Rule 1004.Parenting Time Evaluation

Part X. Other Resources · Last amended July 1, 2021 · Last verified September 4, 2026

In one sentenceRule 1004 governs parenting time evaluations — who may conduct one, what the order must contain, the required scope, and the report's admissibility.

Full Text of Rule 1004

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

(a) Definition of Parenting Time Evaluation. A "parenting time evaluation" is an expert investigation and analysis of the best interest of child with regard to disputed parenting time issues. The parenting time evaluation must not include interim parenting time recommendations or a brief focused assessment. The purpose of a parenting time evaluation is to provide the court with information it may consider to make decisions regarding custody and parenting time arrangements that are in the child's best interest. This is accomplished, among other things, by assessing the capacity to parent, and the developmental, emotional, and physical needs of the child. Unless otherwise specified in the order, evaluators must consider and respond to the factors set forth at Idaho Code § 32-717.

(b) Matters in Which Appointment May be Made. The court, on a motion of any party, agreement of the parties, or on its own motion, may order a parenting time evaluation in any action involving custody of minor child to assist the trier of fact with matters that affect the best interest of the child.

(c) Selection of a Parenting Time Evaluator. The court may permit the parties to select an evaluator, or the court may appoint an evaluator. The evaluator must meet the qualifications set forth. If the court intends to appoint its own evaluator, it must follow the show cause procedure set forth in Idaho Rule of Evidence 706.

(d) Qualifications of Evaluator.

(1) A parenting time evaluator must have at least one of the following minimum qualifications:

(A) licensed physician who is Board certified in psychiatry;

(B) licensed psychologist; or

(C) individual with a minimum of a master’s degree in a mental health field that includes formal education and training in the legal, social, familial, and cultural issues involved in custody and access decisions.

(2) Parenting time evaluators must possess the same or similar qualifications, expertise, and trainings as outlined in the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations.

(3) Family Court Services' staff who do not meet the qualifications set forth may perform a parenting time evaluation when such evaluation is performed under the direct supervision of another Family Court Services' staff person who does meet the minimum qualifications set forth in this section.

(4) An evaluator must be licensed in the state of Idaho or other jurisdiction approved by the court and must perform the parenting evaluation within the scope of their licensure.

(e) Motion, Stipulation, and Order of Evaluation.

(1) Every motion or stipulation for the performance of a parenting time evaluation must include:

(A) the name, address, and telephone number of the evaluator; and

(B) specific factors, if any, to address in the evaluation, including but not limited to whether a specific parenting access schedule is needed.

(2) Every order requiring the performance of a parenting evaluation must:

(A) include the name of the evaluator;

(B) require the parties to cooperate as requested by the evaluator;

(C) with the exception of mediation records, provide for the evaluator to have access to all records, public or private, that bear on the physical or mental health of the parties, the child and other persons who are part of the household and for any child whose custody is at issue, including but not limited to, medical and dental records, school records, day care records, drug test results, court records including civil and criminal domestic violence petitions, orders of protection, previous assessments or evaluations of either party, and child protective services records;

(D) require each party to sign releases for such information as requested by the evaluator;

(E) restrict disclosure of the evaluation's findings or recommendations and privileged information to the child of the subject litigation or as deemed necessary by the court;

(F) assign responsibility for payment;

(G) specify the anticipated dates of commencement and completion of the evaluation;

(H) specify any additional factors to be addressed in the evaluation;

(I) require the evaluator to provide written notice to the court, attorneys, and parties within 5 business days of completion or termination of the evaluation and, if terminated, the reason;

(J) require a written custody evaluation report to be prepared unless the court orders otherwise; and

(K) include language that the court and the parties acknowledge the evaluator is appointed by the authority of the court and that the evaluator is under the direction and control of the court and as such, is performing a judicial function and is entitled to judicial immunity.

(f) Scope of Evaluation. All evaluations must be conducted in accordance with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, or the American Psychological Association (APA) Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings and must include, at a minimum:

(1) A written explanation of the process that clearly describes the:

(A) purpose of the evaluation;

(B) procedures used and the time required to gather and assess information and, if psychological tests will be used, the role of the results in confirming or questioning other information or previous conclusions;

(D) limitations on the confidentiality of the process; and

(E) cost and payment responsibility for the evaluation.

(2) Data collection and analysis sufficient to allow the evaluator to observe and consider each party in comparable ways and to substantiate (from multiple sources when possible) interpretations and conclusions regarding each child's developmental needs; the quality of attachment to each parent and that parent's social environment; and reactions to the separation, divorce, or parental conflict. This process must include:

(A) reviewing pertinent documents related to custody, including court records and local police records;

(i) Any documents provided by the parties to the evaluator must be simultaneously provided to the other party or their attorney, if represented.

