casemark/custody-evaluation-summary

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

1. Extract evaluation overview metadata into a structured table
2. Catalog methodology (interviews, testing, home visits, collaterals)
3. Build side-by-side parental findings comparison
4. Summarize children's statements and observations
5. Extract custody and parenting-time recommendations
6. Map findings to jurisdictional best-interests factors
7. Note contested issues and credibility concerns
8. 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