Articles
Lynette Dufton, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist in Washington State who provides forensic consultation, record review, and parenting plan evaluations in family law matters.
What Attorneys Often Wish Parenting Plan Evaluators Would Do Differently
Parenting plan evaluations can play an important role in helping courts understand complex family dynamics in high-conflict custody disputes. When conducted thoughtfully, these evaluations can provide valuable insight into the needs of children and the factors affecting their well-being.
At the same time, attorneys sometimes express frustration with aspects of the evaluation process. In my conversations with family law professionals, several themes come up repeatedly regarding what makes an evaluation particularly helpful—or particularly challenging—from a litigation perspective.
Understanding these concerns can help evaluators, attorneys, and courts work more effectively together.
What Makes a Psychological Evaluation Credible in Court?
In family law cases involving complex custody disputes, courts may rely on psychological or parenting plan evaluations to better understand family dynamics and the needs of the children involved. Because these evaluations can influence significant decisions regarding parenting arrangements, courts and attorneys often examine them closely.
Not all evaluations carry the same weight in legal proceedings. Several factors tend to influence whether a psychological evaluation is viewed as credible and helpful by the court.
What Attorneys Should Know About Parenting Plan Evaluations
Family law cases involving disputed parenting plans often raise complex questions about family dynamics, child development, and parental functioning. In these situations, courts may rely on a psychological parenting plan evaluation to provide an independent assessment of factors relevant to the child’s best interests.
For attorneys navigating these cases, understanding how parenting plan evaluations work—and how to use them effectively—can make a significant difference in case preparation and outcomes.