The Danger of Interpretation When Courts Refuse to Hear from the Child Directly
When the court relies on a child custody evaluator or Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), it is not getting the child’s voice; it is getting the child’s voice filtered and interpreted through a professional’s subjective framework. This layer of interpretation, though intended to protect the child, is arguably one of the most dangerous aspects of the current system.
We should focus on simply getting simple factual information that’s relevant. When a child testifies, the goal should not be to ask, “Which parent do you love more?” or “Who is the better parent?” That invites the loyalty conflicts. The goal should be to ask simple, factual questions:
“Tell me about your morning routine at Parent A’s house.”
“Who is usually the one who takes you to soccer practice?”
“If you have a problem with your homework, who do you ask first?”
This type of questioning is far less likely to be traumatizing than the intense, probing, often emotionally charged interviews conducted by evaluators who are simultaneously trying to diagnose family dysfunction, assess psychological fitness, and form a custody recommendation.[1]
These are objective, non-judgmental facts that relate directly to the child’s daily stability, caregiving competence, and actual routine. This type of questioning is far less likely to be traumatizing than the intense, probing, often emotionally charged interviews conducted by evaluators who are simultaneously trying to diagnose family dysfunction, assess psychological fitness, and form a custody recommendation.
The system should prioritize direct evidence over expert opinion, especially when that opinion is based on subjective interviews. A judge can assess the credibility and demeanor of a child answering factual questions about their life. It is far more difficult for a judge to assess the credibility of a GAL who claims the child said one thing but meant another, or who filters the child’s stated experience or preference through a complex psychological theory.
Advocating for a child’s direct, factual testimony—paired with appropriate safeguards (if and when necessary), such as testimony outside the formal courtroom and strict limits on leading questions—means valuing the most objective evidence available. This approach does not ask a child to choose sides; it asks the children to be a witness to their own lives. It is not only fairer to the parents but more respectful and less psychologically damaging to the child.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
[1] Paradoxically, overly cautious interviewing can be just as distorting as overly aggressive questioning. When an evaluator approaches a child with excessive delicacy—avoiding follow-up questions, declining to clarify inconsistencies, or steering away from concrete details out of fear of “traumatizing” the child—the result is often incomplete, vague, or strategically sanitized information. Children are acutely sensitive to adult discomfort and expectation. When they sense that certain topics are off-limits or emotionally charged, they adapt: they hedge, simplify, or say what they believe is safest to say rather than what is most accurate. By contrast, clear, direct, age-appropriate questions about routine, caregiving, and lived experience tend to elicit more candid and reliable answers. Such questions signal that truth-telling—not emotional performance or psychological interpretation—is the task at hand, and they reduce the pressure on the child to manage the adult’s feelings instead of simply describing their own life.