Can a Therapist Conduct a Custody Evaluation? What the Standards Require
• By Dr. Kristin M. Tolbert, Psy.D.
Competence in forensic evaluation is acquired, not conferred. The standards say so explicitly — and they describe the pathway. Which means the right question is never “what is your license?” but “what did you do to become competent at this?”
The short answer is yes — but not automatically, and not by virtue of the license.
This question gets argued badly from both directions. One side treats a treatment license as disqualifying. The other treats a court appointment as though it settled the matter. Neither is what the standards say. The standards ask a different and much more useful question: what did this person actually do to become competent at this particular work?
Competence is defined by what was acquired, not by which license was issued
Every governing code defines competence the same way — as a function of preparation, listed as a set of routes rather than a credential.
The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct provides that psychologists work only within the boundaries of their competence "based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience" (Standard 2.01(a), 2017). Six routes. A degree is one of them.
The AFCC Model Standards say the same for custody evaluators of every discipline: opinions are offered "in those areas where they are competent to do so, based on adequate knowledge, skill, experience, and education" (Standard 12.1, 2006). Again, education is one input among four.
This matters because it cuts in both directions. A treating clinician who has done the forensic work — deliberately, over time — can be highly competent. A doctoral-level clinician who has not done that work is not competent to conduct a custody evaluation simply because of the degree. The credential is not the gate. The acquired competence is.
The standards describe the pathway explicitly
What makes this more than a philosophical point is that the standards do not merely permit acquiring competence in a new area. They describe how, and they expect it to be intentional.
The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology address this directly under the heading Gaining and Maintaining Competence, contemplating competence obtained through combinations of education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, and professional experience, and encouraging practitioners entering areas new to them to undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation, or study (Guideline 2.02, 2013). The Ethics Code carries a parallel provision for psychologists moving into unfamiliar populations, areas, or techniques.
Two further requirements give the pathway teeth:
- Know the rules of the forum. "When assuming forensic roles, psychologists are or become reasonably familiar with the judicial or administrative rules governing their roles" (APA Ethics Code 2.01(f)). Forensic work has procedural obligations that clinical training never covers.
- Represent how you got there. The Specialty Guidelines expect practitioners to accurately inform recipients of their services about the nature and extent of their experience, training, credentials, and qualifications — and how those were obtained (Guideline 2.03). Competence acquired outside the degree must be describable.
Which standards actually bind whom. This distinction matters and is often blurred. A professional is bound by the licensing statutes and board rules of their own jurisdiction and by their own discipline’s ethics code. The AFCC custody-evaluation standards apply to evaluators of every discipline. Psychology guidelines such as the APA Ethics Code and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology govern psychologists; as to practitioners of other disciplines they are properly treated as recognized field standards — persuasive as to the standard of care, not binding. A careful analysis begins with the standards that governed the professional in question and identifies any others as persuasive.
Discipline-specific codes converge. Marriage and family therapists are directed to maintain competency through continuing education, training, and consultation, and those providing forensic evaluations must "declare the limits of their competencies and information" (AAMFT Code of Ethics 3.1, 7.8, 2015).
What intentional preparation actually looks like
The clinical disciplines that routinely evaluate offer the model. Preparation that produces a competent forensic evaluator generally includes:
- Formal coursework or structured training in forensic assessment, distinct from clinical training
- Supervised forensic experience — evaluations conducted under the supervision of an experienced forensic evaluator, with the work reviewed
- Training in the specific instruments used, including administration, scoring, and the limits of interpretation
- Working knowledge of the governing statutes, rules of procedure, and evidentiary standards of the forum
- Specialized training in the special issues that recur in these cases: intimate partner violence, substance use, child sexual abuse allegations, alienating behaviors
- Ongoing consultation, peer review, and continuing education — competence is maintained, not banked
That is a substantial and deliberate course of preparation. It is entirely achievable, and many excellent evaluators have completed exactly this path from a treatment-licensed starting point. What it is not is incidental. It does not accrue from years of therapy practice, and it does not arrive with an appointment order.
The special-issues requirement
The standards single out the very subjects most likely to be contested. The AFCC Model Standards provide that special issues "such as allegations of domestic violence, substance abuse, alienating behaviors, sexual abuse … require specialized knowledge and training," and that "[e]valuators shall only conduct assessments in areas in which they are competent" (Standard 5.11). On instruments: evaluators "not trained and experienced in the selection and administration of formal assessment instruments and not reasonably skilled in data interpretation shall not conduct testing" (Standard 6.2).
Note what that last one implies. The standard does not require testing. It requires that whoever tests be trained to test — and, by clear implication, that an evaluator who is not so trained recognize that limit rather than improvise around it.
Authorization is still not competence
One thing does not change under this more careful framing. When an evaluator's qualifications are questioned, the answer is often that the parties stipulated and the court appointed him.
That answers a different question. Stipulation and appointment establish that a professional was permitted to undertake the work. They do not supply training the professional never received. Parties stipulating to an evaluator are rarely positioned to audit forensic qualifications beforehand, and in some jurisdictions the custody-investigation statute does not name private practitioners as authorized investigators at all — making appointment even less credential-like.
The questions that actually resolve it
Because the standards define competence by acquisition, the useful inquiry is not "what is your license?" It is a request to describe the preparation the standards themselves contemplate. A well-prepared evaluator answers these comfortably; the answers are their strongest testimony:
- What education, training, supervised experience, consultation, or study gave you competence in forensic custody evaluation, as distinct from clinical practice?
- Under whose supervision did you conduct forensic evaluations while developing that competence, and how many?
- What training do you have in the special issues present in this case?
- What steps did you take to become familiar with the rules governing your role in this proceeding?
- Where does your report declare the limits of your competence, as your ethics code requires of forensic services?
- How do you maintain that competence — what consultation, peer review, or continuing education?
These questions are fair to a well-prepared evaluator and searching for an unprepared one. That is precisely what a reliability inquiry should do. The goal is not to disqualify a discipline; it is to establish what a particular opinion rests on, so the Court can weigh it accordingly.
Related reading: When a Custody Evaluation Uses No Testing and what a Work Product Review examines.
A note on scope. Dr. Tolbert is a licensed psychologist, not an attorney. This article discusses the psychological and methodological dimensions of custody evaluation practice. It is not legal advice, offers no opinion on any particular case, and takes no position on the ultimate issue of custody, which rests with the Court. Questions of law, admissibility, and evidentiary weight belong to counsel and the Court.