Custody Evaluation Request for an Existing Client's Family

Scope of practice and competence are separate questions. Nebraska's LMFT license authorizes the practice of marriage and family therapy, which includes assessment and treatment of mental and emotional disorders within a family systems framework. A custody evaluation is a forensic evaluation, not therapy: it requires neutrality, expertise in child custody standards, forensic interviewing, test interpretation, and the ability to withstand legal scrutiny. The license may not expressly prohibit an LMFT from doing custody work, but licensure alone does not establish competence. The LMFT has only 12 CE hours in family systems and no forensic supervision or evaluation experience. Under the AAMFT Code and Nebraska licensing rules, a therapist must practice only within the boundaries of competence based on education, training, supervised experience, and consultation. Accepting this case would exceed that boundary. The correct analysis is not 'Can an LMFT legally do this?' but 'Is this LMFT competent to do this particular forensic evaluation?' Here, the answer is no. The LMFT should decline the evaluation role and refer to a qualified forensic evaluator, such as a licensed psychologist or an LMFT with documented forensic training and experience.

Combining the treating and evaluating roles creates a harmful multiple relationship. As Maya's therapist, the LMFT has a therapeutic alliance, has heard only selected family information, and may be perceived as an advocate. As an evaluator, the LMFT would need to remain neutral, gather collateral data, and make a recommendation that could adversely affect either parent. The roles have different confidentiality rules, different informed-consent requirements, and different obligations to the court. The mother's request for a primary-custody recommendation compounds the problem: rewarding that request would suggest bias and could damage the therapeutic relationship with Maya and the father. The LMFT should explain that a treating therapist does not make custody recommendations and cannot promise an outcome. If appropriate and authorized, the LMFT may provide a factual treatment summary limited to Maya's clinical presentation, progress, and attendance. The LMFT should avoid opining on custody unless qualified and appointed by the court. The response should be documented, and the mother should be helped to understand that the child's treatment needs are separate from the parents' legal dispute.

The LMFT should send a written declination to the attorney, stating that the therapist will not serve as the custody evaluator because of the existing therapeutic relationship and lack of forensic competence. The letter should offer an appropriate alternative: a release-signed treatment summary or records, or a referral list of qualified forensic evaluators. The LMFT should not release records without a valid authorization or court order and should review the record for third-party information. The LMFT should document the attorney's request, the mother's request, the declination, the referral, and any consultation with a risk manager or attorney. The practice should correct its website if it advertises forensic evaluations that no clinician is qualified to provide; advertising must not overstate services. If the court later appoints the LMFT or orders records, the LMFT should seek legal advice and assert appropriate privilege on the client's behalf. Finally, the LMFT should obtain forensic training and supervision before ever adding custody evaluation to their practice.