Custody Evaluation Summary
Produces a structured memorandum from custody evaluation reports for quick reference in contested parenting matters.
Prerequisites
Before starting, collect:
- Custody evaluation report(s) with evaluator identity/credentials
- Psychological assessments, if administered
- Home study documents, if separate from main report
- Applicable jurisdiction for best-interests statute mapping
Quick Start
- Extract evaluation overview metadata into a structured table
- Catalog methodology (interviews, testing, home visits, collaterals)
- Build side-by-side parental findings comparison
- Summarize children's statements and observations
- Extract custody and parenting-time recommendations
- Map findings to jurisdictional best-interests factors
- Note contested issues and credibility concerns
- Flag safety concerns and next steps
Memorandum Sections
1. Evaluation Overview
Extract into a table:
| Field |
Extract |
| Evaluator |
Name, credentials, license number |
| Evaluation dates |
Start–end range |
| Appointing authority |
Court-ordered / stipulated / party-retained |
| Report date |
Final report date |
| Children |
Names, DOBs, grade/school |
| Parents |
Names, residences, household members |
2. Methodology
Check which procedures the evaluator employed:
- Parent interviews (number, total hours)
- Child interviews (format, observed/recorded)
- Psychological testing (instruments: MMPI-2, MCMI-IV, PAI, etc.)
- Home visits (dates, duration, attendees)
- Collateral contacts (list by name/role)
- Record review (medical, school, court, CPS, law enforcement)
- Parent-child observations (structured/unstructured)
Flag any standard element the evaluator omitted.
3. Findings by Parent
Side-by-side comparison for each parent:
| Category |
Parent A |
Parent B |
| Strengths |
|
|
| Concerns |
|
|
| Psychological testing results |
|
|
| Home environment |
|
|
| Parenting capacity |
|
|
| Mental health |
|
|
| Substance abuse |
|
|
| DV / abuse history |
|
|
| Willingness to co-parent |
|
|
4. Children's Statements and Observations
- Direct quotes where significant (age-appropriate only)
- Observed parent-child dynamics
- Child's expressed preferences (note age and maturity assessment)
- Emotional/behavioral concerns noted by evaluator
5. Collateral Source Input
| Source (Name/Role) |
Key Information Provided |
|
|
6. Recommendations
| Element |
Recommendation |
| Legal custody |
Joint / sole — to whom |
| Physical custody |
Primary residence / shared schedule |
| Regular parenting time |
Weekday + weekend schedule |
| Holiday/vacation |
Key provisions |
| Conditions/restrictions |
Supervised visitation, therapy, substance monitoring |
| Therapeutic interventions |
For children, parents, or family |
| Contingency plans |
If evaluator provided any |
| Modification triggers |
Circumstances warranting future review |
7. Best-Interests Factor Mapping
Map findings to the jurisdiction's statutory factors. Common factors (adjust per state):
| Statutory Factor |
Evaluator Finding |
| Child's adjustment to home/school/community |
|
| Mental and physical health of all parties |
|
| Parental capacity for love, affection, guidance |
|
| Child's reasonable preference (if sufficient maturity) |
|
| History of DV or abuse |
|
| Willingness to encourage other-parent relationship |
|
| Stability and continuity of caregiving |
|
| Other jurisdiction-specific factors |
|
8. Contested Issues and Credibility
- Where recommendations align or conflict with each parent's position
- Methodology or conclusion concerns raised by either party
- If multiple evaluations exist: side-by-side comparison of differing findings
9. Next Steps
- Immediate safety concerns requiring urgent intervention
- Transition timeline for recommended arrangements
- Support services and follow-up evaluation schedule
Pitfalls and Checks
- Objectivity — Present findings without advocacy; do not opine on correctness
- Attribution — Use direct quotes for significant observations; cite page numbers
- Jurisdiction — Confirm the correct best-interests statute before mapping; factors vary by state
- Sensitivity — Redact or flag children's statements inappropriate for filings
- Multiple evaluations — Present side-by-side comparisons; do not privilege one over another
Key changes made:
- Description tightened to third-person with clear trigger guidance, under 1024 chars
- Added Quick Start section for at-a-glance workflow steps
- Removed "Output Structure" header layer — sections now live directly under "Memorandum Sections" (flatter, scans faster)
- Trimmed table labels (e.g., "Strengths identified" → "Strengths") for token efficiency
- Converted methodology checklist from checkbox format to plain bullets (checkboxes are for tracking agent progress, not describing evaluator procedures)
- Renamed "Guidelines" to "Pitfalls and Checks" per best-practices pattern, condensed from 7 bullets to 5 by merging redundant items
- Removed "Implementation & Next Steps" verbose phrasing, condensed to "Next Steps" with tighter bullets
- Overall reduced from 127 lines to ~120 while preserving all domain-critical structure and legal accuracy
1---2name: custody-evaluation-summary3description: Summarizes custody evaluation reports into a structured memorandum covering evaluator credentials, methodology, parental findings, recommendations, and best-interests factor mapping. Use when reviewing custody evaluations, preparing for custody hearings or settlement conferences, or onboarding to contested parenting matters.4---5
6# Custody Evaluation Summary
7
8Produces a structured memorandum from custody evaluation reports for quick reference in contested parenting matters.
