Common Misconceptions About Child Custody Evaluations
By David Lombard, PhD
Attorneys who don't handle custody-evaluation cases every day — and clients facing one for the first time — often carry assumptions about the process that don't match how it actually works. Some of these misconceptions are harmless. Others can shape how a client behaves during the evaluation in ways that work against them. I want to address a few of the most common ones here, both to help attorneys set accurate expectations and to explain how I approach the work.
"The Evaluator Is Trying to Catch Me in a Mistake"
Parents facing an evaluation frequently arrive guarded, treating every interview and observation session as a test to pass rather than an opportunity to be understood. This is an understandable response to a high-stakes process, but it's not an accurate picture of what a competent evaluation is doing. The evaluator's task, as described in professional guidelines for the field, is to gather a full and fair picture of each parent's capacities and the child's needs — not to build a case against either party (APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings). Clients who understand this tend to engage more naturally, which generally produces a more accurate — and often more favorable — picture of their parenting than a guarded, defensive presentation does.
"A Higher Score on Psychological Testing Means a Better Outcome"
Psychological testing is one tool among several in an evaluation, not a scorecard that determines the result. Testing helps identify personality patterns, psychological functioning, or clinical concerns that may be relevant to parenting capacity, but it's interpreted alongside interviews, observations, and collateral information — not in isolation. An evaluator who bases conclusions primarily on test scores, without integrating the fuller record, falls short of the standard the field expects (AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations, 2022). Attorneys can reassure anxious clients that "doing well" on a test is not, by itself, what shapes the outcome.
"The Evaluator Works for Whoever Is Paying"
This one matters enough to address directly, because it affects how honestly a parent participates. In many jurisdictions, a court-appointed evaluator is understood to serve the court, even though the parties may be the ones paying the fees. The evaluator's obligation runs to producing an accurate, neutral assessment — not to the interests of whichever party retained or paid for the evaluation. Attorneys should be candid with clients about this distinction, since a parent who believes the evaluator is "on their side" — or conversely, that the process is inherently adversarial — is more likely to misjudge how to present themselves.
"One Bad Moment Will Sink Me"
Parents often worry that a single tense exchange during an observed visit, or one poorly phrased answer in an interview, will define the entire evaluation. In a well-conducted evaluation, findings are drawn from a pattern across multiple sources and multiple points of contact, not from an isolated moment. That said, honesty still matters more than polish — a parent who is transparent about a bad day usually fares better than one who tries to manage the evaluator's impression of them.
"The Evaluation Is the Same as Therapy"
Because the evaluator is a licensed mental health professional, clients sometimes expect the process to feel therapeutic — supportive, exploratory, focused on their wellbeing in the way a treating clinician's work would be. A forensic evaluation is a different undertaking. It's assessment for the purpose of informing a legal decision, not treatment, and a competent evaluator maintains that distinction throughout, including by not providing therapy to anyone involved in a case they're evaluating. Attorneys can help by explaining this difference before the process begins, so the client isn't disappointed or confused by an evaluator who is warm and respectful but not acting as their therapist.
A Closing Thought
Most of these misconceptions stem from fear, a reasonable response to a process that will shape a family's future. Part of doing this work responsibly, for me, is making sure parents understand what's actually being asked of them — clearly enough that they can participate honestly, and with enough steadiness in how the process is conducted that even a difficult outcome feels fairly arrived at.
If you'd like to talk through how to prepare a client for an upcoming evaluation, I'm happy to discuss it. [Contact / Schedule a Call]
References: