← Back to Blog CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

When a Psychologist Violates Professional Ethics in a Custody Case

March 4, 2025 | By Dr. Kristin M. Tolbert, Psy.D.

Custody evaluators hold significant authority in family court. A judge who appoints a psychologist to evaluate a family is placing substantial trust in that professional's methodology, objectivity, and ethics. When that trust is misplaced, the consequences for the family can be severe and long-lasting.

Professional violations in custody evaluations are not rare. They are underreported, in part because most parents and attorneys do not know what the applicable standards require, and in part because challenging a court-appointed evaluator feels risky. Neither of those things changes what the standards actually say.

What the standards require.

Custody evaluators are governed by the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017), the APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (2022), the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2013), and the AFCC Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (2006). These are not aspirational documents. They establish specific requirements for methodology, documentation, objectivity, and conduct.

Among the most commonly violated: the requirement to assess all children directly when developmentally appropriate; the requirement to use current, validated assessment instruments; the requirement to document collateral contacts with sufficient specificity; the prohibition against differential treatment of parties based on representation status; and the requirement to maintain complete records that permit professional review.

Withholding records is its own problem.

An evaluator who claims that the written report is the complete file is making a claim that professional standards do not support. A custody evaluation generates test protocols, scoring sheets, session notes, interview documentation, and correspondence. The final report is a summary of all of that. When an evaluator refuses to produce the underlying data in response to a subpoena, that refusal itself becomes a focus of cross-examination.

The APA Ethics Code Standard 9.04 and the AFCC Model Standards both address the obligation to make underlying data available for professional and legal review.

Fabrication and misrepresentation.

The most serious violations involve inaccurate factual statements in the report itself. If an evaluator states that school staff were interviewed and the school has no record of any contact, that is not a documentation gap. If the evaluator attributes allegations to a parent that the parent never made, that is not a drafting error. These are the kinds of issues that go directly to the reliability of the evaluation and to the evaluator's credibility as a witness.

What can be done.

A custody evaluation that contains professional violations can be challenged through cross-examination, through a work product review prepared by a qualified forensic psychologist, and through a board complaint to the relevant state licensing authority. These avenues are not mutually exclusive. In serious cases, all three may be appropriate.

The timing matters. A board complaint has its own timeline and process. Cross-examination strategy needs to be developed before the deposition. A work product review needs to be completed in time to inform the litigation. If there are questions about whether an evaluation meets professional standards, the time to find out is before trial, not after.

---