Who can conduct a child custody evaluation?

Child custody evaluations should be conducted by licensed psychologists with specific training and competence in forensic psychology, child development, family dynamics, domestic violence, substance abuse, and the legal standards governing custody determinations in their jurisdiction. The APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations emphasize that the evaluator must have competence in the areas being assessed and must understand the difference between the forensic and therapeutic roles. Some jurisdictions require specific credentials or court approval before a psychologist can serve as a custody evaluator.

How long does a custody evaluation typically take?

A thorough custody evaluation typically takes 30 to 60 hours of professional time, spread over several weeks to several months. This includes individual interviews with each parent (usually 2-4 sessions each), child interviews and observations, parent-child observations, collateral contacts (teachers, therapists, pediatricians, family members), psychological testing of each parent, record review (medical, legal, school, prior evaluations), and report writing. Rushing a custody evaluation is one of the most common sources of valid criticism on cross-examination.

Can a treating therapist also serve as the custody evaluator?

No. The APA Guidelines and the AFCC Model Standards both explicitly prohibit dual roles. A treating therapist has a therapeutic relationship with one or both parties, which creates bias — real or perceived — that is incompatible with the evaluator's obligation to objectivity. A treating therapist may be called to provide factual testimony about treatment, but should not offer custody recommendations. If a court orders a therapist to serve as evaluator, the therapist should inform the court of the ethical conflict and decline unless the order is unavoidable, in which case the conflict must be documented.

What psychological tests are appropriate for custody evaluations?

The most commonly used instruments include the MMPI-2 or MMPI-3 for personality and psychopathology assessment, the PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory), the MCMI-IV for personality disorders, and the Rorschach (R-PAS) when personality functioning is a specific question. Parenting-specific instruments include the Parenting Stress Index (PSI-4), the Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), and the Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody (ASPECT). Cognitive screening may include the WAIS-IV or WAIS-V. All instruments must be validated, relevant to the referral questions, and administered in compliance with publisher guidelines and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.

What does 'best interests of the child' mean in a custody evaluation?

The 'best interests of the child' is the legal standard used in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions to determine custody and parenting time arrangements. While the specific statutory factors vary by state, common considerations include: each parent's capacity to meet the child's physical, emotional, and developmental needs; the quality of each parent-child relationship; the child's adjustment to home, school, and community; each parent's mental and physical health; the child's wishes (when age-appropriate); each parent's willingness to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent; any history of domestic violence, abuse, or substance abuse; and the stability and continuity of the child's current living arrangements. The evaluator's role is to provide data relevant to these statutory factors — not to substitute their judgment for the court's.

Custody Evaluation Report: Template & Writing Guide for Psychologists

Forensic & Legal|12 min read|Updated 2026-03-20|Clinically reviewed

What Is a Custody Evaluation Report?

A child custody evaluation report is a forensic psychological document prepared at the request of a family court, an attorney, or by stipulation of both parties in a custody dispute. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide the court with objective, empirically grounded psychological data relevant to the legal question of what custody and parenting time arrangement serves the best interests of the child. The report is not a clinical document — it is a forensic product that will be entered into evidence, scrutinized by opposing counsel, potentially challenged by a rebuttal expert, and used by a judge to make binding decisions about a child's life.

The custody evaluation report integrates data from multiple sources — clinical interviews with each parent, interviews and observations of each child, parent-child interaction observations, collateral contacts, review of records, and psychological testing — into a coherent analysis that addresses the specific factors the court considers under the applicable best interests statute. The APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings (2010) provide the professional framework for this work, emphasizing objectivity, multiple data sources, and the distinction between scientific evidence and clinical inference.

When You Need It

When a family court orders a custody evaluation to assist in determining custody and parenting time
When both parties stipulate to a private custody evaluation
When an attorney retains you to conduct an evaluation on behalf of one party (note: this raises additional objectivity considerations)
When there are specific concerns about parenting capacity, such as allegations of abuse, neglect, domestic violence, substance abuse, or mental illness
When relocation disputes require assessment of the impact on the child and each parent-child relationship
When modification of an existing custody order is sought and the court requires updated psychological data

Key Components

Identifying Information and Referral Question

Document the names and dates of birth of all parties including children, the referring source (court order, attorney, stipulation), the specific referral questions, the relevant case number, and the date range of the evaluation.

Informed Consent and Notification

Document that each evaluated party was informed of the purpose of the evaluation, the limits of confidentiality, who will receive the report, that the evaluation is not treatment, that participation may or may not be voluntary depending on court order, and that the evaluator does not have a therapeutic relationship with any party.

Procedures and Data Sources

List every data source: interview dates and durations, psychological tests administered, collateral contacts made (with dates and durations), records reviewed, and observations conducted. This section establishes the thoroughness of your methodology.

Background Information for Each Parent

Present relevant history for each parent: developmental history, educational and employment history, relationship history, mental health history, substance use history, criminal history, parenting history, and each parent's account of the marriage and separation.

Child Information

Document each child's developmental history, educational functioning, social and emotional adjustment, relationships with each parent, and the child's stated wishes (when developmentally appropriate). Note: the child's wishes are one factor among many and should be contextualized by developmental level and the possibility of coaching.

