5 Signs of a Bad Custody Evaluation, as Told by a Lawyer

Typically, a social worker’s evaluation is the most critical piece of the puzzle in a child custody case.

Now, technically, the evaluation is not legally binding. But a social worker is an expert witness whom the judge appoints. As a result, the report carries great weight, to say the least.

The good news? A bad custody evaluation is not necessarily the end of the road. “Bad” parents should not give up, and “good” parents should not celebrate victories.

Here are five signs of a bad custody evaluation – one that doesn’t accurately (or adequately) assess the situation at hand.

1. The evaluation is clearly biased.

In a bygone era, the tender years doctrine decided custody disputes. Mothers always got custody of children in their “tender years,” regardless of the facts. Formally, this doctrine is on the ash heap of history. Informally, it’s alive and well.

Today’s social workers often went to school when the tender years doctrine was set in stone. So, a latent and longstanding prejudice abides. An image of a “drunk” father, for example, reinforces this prejudice and forces it to the surface.

Biased social workers often make subtle comments that betray their prejudice. Social workers cannot assume that dads cannot take care of young children or a liquor bottle is a sign of a bad environment. For example, a social worker may grill Ben about his ability to take care of a small child (change diapers, prepare bottles, etc.) as if he has no idea how to do these things.

Other social workers minimize or ignore important facts, due to their bias. Non-contact domestic violence is a good illustration. If a social worker’s report fails to properly acknowledge stalking and other issues, the social worker most likely made excuses for the perpetrator and trivialized the impact on the victim.

Bias may be the most troubling warning sign of a bad custody evaluation. Luckily, it’s usually one of the easiest matters to address in court. Bias and prejudice quickly become apparent during probing cross-examinations.

2. Interviews don’t scratch the surface – and only take place with the parents.

Superficial interviews and glaring omissions are the most common interview issues that signal a bad custody review.

Social workers must plan their work and execute their plans. These professionals should thoroughly prepare for parental and other interviews. The interviews should match the notes they’ve received or taken previously. So, a breakdown in either area usually indicates the social worker did not properly do his/her job.

Omissions are probably more common than superficial interviews. Alas, many social workers put forth minimum effort. They interview parents and that’s it. They do not interview other important people in the child’s life, such as:

• Teachers
• Parents of friends
• Neighbors
• Doctors
• Religious leaders the family is in contact with

These individuals often provide vital information in these cases – which is why family law attorneys often conduct interviews with them.

Most of the aforementioned people are more than willing to voluntarily tell a lawyer what they know about a case. Additionally, as mentioned, these individuals are concerned about the child’s welfare and nothing more – they usually don’t have an agenda. 

3. The evaluation doesn’t account for the child’s actual needs.

During the tender years era, courts usually ignored the child’s needs. Today, a custody evaluation must account for the child’s educational, medical, emotional, and other needs.

Geography comes into play in all these areas. A custody evaluation should consider factors such as:

• Quality of schools in each area – how they compare in one parent’s neighborhood versus the other parent’s neighborhood.
• The child’s existing relationships – If, for example, Sally’s BFF lives next door to Dad, a residence transfer could effectively kill that friendship.
• Dynamics between a child and each parent – Timmy’s relationship with his mom may be bad. But if his relationship with his dad is even worse, the social worker’s recommendations should reflect that reality. A social worker must focus on actual relationships, not ideal relationships.

Now, assessing the child’s needs is difficult, partially because things are not always as they seem.

Assume Timmy breaks his leg. Dad says Timmy fell down the stairs and, for the aforementioned reasons, Timmy backs up Dad. Dr. X, who’s treated the family for years, might accept that story at face value. Dr. Y, a new doctor, might ask more questions.

Frequently, an independent social worker reviews the report in these situations and should spot deficiencies or inconsistencies in these accounts.

4. The report is sloppy and filled with mistakes.

Some social workers effectively discredit themselves by submitting vague or conclusory reports. Recommendations should be well-supported by the evidence and observations collected during the evaluation.

But many social workers don’t sit down after all the evidence is in, carefully consider what they’ve found, and then write their reports. Instead, the report is a work in progress throughout the process.

As a result, the report may contradict itself or present conflicting opinions. These issues suggest sloppy or careless work. Ditto for misspelled names or incorrect facts.

5. The social worker treats one parent better than the other.

Unequal treatment is almost a sure sign of a bad custody evaluation. Here’s what it might look like:

A social worker may treat one parent with a great deal of respect. Maybe it’s always “Mr. A” or “Ms. B.” The social worker schedules interviews, including time and place, at that parent’s convenience. At the interview, the social worker engages in the moment and throws softball questions. Finally, the social worker is completely transparent with that parent about the process.

But the social worker doesn’t treat the other parent the same way. Perhaps they use no or few Mr. and Ms. formalities. The social worker tells the parent to come to the office and refuses to reschedule. During the interview, the social worker multitasks or is combative. Finally, when the parent asks questions, the social worker is vague or simply refuses to answer.

Parental interviews usually occur early in the process. When signs of unequal treatment emerge, many attorneys ask judges to replace these social workers. Judges, who know a bad evaluation is probably forthcoming, usually grant these requests.

Spotting the signs of a bad custody evaluation: The bottom line

A custody evaluation can shape the trajectory of a case, but it is not infallible. When an assessment reflects bias, lacks depth, overlooks a child’s real needs, contains errors, or treats parents unequally, it stops serving its purpose – and starts undermining the very children it’s meant to protect.

Recognizing the warning signs of a flawed evaluation empowers parents and their attorneys to challenge inaccuracies, present stronger evidence, and advocate for a fairer outcome. In the end, a custody case should hinge on the child’s best interests – not the shortcomings of an incomplete or careless report.

Frequently Asked Questions