Custody Relocation, Alienation Allegations, and an Inadequate Evaluation

The referral is framed as a full psychological evaluation, but 90 minutes with the family and a 10-day deadline cannot support a defensible custody opinion. A full evaluation requires separate interviews with each parent, child interviews appropriate to age, parent-child observations, collateral from schools and providers, record review, standardized measures, and attention to domestic violence and substance use. It also requires clarifying the legal question: parenting plan, decision-making, relocation, or all three. I would not accept the parents' request that I choose a 'primary custodian' without a court order defining the scope.

I would write to the court and counsel explaining the limits, requesting additional time and access to records, and clarifying my role as a court-appointed evaluator rather than an advocate for either parent. I would screen for intimate partner violence, child maltreatment, mental health, and substance use. I would observe each parent with each child, interview the children in a developmentally appropriate way, and obtain collateral. If the court insists on the deadline, I would provide a limited interim report stating what has and has not been evaluated and avoid ultimate custody conclusions. Accepting an inadequate evaluation would risk harming the children and misleading the court.

Relocation requires comparing the child's life in the current location with the proposed location, not simply asking which parent is 'better.' I would examine the reason for the move, the proposed housing and school arrangements, the children's relationships with each parent and extended family, each parent's willingness to support the other relationship, the logistics and cost of travel, and the children's educational, medical, and social needs. I would consider the children's preferences in light of their ages and maturity, but I would not treat the 10-year-old's statement as decisive.

The alleged domestic violence is relevant to safety and to the feasibility of shared parenting, regardless of whether charges were filed. I would not presume that the mother's higher-paying job automatically serves the children's best interests, nor that the father's involvement automatically outweighs the mother's stability. I would evaluate whether a long-distance parenting plan could preserve the father's relationship and whether the move would disrupt the children's schooling or support networks. My recommendation should explain the trade-offs rather than simply endorsing one parent's request.

I would not use 'parental alienation syndrome' as a diagnosis; it is not accepted as a validated syndrome and risks turning an allegation into a conclusion. Instead, I would assess specific behaviors by each parent: whether one parent undermines contact, whether the children's reluctance is justified by the other parent's behavior, and whether the children's statements reflect their own experience or adult pressure. The 10-year-old's comment that 'mom says dad is dangerous' should be explored-who said what, when, and in what context-without leading the child.

I would observe each parent-child dyad, obtain school and collateral information, and consider the history of alleged violence. Justified estrangement can look like alienation, and genuine alienation can occur without a syndrome label. I would report concrete observations and their limits, avoid diagnosing a parent, and recommend interventions such as co-parenting counseling or reunification therapy if indicated. The court should receive a balanced account of the children's relationships and the parents' behavior, not a label that decides the case.