Two things come to mind.

First, a victim of a crime in no way must seek psychological evaluation in order to provide compelling truthful testimony. In fact, to make her undergo a battery of evaluations to "prove" she was victimized is victimizing her again.

Secondly, you state without a psychologist input, it is her word against his?? This is categorically untrue. This context is very different from, lets say a case where the defendant is charged with a capital crime and is trying to plead insanity. THERE the testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is critical. In a case where an adult child is alleging child molestation or abuse, what would a psychologist testify to any way? He cannot tell if she is telling the truth or not--no one can--which is why lie detectors are inadmissible. Why would she have any reason to AGREE to be evaluated by HIS doctor to see if she is being truthful?

Bottom line: While it is often necessary for mental health professionals to testify regarding the mental health of a DEFENDANT, the opposite is not true. Lack of "expert" mental health testimony does NOT reduce the charges to word against word. An expert cannot discern if she is telling the truth.

Evidence. Evidence a crime was committed---eyewitnesses, dates, times, specificity of events, firm unaltered testimony---all of this is paramount in supporting her charges---even in the absence of a psychiatrist report. SHE isn't the one on trial.

Also, I am not sure what this means: "To go into court without some insight from her is to go in without discovery... " They will have a lot of insight from her IN the discovery phase. They don't need a psychiatrist to do that. The charges against him and the evidence against him will be provided for the defense during discovery----she will have made sworn statements to the authorities, all which will be part of the record. To proceed without a mental health evaluation in no way affect discovery, or lack of it.