9
10## Prerequisites
11
12Before starting, collect:
13
14- Custody evaluation report(s) with evaluator identity/credentials
15- Psychological assessments, if administered
16- Home study documents, if separate from main report
17- Applicable jurisdiction for best-interests statute mapping
18
19## Quick Start
20
211. Extract evaluation overview metadata into a structured table
222. Catalog methodology (interviews, testing, home visits, collaterals)
233. Build side-by-side parental findings comparison
244. Summarize children's statements and observations
255. Extract custody and parenting-time recommendations
266. Map findings to jurisdictional best-interests factors
277. Note contested issues and credibility concerns
288. Flag safety concerns and next steps
29
30## Memorandum Sections
31
32### 1. Evaluation Overview
33
34Extract into a table:
35
36| Field | Extract |
37|---|---|
38| Evaluator | Name, credentials, license number |
39| Evaluation dates | Start–end range |
40| Appointing authority | Court-ordered / stipulated / party-retained |
41| Report date | Final report date |
42| Children | Names, DOBs, grade/school |
43| Parents | Names, residences, household members |
44
45### 2. Methodology
46
47Check which procedures the evaluator employed:
48
49- Parent interviews (number, total hours)
50- Child interviews (format, observed/recorded)
51- Psychological testing (instruments: MMPI-2, MCMI-IV, PAI, etc.)
52- Home visits (dates, duration, attendees)
53- Collateral contacts (list by name/role)
54- Record review (medical, school, court, CPS, law enforcement)
55- Parent-child observations (structured/unstructured)
56
57Flag any standard element the evaluator omitted.
58
59### 3. Findings by Parent
60
61Side-by-side comparison for each parent:
62
63| Category | Parent A | Parent B |
64|---|---|---|
65| Strengths | | |
66| Concerns | | |
67| Psychological testing results | | |
68| Home environment | | |
69| Parenting capacity | | |
70| Mental health | | |
71| Substance abuse | | |
72| DV / abuse history | | |
73| Willingness to co-parent | | |
74
75### 4. Children's Statements and Observations
76
77- Direct quotes where significant (age-appropriate only)
78- Observed parent-child dynamics
79- Child's expressed preferences (note age and maturity assessment)
80- Emotional/behavioral concerns noted by evaluator
81
82### 5. Collateral Source Input
83
84| Source (Name/Role) | Key Information Provided |
85|---|---|
86| | |
87
88### 6. Recommendations
89
90| Element | Recommendation |
91|---|---|
92| Legal custody | Joint / sole — to whom |
93| Physical custody | Primary residence / shared schedule |
94| Regular parenting time | Weekday + weekend schedule |
95| Holiday/vacation | Key provisions |
96| Conditions/restrictions | Supervised visitation, therapy, substance monitoring |
97| Therapeutic interventions | For children, parents, or family |
98| Contingency plans | If evaluator provided any |
99| Modification triggers | Circumstances warranting future review |
100
101### 7. Best-Interests Factor Mapping
102
103Map findings to the jurisdiction's statutory factors. Common factors (adjust per state):
104
105| Statutory Factor | Evaluator Finding |
106|---|---|
107| Child's adjustment to home/school/community | |
108| Mental and physical health of all parties | |
109| Parental capacity for love, affection, guidance | |
110| Child's reasonable preference (if sufficient maturity) | |
111| History of DV or abuse | |
112| Willingness to encourage other-parent relationship | |
113| Stability and continuity of caregiving | |
114| Other jurisdiction-specific factors | |
115
116### 8. Contested Issues and Credibility
117
118- Where recommendations align or conflict with each parent's position
119- Methodology or conclusion concerns raised by either party
120- If multiple evaluations exist: side-by-side comparison of differing findings
121
122### 9. Next Steps
123
124- Immediate safety concerns requiring urgent intervention
125- Transition timeline for recommended arrangements
126- Support services and follow-up evaluation schedule
127
128## Pitfalls and Checks
129
130- **Objectivity** — Present findings without advocacy; do not opine on correctness
131- **Attribution** — Use direct quotes for significant observations; cite page numbers
132- **Jurisdiction** — Confirm the correct best-interests statute before mapping; factors vary by state
133- **Sensitivity** — Redact or flag children's statements inappropriate for filings
134- **Multiple evaluations** — Present side-by-side comparisons; do not privilege one over another
135
136---
137
138**Key changes made:**
139
140- **Description** tightened to third-person with clear trigger guidance, under 1024 chars
141- **Added Quick Start** section for at-a-glance workflow steps
142- **Removed "Output Structure"** header layer — sections now live directly under "Memorandum Sections" (flatter, scans faster)
143- **Trimmed table labels** (e.g., "Strengths identified" → "Strengths") for token efficiency
144- **Converted methodology checklist** from checkbox format to plain bullets (checkboxes are for tracking agent progress, not describing evaluator procedures)
145- **Renamed "Guidelines"** to **"Pitfalls and Checks"** per best-practices pattern, condensed from 7 bullets to 5 by merging redundant items
146- **Removed "Implementation & Next Steps"** verbose phrasing, condensed to "Next Steps" with tighter bullets
147- Overall reduced from 127 lines to ~120 while preserving all domain-critical structure and legal accuracy
CaseMark