Fabrication of Reports
- The FCVFC alleges that you fabricated elements of your court-submitted expert reports, including psychological evaluations. How do you respond to these claims?
- Were your reports ever subject to peer review or independent scrutiny?
2. Use of Discredited Theories
- It is stated that your evaluations relied heavily on the theory of “parental alienation,” which has been widely criticized and is not recognized by the DSM. How do you justify using this theory in your work?
3. Secrecy and Withholding Evidence
- The FCVFC alleges that your reports were withheld from protective parents, preventing them from addressing or challenging findings in court. Was this standard practice, and if so, why?
4. HIPAA and Confidentiality Violations
- Claims have been made that you disclosed confidential information without consent and withheld information from the subjects of your evaluations. Can you clarify how you handle sensitive information in your practice?
5. Conflict of Interest
- Allegations suggest you have financial or undisclosed professional ties to legal representatives or firms involved in cases where you were appointed. Do you disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the courts or clients?
6. Ethical Concerns in Child Cases
- The FCVFC describes specific cases in which children under your evaluation were placed in the custody of alleged abusers. How do you ensure your assessments are free from bias and accurately prioritize child safety?
7. Financial Incentives and Title IV-D/E Funding
- Critics argue that the child custody system is influenced by financial incentives tied to federal funding. Have you ever been made aware of or influenced by such incentives in your court-appointed work?
8. Direct Communications with Minors
- Reports claim you engaged in unauthorized communication with children as young as four years old. Can you explain the purpose and legality of such actions?
9. Professional Accountability
- Are you currently facing or have you faced any disciplinary actions or malpractice claims related to your work in family courts?
10. General Response
- How do you respond to FCVFC’s overall characterization of your work as fraudulent and harmful to children and families?
- What steps do you take to ensure the accuracy and integrity of your evaluations?
Your response to these questions will be critical to ensuring a balanced and fair presentation of this issue. If you would like to provide any documentation or statements that support your position, I would be happy to review them.
We intend to go to press shortly. If we receive your responses we will incorporate them in the piece. If we hear from you after press time, we will publish a follow up to ensure a fair and balanced presentation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
The case against David Finn is both distressing and damning. While the allegations warrant serious scrutiny, they also raise broader questions about the family court system. Is Finn a symptom of a broken system, or does his conduct reflect personal culpability? Is Dr. David Finn truly a Family Court “Misery Broker”?
Ultimately, the answers may lie in a combination of both, underscoring the urgent need for oversight and reform.
For many families, justice remains elusive. However, highlighting these issues could be the first step toward meaningful change. The troubling questions surrounding Finn’s actions demand further investigation and public dialogue—not just about one psychologist but a system in desperate need of accountability.
Share this post