Parent-Child Observations

Describe structured and unstructured observations of each parent with each child. Focus on warmth, responsiveness, discipline style, attunement, communication, and the child's comfort and behavior with each parent.

Psychological Testing Results

Report test results for each parent with standard scores, validity indicators, and clinical interpretation. Integrate test findings with interview and observational data. Address response style and validity of self-report.

Collateral Contacts

Summarize information obtained from teachers, therapists, pediatricians, family members, and other relevant sources. Document who you contacted, who declined or did not respond, and any limitations.

Integration and Analysis

This is the most critical section. Synthesize all data sources to address each best interests factor identified in the applicable statute. Present your analysis of each parent's strengths and limitations, each parent-child relationship, and the child's needs.

Recommendations

Provide specific, actionable recommendations regarding custody arrangement, parenting time schedule, and any conditions (therapy, substance abuse treatment, supervised visitation, parenting classes). Ground each recommendation in the data presented in the report.

Custody Evaluation Report — Summary and Recommendations Section

Case: In Re: The Marriage of Martinez | Case No.: 2026-DR-04178 Children: Sofia Martinez (age 8), Lucas Martinez (age 5) Evaluator: [Name], Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist | Date of Report: 03/20/2026

Summary of Findings:

This evaluation was conducted pursuant to court order dated 01/15/2026 requesting a comprehensive custody evaluation to assist the court in determining the parenting plan that serves the best interests of Sofia (age 8) and Lucas (age 5). The evaluation included individual interviews with each parent (Ms. Reyes: 3 sessions, 5.5 hours total; Mr. Martinez: 3 sessions, 5 hours total), two interviews with Sofia (1.75 hours total), one interview with Lucas (45 minutes), two parent-child observations with each parent (home visit and office-based), psychological testing of each parent (MMPI-3, PAI, PSI-4), review of 312 pages of records, and 11 collateral contacts.

Ms. Reyes presents as a warm, child-focused parent who demonstrates strong attunement to both children's emotional and developmental needs. Psychological testing was valid and reflected mild elevational patterns consistent with situational stress; no personality pathology was indicated. The PSI-4 indicated parenting stress within normal limits. Parent-child observations revealed reciprocal warmth, age-appropriate limit-setting, and both children displaying comfort and spontaneous affection. Collateral contacts consistently described Ms. Reyes as the parent who manages medical appointments, school communication, and extracurricular activities. Ms. Reyes's mental health history includes a Major Depressive Episode in 2021 that was treated with therapy and medication; she is currently stable and not in active treatment. Her willingness to facilitate the children's relationship with Mr. Martinez is adequate — she reports supporting their time with their father and has not made disparaging remarks about him in the children's presence, a finding consistent with collateral reports from Sofia's teacher and the children's pediatrician.

Mr. Martinez presents as a loving father who values his relationship with both children. He demonstrated appropriate warmth and engagement during parent-child observations, though interactions were notably more activity-focused and less emotionally attuned than those observed with Ms. Reyes. Lucas appeared somewhat less settled during the observation with Mr. Martinez, requiring redirection on several occasions, though this may reflect the unfamiliarity of the office setting. Psychological testing was valid. The MMPI-3 indicated elevations on Hostility (RC3, T=68) and Antisocial Behavior (RC4, T=65) scales, consistent with Mr. Martinez's acknowledged history of difficulty managing anger. The PAI Aggression scale was mildly elevated (T=63). Mr. Martinez has a documented history of two domestic violence incidents (2022, 2023), for which he completed a court-ordered batterer intervention program. He minimized these incidents during the interview, attributing them to "mutual conflict." Collateral contacts raised concerns about Mr. Martinez's use of harsh verbal discipline with Sofia and inconsistency in following medical recommendations for Lucas's asthma management. Mr. Martinez's willingness to facilitate the children's relationship with Ms. Reyes is mixed — he made several disparaging remarks about Ms. Reyes during the evaluation and acknowledged telling Sofia that "your mother is the reason our family broke apart."

Sofia (age 8) is a well-adjusted child who is performing at grade level and has positive peer relationships. She expressed love for both parents and stated she wants to spend time with each of them. She displayed mild anxiety when discussing parental conflict and stated, "I don't like it when Daddy says mean things about Mommy." She did not report fear of either parent.

Lucas (age 5) is developmentally on track and presented as a cheerful, active child. He was unable to express a preference regarding parenting time, which is developmentally appropriate. He has moderate persistent asthma requiring daily controller medication and a rescue inhaler.