(ii) Any documents provided by the parties or their attorney to the evaluator will not be subject to disclosure by subpoena of the evaluator.

(B) interviewing parents conjointly, individually, or both conjointly and individually (unless contraindicated in cases involving domestic violence), to assess:

(i) capacity for setting age-appropriate limits and for understanding and responding to the child's needs;

(ii) history of involvement in caring for the child;

(iii) methods for working toward resolution of the child custody conflict;

(iv) history of child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, and psychiatric illness; and

(v) psychological and social functioning.

(C) conducting age-appropriate interviews and observation of the child with each parent, stepparent(s), step-and half-siblings conjointly, separately, or both conjointly and separately, unless contraindicated to protect the best interest of the child;

(D) collecting relevant corroborating information or documents as permitted by law; and

(E) consulting with other experts to develop information that is beyond the evaluator's scope of practice or area of expertise.

(3) An evaluator must provide a written report unless the parties agree and the court order allows for an oral report of findings. In any presentation of findings, the evaluator must:

(A) summarize the data-gathering procedures, information sources, time spent, and present all relevant information, including information that does not support the conclusions reached;

(B) describe any limitations in the evaluation that result from unobtainable information, failure of a party to cooperate, or the circumstances of particular interviews;

(D) address each factor set forth in Idaho Code § 32-717, and any other relevant factors;

(E) consult with those having specialized training or experience in cases in which specific areas of concern exist such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, substance abuse, or mental illness, and the evaluator does not possess specialized training or experience in the area(s) of concern. The assessment must take into consideration the potential danger posed to the child's custodian and the child;

(F) in cases in which psychological testing is employed, it must be conducted by a licensed individual who is trained in the use of the tests administered. The evaluator must adhere to the ethical standards for the use and interpretation of psychological tests in the jurisdiction in which he or she is licensed to practice. If psychological testing is conducted with an adult or a child, it must be done with knowledge of the limits of the testing and should be viewed within the context of information gained from clinical interviews and other available data. Conclusions drawn from psychological testing should take into account the inherent stresses associated with divorce and custody disputes; and

(G) provide detailed recommendations that are consistent with the best interest of the child and include an example of a parenting time schedule. In cases where the evaluator concludes the case is inappropriate for a parenting time evaluation or recommendations, or the data available is insufficient for this purpose, the evaluator will submit the basis for the evaluator's decision to terminate the evaluation process and reason for not making recommendations.

(g) Form of the Report and Transmittal to the Court. The written report must be submitted to the court provided that copies are simultaneously distributed to the parties. The parties must have an opportunity to cross-examine the parenting time evaluator if the contents of the evaluation are introduced into evidence in the form of expert testimony or a written report. If the report is oral, the court must not hear the contents of the report and findings unless both parties are present.

(h) Communications between Evaluator, the Court, the Parties, and Attorneys. Any contacts between the parenting time evaluator and the court must either be in writing to all parties, conference call with parties and their attorneys, or at court hearings with the parties and their attorneys. Evaluators may communicate with the court and attorneys separately with respect to scheduling and administrative matters.

(i) Admissibility of Reports. A report prepared consistent with this rule must be admissible into evidence, subject to cross-examination. The court may consider the information contained in the report in making a decision on the parenting plan, and the Idaho Rules of Evidence do not exclude the report from consideration.

(j) Judicial Immunity. Any parenting time evaluator appointed by the court or a court approved, stipulated evaluator is performing a judicial function when conducting an evaluation and is entitled to qualified judicial immunity.

End

Rule History

(Adopted March 29, 2021, effective July 1, 2021.)

Plain-English Summary

Rule 1004 is the full custody evaluation.

What it is

An expert investigation and analysis of the best interest of the child on disputed parenting time issues, to give the court information for custody and parenting time decisions — accomplished by assessing the capacity to parent and the developmental, emotional, and physical needs of the child. Unless the order says otherwise, evaluators must consider and respond to the factors in Idaho Code § 32-717.

It must not include interim parenting time recommendations or a brief focused assessment. Rule 1005 is the narrower instrument, and the two do not merge.

Who may conduct one

A Board-certified psychiatrist, a licensed psychologist, or someone with at least a master's degree in a mental health field that included formal education and training in the legal, social, familial and cultural issues in custody decisions. Evaluators must possess qualifications, expertise and training equivalent to the AFCC Model Standards, must be licensed in Idaho or another jurisdiction the court approves, and must work within their licensure. Family Court Services staff who do not meet the qualifications may perform one under direct supervision of a staff member who does.

The court may permit the parties to select, or appoint its own — and if it appoints its own it must follow the show cause procedure in Idaho Rule of Evidence 706.

