Utah family courts often order custody, psychological, or substance-abuse evaluations. Learn what to expect, how to prepare, and how to protect yourself during these high-stakes assessments.
_________
When a Utah family court orders a custody evaluation, psychological evaluation, or substance-abuse evaluation, it can feel intimidating, regardless of whether you have a checkered criminal, mental health, or substance abuse past. You might be worried that the request for an evaluation raises suspicions about, you may be concerned about privacy, the accuracy of the evaluation, or how the results could affect your custody or visitation rights. Understanding what these evaluations are and how to approach them wisely can make a substantial difference in the outcome.
Why the Court Orders Evaluations
Evaluations are tools the court uses to gather relevant facts and sometimes some expert witness recommendations as well. Custody evaluations, governed by Utah Rule of Judicial Administration 4-903, are designed to provide an objective assessment of each parent’s ability to care for a child. Psychological evaluations or other physical/mental evaluations fall under Rule 35 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and are only ordered when a parent’s mental or physical condition is genuinely in controversy. Substance-abuse evaluations may be ordered as part of custody proceedings or when there are allegations of alcohol or drug misuse.
These evaluations are far from perfect. Evaluators’ perspectives, biases, and methodologies vary. Courts often (though not always) treat these reports as near-determinative, which means a parent who fails to prepare carefully or who behaves poorly can see the evaluation sway the court against him/her.
Custody Evaluations (UCJA 4-903)
Evaluators often assess parenting skills, mental health, and the child’s overall environment. A custody evaluation is broad. The evaluator usually interviews each parent, interviews the children, observes interactions between each parent and the children, visits each parent’s home (usually with the children there with the parent there too), and speaks with teachers, relatives, and neighbors. In some cases, the custody evaluator will speak with other professionals, such as a child’s or parent’s therapist (if the parent and/or child has been seeing a therapist), or with professionals who the evaluator may enlist to help perform psychological testing in the course of the evaluation. Rule 4-903 outlines the evaluator’s qualifications and the deadlines by which the evaluator has to submit his/her report, if a written report is requested.
A realistic warning: not all evaluators are equally skilled or impartial. Courts often rely heavily on the evaluator’s recommendations without scrutinizing the evaluator’s qualifications, experience, or competence. Choose wisely.
Attempting to manipulate or impress the evaluator rarely works and can backfire. The most effective approach is being your genuine self: calm, cooperative, and consistent behavior will always serve a parent better than trying to “perform” or stage interactions. To preserve your credibility, be credible.
Psychological Evaluations (Rule 35)
A psychological evaluation is narrower than a custody evaluation (and can often be a component of a custody evaluation) but can be no less consequential. Under Rule 35, a court can order an evaluation only when a parent’s mental health is relevant to the case. The party requesting the psychological evaluation must show good cause, and the court must define the scope, examiner, and timeline.
Psychological evaluations can reveal both strengths and vulnerabilities. Honesty is crucial, but volunteering excessive or irrelevant personal information can undermine a parent’s appeal and credibility. These evaluations are investigative, not therapeutic—they are designed to assess functioning, not provide counseling to the subject of the evaluation.
Substance Abuse Evaluations
Substance abuse evaluations often arise in cases involving DUI, prior alcohol or drug misuse, or substance-related violations of existing court orders. Evaluators may require testing, interviews, and sometimes may make treatment recommendations. Courts may base child custody and parent-time awards in part on the results of a substance abuse evaluation. Courts may order a parent to submit to treatment based on these reports. The candid warning here: proactive accountability acknowledging issues and honestly and consistently engaging in treatment voluntarily can mitigate the negative impact of an evaluation. Trying to hide or minimize problems is almost always worse.
How to Approach Any Evaluation Wisely
Treat the evaluator as an observer, not a confidant.
Don’t try to “win” or overperform.
Do not coach children, stage appearances, or disparage the other parent.
Focus on your own credibility: calm, consistent, and factual behavior.
Keep communications and home routines consistent with what you present in court.
Document interactions with evaluators carefully, but don’t harass or overwhelm them.
Your attorney should guide what is shared and when; unsupervised communications can create serious problems.
After the Evaluation
Evaluators produce written reports, which are shared with the court and both parents. Courts often (though not always) give these reports significant weight. Challenging an unfavorable report is possible but difficult: courts generally don’t like it when the evaluator’s competence or the soundness of his/her report and recommendations are called into question. The bar is set high to discredit evaluators. It’s labor- and cost-intensive. Preparing properly before the evaluation and performing well in the evaluation process is far more effective than trying to repair the outcome afterward.
Challenging a Biased or Incompetent Evaluation
If the evaluator was truly biased, unqualified, or simply did a poor job, bear in mind that Utah courts presume evaluators are neutral experts under Rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. That means you can’t just assert “the evaluation is unsound/unfair.” You must show how the evaluator failed to meet professional or procedural standards.
Start by having your attorney obtain the evaluator’s complete file (notes, raw test data, collateral interview summaries, correspondence). An expert of your own may need to review the file to identify methodological or interpretive errors. If the flaws in the evaluation are serious enough, you can move to exclude the evaluator’s report, limit the evaluator’s testimony, or cross-examine them on bias, competence, or deviation from accepted practice. This is where preparation and documentation pay off: contemporaneous notes and recordings of misstatements, omissions, or procedural lapses can give the court confidence your challenge is evidence-based, not emotional.
Attacking an evaluator personally or in general terms (“they didn’t like me,” “they believed my ex”) almost always backfires. The winning approach is dispassionate, fact-driven, and focused on reliability and relevance. A disciplined critique—showing how the evaluator’s process or conclusions fail Utah’s standards for expert testimony—can make the difference between being dismissed as disgruntled and being recognized as raising credible concerns.
You cannot control an evaluator’s methods or conclusions, but you can control your preparation. Going through the evaluation in a prompt, cooperative, and composed manner helps ensure the evaluation is favorable to you at best or does minimal damage at worst. Courts reward authenticity and consistency far more than perfection. Approaching the process with discipline, self-awareness, and the guidance of competent counsel is the best path to a fair and accurate assessment.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277