Recommendations:

Based on the totality of the data gathered in this evaluation, and applying the factors set forth in [State] Revised Statute § [X], I offer the following recommendations:

Primary residential custody be designated with Ms. Reyes. This recommendation is based on her demonstrated role as the primary attachment figure and day-to-day caregiver, her superior capacity to manage the children's medical and educational needs, the absence of domestic violence history, and her adequate willingness to co-parent.
Parenting time for Mr. Martinez follow an alternating weekend schedule (Friday 5:00 PM to Sunday 5:00 PM) with one midweek dinner visit (Wednesday 5:00 PM to 7:30 PM), expanding to overnights on Wednesday after six months if the conditions below are met.
Mr. Martinez complete an anger management program with a licensed provider and provide verification to the court. His history of domestic violence and current test elevations on hostility measures indicate ongoing risk that should be addressed before parenting time is expanded.
Mr. Martinez refrain from making disparaging remarks about Ms. Reyes in the children's presence. Co-parenting counseling is recommended for both parents to establish communication protocols.
Both parents ensure consistent management of Lucas's asthma per his pediatrician's treatment plan, with documentation of medication administration during each parent's parenting time.

This is a sample for educational purposes only — not real patient data.

How to Write It Step by Step

Step 1: Clarify the referral question and legal standard. Before beginning the evaluation, identify the specific best interests factors in your jurisdiction's statute. These factors are the framework for your entire report. Obtain and review the court order or stipulation.

Step 2: Obtain informed consent from each adult participant. Provide each parent with a detailed notification of the forensic nature of the evaluation, the limits of confidentiality, who will receive the report, and the evaluator's role as an objective assessor rather than an advocate for either party. Document this notification in writing.

Step 3: Conduct comprehensive interviews with each parent. Spend comparable time with each parent. Cover developmental history, relationship history, parenting practices, the other parent's strengths and weaknesses, domestic violence history, substance use, mental health, and the parent's proposed parenting plan. Use the same interview protocol for each parent to ensure balance.

Step 4: Interview each child individually. Use developmentally appropriate methods. For young children, play-based observation may be more informative than direct questioning. For older children, ask about their daily routine with each parent, their relationships, their wishes, and their experience of parental conflict. Never ask a child to choose a parent.

Step 5: Conduct parent-child observations. Observe each parent with each child in both structured and unstructured settings. An in-home observation provides ecological validity. Focus on warmth, discipline, communication, attunement, and the child's behavior and comfort level.

Step 6: Administer psychological testing. Select instruments that are relevant to the referral questions, validated for the population, and appropriate for forensic use. Interpret test results conservatively and integrate them with behavioral data rather than relying on test scores alone.

Step 7: Contact collateral sources and review records. Contact teachers, therapists, physicians, and other relevant sources. Review school records, medical records, police reports, prior court orders, and any previous evaluations. Document every source contacted and every record reviewed.

Step 8: Integrate all data and write the report. Organize the report around the statutory best interests factors. For each factor, present the relevant data from all sources before offering your analysis. Your recommendations must flow logically from the data — a recommendation that appears to come from nowhere will not survive cross-examination.

Common Mistakes

Spending unequal time with each parent. If you spend six hours interviewing one parent and two hours with the other, the evaluation is procedurally vulnerable to a bias challenge. Track your time meticulously and ensure approximate balance.
Relying on a single data source for major conclusions. A custody recommendation based solely on psychological testing, or solely on one parent's allegations, lacks the multi-method, multi-source foundation that the APA Guidelines require. Every significant conclusion should be supported by convergent data from at least two independent sources.
Offering recommendations without a clear data trail. Your report must show the reader exactly how you got from the data to the recommendation. If you recommend restricted parenting time for one parent, the report must document the specific behavioral observations, test findings, and collateral information that support that restriction.
Failing to address domestic violence allegations directly. When domestic violence is alleged, you must investigate it thoroughly — interview both parties about the specific incidents, review police reports and protective orders, assess the impact on the children, and address it directly in your analysis. Ignoring or minimizing domestic violence allegations is a serious professional and ethical failure.
Including unnecessary clinical jargon or pathologizing normal behavior. Custody evaluations are read by judges and attorneys who are not mental health professionals. Write clearly. Additionally, do not pathologize normal parenting imperfections or normal emotional responses to divorce.

Ethical Considerations

The custody evaluation is a forensic role, not a clinical one. The evaluator is not the therapist for any party and must not develop a therapeutic relationship with any participant. Key ethical boundaries include:

Objectivity over advocacy. Unlike a treating therapist who advocates for a client's wellbeing, the custody evaluator's obligation is to the court and to the child's best interests. This means you may reach conclusions that are unfavorable to the parent who retained you or the parent you personally find more likable. Your opinions must follow the data.
No dual relationships. The APA Guidelines and Ethical Principles prohibit serving as both evaluator and therapist. If you have treated any family member, you must decline the evaluation appointment. If a court orders you to serve in both roles, document the ethical conflict and seek consultation.
Informed consent is notification, not agreement. In a court-ordered evaluation, participation is not voluntary. You are not asking for consent — you are notifying each party of the evaluation's purpose, procedures, and limits of confidentiality. The notification must be clear: this is not therapy, the report goes to the court, and anything disclosed may appear in the report.
Cultural competence. Custody evaluators must be aware of their own cultural biases and avoid imposing culturally specific parenting norms as universal standards. Parenting practices vary across cultures, and the evaluator must distinguish between genuine risk factors and cultural differences in parenting style.
Limits of expertise. Do not offer opinions on matters outside your competence. If a referral question involves substance abuse assessment and you lack that competence, refer that component to a qualified professional rather than offering an uninformed opinion.