In Utah today, custody evaluations are often conducted behind closed doors. The evaluator interviews the parents, the children, and collateral witnesses (neighbors, teachers, extended family, therapists, coaches, pastors, etc.), but those interviews are not recorded. You did not misread that previous sentence. The evaluator makes no audio or video recordings made of the interviews of the witnesses. The evaluator’s written report is often the only “record” of what was said and how it was said. Parents and their lawyers are then asked to trust the evaluator’s summaries without any way to verify accuracy, impartiality, or completeness. Without any way to verify the interviews every took place at all.
That is a serious problem, but the legal profession and judiciary in Utah act (and it is acting) as though it is not.
Custody disputes involve fundamental parental rights and the well-being of children. Decisions made in these cases shape families and affect children (and parents too) for a lifetime. Yet current custody evaluation practice lacks the most basic safeguards of transparency.
These recordings should not gather dust in the evaluator’s file—they should be part of the case record and reviewable by all who are involved in the case.
Knowing this, here are three things I submit that any parent (and his/her attorney) should request (and fight—hard—for) whenever the appointment of a custody evaluator is contemplated or ordered: (1) recording all interviews; (2) giving parties and counsel access to those recordings; and (3) requiring full production to the court and to the parents of the evaluator’s file as part of the evaluation process. These protections are obvious, reasonable, and long overdue.
Why Recordings of Custody Evaluations Matter
When a custody evaluator interviews a child, a parent, or a collateral witness, the integrity of that conversation is critical. Did the evaluator ask neutral, open-ended, non-coercive questions—or leading, biased, intimidating ones? Did the witness hesitate before answering, or answer at all? Did the child witness’s tone suggest fear, confusion, or confidence? Without sound-and-visual recordings, no one can ever know. Judges, lawyers, and parents are left to take the evaluator’s word for it. That’s not good enough. Not even close. The circumstances under which the interviews took place and what was stated in those interviews cannot be a matter of faith over fact. Yet it is common for courts to add when denying a request that interviews be recorded, “I have faith that the custody evaluator will be honest with us about what he/she did and learned in conducting the interviews.” Ludicrous.
Recording all interviews by audio and video:
- Eliminates disputes about what was actually said (and not said) by interviewer and interviewee.
- Provides more complete information than would a mere transcript or mere audio recording. When a witness’s mannerisms and tone of voice can also be observed, knowing the context of his/her words leads to greater and more accurate understanding of them.
- Protects evaluators from false accusations of bias or misconduct.
- Protects children and parents by ensuring the process is transparent and fair.
- Gives the court confidence that its decision rests on a more complete, and thus more accurate record.
Debunking Myths About Recording Custody Evaluations
- The claim that “people lie when they are recorded” has no basis in evidence. In fact, research consistently shows that the presence of recording devices increases accountability and promotes truthfulness. Individuals aware of being observed tend to conform more closely to social norms, including honesty The idea that recording somehow generally and “reliably” fosters dishonesty is not only unsupported—it is the opposite of what the evidence shows.
- The claim that children are “traumatized” by the knowledge that they are being recorded rings equally hollow. No credible empirical evidence supports this. The suggestion that recording uniquely and significantly harms children in custody evaluations settings is without merit.
Access to the Recordings: Due Process, Not Drama
Parents and lawyers often hear the objection: “If parents see the recordings, they might retaliate against the children for what they said.”
That fear, while understandable in some cases, is overstated and practically unworkable. Retaliation is already prohibited. Proving it after the fact is difficult. Limiting access to recordings does not prevent retaliation—it only prevents parents and lawyers from knowing what was said in the first place.
Limiting parents’ access to interview recordings in the name of shielding children from retaliation is a well-intentioned gesture, but it is practically unenforceable. If a parent is determined to know what a child said, the restriction creates only an illusion of protection. An unscrupulous attorney can surreptitiously share the recordings (or simply provide the client with a near word-for-word recollection of the recordings, if the client has the patience), or the parent can simply pressure, threaten, or coax the child into “spilling the beans.” The result is a rule that is impossible to police, undermines due process and trust in the legal system, and does nothing to genuinely protect the child.
Transparency is the better answer. With access to full, unredacted recordings, parents and their attorneys can:
- Confirm who was interviewed, when, and under what circumstances.
- Evaluate whether the questions were impartial and professionally appropriate.
- Identify gaps—questions that should have been asked but weren’t.
- Test the evaluator’s conclusions against the actual record.
If the court has compelling evidence that a parent might misuse the recordings, it can limit access to counsel only, under a protective order. That’s a narrow, case-specific solution—not a blanket gag on transparency.
Production of the Complete Evaluation File
Under Utah’s rules, evaluators must maintain written records, but what actually gets turned over to the parties is often (frankly, always) selective. Lawyers frequently receive a polished report but not the raw data, notes, communications, or other materials the evaluator considered.
That’s not enough. Custody evaluators are expert witnesses. In every other context, experts are required to produce their complete file so that their work can be tested and challenged. Custody evaluations should be no different.
Full production of the evaluator’s file ensures:
- No cherry-picking or fudging of evidence.
- Equal access for both parties.
- A complete record for the judge to weigh.
Whether a parent is represented by counsel or acting pro se, parents should have the right to request and receive the evaluator’s entire file, unredacted.
Why Recording of Interviews and Access to Both the Recordings and the Evaluator’s Complete File Matters for Parents and Lawyers
For parents, it means fairness. You don’t indulge blind trust. You know the process is documented, and you have the tools to challenge an evaluator who cuts corners or shows bias.
For lawyers, it means clarity. Instead of relying on “he said/she said” disputes about what happened in an interview, you have the objective evidence of it. That makes for better advocacy and, ultimately, fairer outcomes for your clients and the children they love.
For judges, it means confidence. Instead of rubber-stamping an evaluator’s conclusions, judges see the foundation of those conclusions for themselves.
The upshot?
Modern Utah custody evaluation practices suffer from fatal defects. Recording interviews, ensuring access to the complete and unredacted recordings, and requiring production of the full evaluator’s file are simple, and painfully obvious sensible measures. They protect children, parents, evaluators, and the integrity of the legal system itself.
Until courts start requiring these practices as a matter of basic routine, parents and lawyers should ask for them—every time. Transparency is not optional when it comes to child custody and parent-time analysis and rulings.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277