Skip to content

Evaluator Selection — How to Pick (or Object to) the Forensic Psychologist Who Will Shape Your Case

In contested PA cases, the court-appointed evaluator's report is usually the single most important document in your file. Judges weight it heavily. Good evaluators apply structured differential diagnosis. Bad evaluators produce reports that prejudge outcomes and reshape entire family lives on weak foundations.

You have more influence on who that evaluator is than most parents realise. This playbook walks through how to use it.

Not legal or clinical advice. Always work through your lawyer on evaluator selection — going around them weakens both your case and your relationship with counsel.

When evaluator selection happens

Typically at one of three points:

  1. Stipulated — both parties agree on an evaluator from a court-maintained list or a private practitioner. Cheaper, faster, but requires cooperation.
  2. Court-ordered after motion — one party requests, the court orders, and the parties either agree or the judge picks.
  3. Sua sponte by the judge — the court orders independently. Limited input from parties.

In scenarios 1 and 2, your input matters. In scenario 3, your input is limited to a written objection to a named appointee.

What a good PA evaluator looks like

Credentials minimum

  • Licensed psychologist (PhD/PsyD) or psychiatrist (MD) in the relevant jurisdiction
  • Forensic specialty certification or equivalent CE/supervised hours
  • AFCC member (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) — or equivalent body in your jurisdiction

Methodology markers (positive)

  • Applies the resist-refuse framework (Kelly/Johnston 2001) — describes alienation as one possible cause of resistance, not the assumed cause
  • Uses structured assessment instruments AND collateral information AND direct child interviews — triangulates rather than relying on parent self-report
  • Has training in both PA dynamics and domestic-violence assessment (this dual training is critical)
  • Can articulate the difference between mild / moderate / severe cases and matches intervention to severity
  • Includes the resist-refuse differential diagnosis explicitly in the report
  • Considers cultural, developmental, and family-history context

Methodology markers (negative — red flags)

  • Has never assessed a non-PA case (i.e. always concludes "PA present")
  • Uses a single-construct framework ("PAS yes/no")
  • Recommends the same intervention (e.g. custody flip + a particular reunification programme) in most cases
  • Refuses to consider domestic-violence history as a possible alternative explanation for child's resistance
  • Has financial or referral ties to a specific reunification provider
  • Has been the subject of board complaints or appellate reversals you can find in public records

Vetting questions before agreeing to an evaluator

Through your lawyer, ask the prospective evaluator (or their proposer):

  1. "How many parenting-time evaluations have you completed in the last three years?" (Volume — but not so high it suggests assembly-line work)
  2. "What proportion of your cases concluded with a finding of alienating behaviors?" (Calibration check — anything above ~50% suggests bias)
  3. "Are you trained in domestic-violence assessment? Where? When?" (Should be SAFE-T, ODARA, B-SAFER, or similar named instruments + supervised hours)
  4. "What's your view of the Kelly/Johnston resist-refuse framework? Of the Mercer/Silberg critique?" (Tests whether they engage both camps)
  5. "What reunification interventions have you recommended in the last five cases that needed one?" (Tests for single-protocol bias)
  6. "Have any of your reports been the subject of appellate review or board complaint?" (Public records will show some of this — asking shows you've already checked)
  7. "What's your fee structure and what does it cover?" (Surprise costs are common; clarity up front matters)

How to influence selection

If you can propose names

Your lawyer should propose 3–5 names that meet your criteria. Don't propose only ones you "know" will favour you — judges see that and discount it. Propose ones you can credibly argue are high quality. The other side will object to a few; that's expected. End game is a name both sides can live with.

If the other side proposes names

For each: pull public records (board licensing site, appellate-decision searches, AFCC member list). For any name you object to, write a non-emotional, evidence-based objection: specific concerns about methodology, training, or prior conduct, with sources.

Examples of credible objections: - "Dr. X has no documented training in domestic-violence assessment, which is methodologically inadequate for a case involving allegations of abuse." - "Dr. Y's published methodology applies a single-construct PA framework which has been superseded in the field by the differentiated approach (Kelly & Johnston 2001; Saini et al. 2016)." - "Dr. Z has a referral relationship with [reunification provider], creating financial interest in a particular case outcome."

Examples of weak objections: - "We don't think Dr. X will be fair." - "The other side picked Dr. Y so we don't want them." - Personal attacks.

If the court appoints without input

Within the objection window (varies — often 7–14 days), file a motion. Same standards: evidence-based, non-emotional, methodologically grounded.

What to do once an evaluator is appointed

Behaviour

  • Show up to every appointment, on time, sober, prepared
  • Bring the documentation system materials (see Documentation System playbook)
  • Be candid about your own faults — evaluators detect defensiveness instantly
  • Do not coach the child for the evaluation; if you've been working with the child's therapist, mention that
  • Maintain BIFF communication with the other parent throughout (see Bill Eddy's work)

Documents

Provide the evaluator with: - Your one-page timeline (see documentation playbook) - Indexed exhibit set - Third-party witness contact list (teachers, doctors, family) - Any prior orders or assessments - A short, factual narrative of your concerns

Do NOT provide: - Social-media screenshots of the other parent (looks petty) - Recordings the other party didn't consent to (jurisdictional minefield) - A lengthy editorial about the other parent's character

Communication

  • Most communication through your lawyer
  • If the evaluator emails you directly, copy your lawyer on the reply
  • Don't try to befriend or curry favour with the evaluator

How to read the report when it lands

Structural integrity check

A solid report should contain: - Description of methodology used - List of documents reviewed - List of collateral contacts made - Direct interview notes (parents, child, others) - Test results (if instruments administered) - Findings of fact - Differential diagnosis discussion - Recommendations with rationale tied to findings

Missing sections are themselves data points.

Substantive integrity check

  • Does the report consider alternative hypotheses for the child's behaviour, or jump straight to alienation?
  • Are findings tied to specific cited evidence, or general impressions?
  • Are recommendations proportionate to the severity findings, or one-size-fits-all?
  • Is the language clinical or editorial?

When the report is favourable to you

Don't celebrate. The other side's lawyer will look for every gap. Brief your lawyer on: - Specific phrasings to emphasise - Pages with strongest support - Anticipated cross-examination points and how to handle them

When the report is unfavourable

Don't panic. Brief your lawyer on: - Methodological weaknesses (compare against the markers above) - Specific factual errors (with evidence) - Whether a second opinion or appeal is feasible and warranted - What you can do in the meantime that the next evaluator will see

When and how to seek a second opinion

A second-opinion evaluation is sometimes ordered or permitted. It is appropriate when: - The original report has documented methodological problems - New evidence has emerged that wasn't available to the original evaluator - A significant amount of time has passed (typically 1+ year)

It is NOT appropriate when: - You simply disagree with the conclusion - You're shopping for a more favourable opinion - You haven't first attempted to address concerns through cross-examination at the hearing

Second-opinion battles can be expensive and can read as litigation tactics if not well-grounded.

Jurisdictional notes

Region Body / process
US State-level licensing; AFCC professional development standards; Daubert/Frye admissibility tests for methodology
UK Cafcass / Children's Guardian standard; Section 7 reports; expert witness instruction via Practice Direction 25B
Canada Provincial bar associations; Voice of the Child Reports; specialist assessor lists
Australia Family Report Writers under Family Law Act 1975; ICL (Independent Children's Lawyer) involvement
EU civil-law systems Court-appointed forensic psychologists (peritos / Gutachter / experts judiciaires); typically less party input on selection

Open a PR with jurisdictional additions — evaluator-selection processes vary substantially.