The order

A motion or stipulation must give the evaluator's name, address and telephone number and any specific factors to address. The order must name the evaluator; require cooperation; give access — with the exception of mediation records — to all records, public or private, bearing on the physical or mental health of the parties, the child and household members, including medical, dental, school, day care, drug test, court, domestic violence, protection order, prior evaluation and child protective services records; require signed releases; restrict disclosure of findings and privileged information to the child; assign responsibility for payment; specify anticipated start and completion dates and any additional factors; require written notice within 5 business days of completion or termination and, if terminated, the reason; require a written report unless otherwise ordered; and state that the evaluator performs a judicial function and is entitled to judicial immunity.

Scope

Evaluations must follow the AFCC Model Standards, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers standards, or the APA Guidelines, and must at minimum include a written explanation of the process — purpose, procedures and time required, the role of any psychological testing, the report's scope and distribution, limits on confidentiality, and cost and payment responsibility.

Data collection must let the evaluator observe and consider each party in comparable ways and substantiate conclusions from multiple sources where possible, through: review of pertinent documents including court and local police records; interviews of parents conjointly, individually, or both — unless contraindicated in cases involving domestic violence — assessing age-appropriate limit-setting, history of caregiving, methods of resolving the conflict, history of child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse and psychiatric illness, and psychological and social functioning; age-appropriate interviews and observation of the child with each parent, stepparents and siblings; corroborating information; and consultation with other experts beyond the evaluator's expertise.

Two document provisions matter to counsel: anything a party gives the evaluator must be simultaneously provided to the other party, and documents given by the parties are not subject to disclosure by subpoena of the evaluator.

The report

Written unless the parties agree and the order allows an oral report. It must summarize procedures, sources and time spent and present all relevant information, including information that does not support the conclusions reached; describe limitations from unobtainable information or a party's failure to cooperate; make a custody or visitation recommendation only for a party who has been evaluated; address each § 32-717 factor; consult specialists where domestic violence, sexual abuse, substance abuse or mental illness is at issue and take into consideration the potential danger posed to the child's custodian and the child; observe testing standards where psychological testing is used, viewed in the context of clinical interviews and other data and accounting for the inherent stresses of divorce and custody disputes; and provide detailed recommendations including an example of a parenting time schedule — or explain why the case is inappropriate for an evaluation or recommendations.

Delivery, contact, and use

The report goes to the court with copies simultaneously distributed to the parties, and the parties must have an opportunity to cross-examine the evaluator if its contents are introduced. An oral report must not be heard unless both parties are present.

Contact between evaluator and court must be in writing to all parties, by conference call with the parties and attorneys, or at hearings — separate communication is allowed only for scheduling and administration.

A report prepared consistently with the rule must be admissible, subject to cross-examination, and the Idaho Rules of Evidence do not exclude it. The evaluator has qualified judicial immunity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who can perform a parenting time evaluation?

Rule 1004(d)(1) requires a licensed physician Board certified in psychiatry, a licensed psychologist, or an individual with at least a master's degree in a mental health field including formal education and training in the legal, social, familial and cultural issues involved in custody and access decisions, licensed in Idaho or an approved jurisdiction.

What records does the evaluator get?

Rule 1004(e)(2)(C) provides for access to all records, public or private, bearing on the physical or mental health of the parties, the child and household members, including medical, dental, school, day care, drug test, court, domestic violence, protection order, previous evaluation and child protective services records, with the exception of mediation records.

Do I have to share documents I give the evaluator?

Yes. Rule 1004(f)(2)(A)(i) requires any documents provided by the parties to the evaluator to be simultaneously provided to the other party or their attorney. Rule 1004(f)(2)(A)(ii) provides those documents are not subject to disclosure by subpoena of the evaluator.

Can the report recommend custody for someone who was not evaluated?

No. Rule 1004(f)(3)(C) requires the evaluator to only make a custody or visitation recommendation for a party who has been evaluated.

Can I cross-examine the evaluator?

Yes. Rule 1004(g) requires the parties to have an opportunity to cross-examine the evaluator if the contents are introduced into evidence as expert testimony or a written report, and Rule 1004(i) makes a conforming report admissible subject to cross-examination.

Is the report kept from me until the hearing?

No. Rule 1004(g) requires the written report to be submitted to the court provided that copies are simultaneously distributed to the parties, and bars the court from hearing an oral report unless both parties are present.

Source & verification. Rule text and Rule History reproduced verbatim from the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure as published by the Idaho Supreme Court, current through amendments effective July 1, 2026. Promulgated by the Supreme Court of Idaho (Idaho Const. art. V, sec. 25). Last verified September 4, 2026. · Official text

Also known as: parenting time evaluationcustody evaluationevaluator32-717AFCC standardsjudicial immunitypsychological testing