← Back to Blog FOR ATTORNEYS

Cross-Examination Strategies for Challenging Biased Evaluators

Custody evaluators hold enormous power in family court. When their evaluations are flawed or biased, effective cross-examination becomes essential to protecting your client.

Preparation is Everything

Before the deposition or trial, conduct thorough analysis of the evaluation report. Identify every methodological flaw, every unsupported conclusion, every violation of professional standards. Work with your forensic psychology consultant to develop a systematic attack strategy.

• Document every APA or AFCC guideline violation
• Identify contradictions between data and conclusions
• Note missing assessments or incomplete data collection
• Research the evaluator's published work and prior testimony
• Develop sequential questions that build to unavoidable admissions

Question Sequencing Strategy

Don't lead with your strongest questions. Build systematically. Start with establishing the evaluator's credentials and acknowledgment of professional standards. Then methodically walk through each flaw. Save the most devastating questions for when escape is impossible.

• Phase 1: Establish professional standards the evaluator claims to follow
• Phase 2: Get the evaluator to agree that violating standards undermines reliability
• Phase 3: Systematically show how the evaluator violated each standard
• Phase 4: Force acknowledgment that conclusions may be unreliable

Common Targets for Cross-Examination

Focus on objective, demonstrable flaws rather than subjective disagreements. Courts are more persuaded by methodological failures than competing opinions.

• Failure to use validated assessment instruments
• Insufficient time spent with each parent or child
• Reliance on single sources of information
• Failure to assess for personality disorders or abuse
• Confirmation bias (seeking only evidence supporting predetermined conclusion)
• Selective quotation or misrepresentation of research
• Financial conflicts of interest or repeat business bias