What's happening
This bill prohibits courts from ordering or admitting forensic evaluations or reports in child custody or visitation proceedings.
Why it matters
Shifts Decision-Making Power. By prohibiting courts from considering forensic mental health evaluations in custody cases, the bill places more responsibility on judges to assess evidence without expert psychological input, potentially changing how custody decisions are made.
Impacts High-Conflict and Complex Cases. Families dealing with allegations of abuse, mental illness, or other complex dynamics may lose a key tool for objective assessment, which could affect outcomes for children in contentious or high-risk situations.
Increases Reliance on Lay Testimony. Without forensic reports, courts may rely more on the testimony of parents, relatives, or other non-experts, possibly making proceedings more adversarial and less informed by professional assessment.
Reflects Broader Debate Over Forensic Evaluations. The bill responds to ongoing concerns about the reliability, neutrality, and influence of forensic evaluators in family court, highlighting a growing movement to reform or restrict their use due to perceived biases or inconsistent standards.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Ban Forensic Custody Reports
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to children and families
- Referred to children and families
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Ban Forensic Custody Evaluations
In Assembly Committee · Judiciary · Sponsor Andrew Hevesi
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
146
2025-2026 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE (Prefiled)
January 8, 2025
Introduced by Sen. PALUMBO -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Children and Families
AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act, in relation to prohibiting forensic evaluations in a custody or visitation proceeding; and to repeal certain provisions of the domestic relations law relating thereto
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Section 70 of the domestic relations law is amended by adding a new subdivision (c) to read as follows:
(c) (1) No court shall order or allow into evidence a forensic report in the context of a custody or visitation proceeding.
(2) For the purposes of this subdivision:
(i) "forensic report" shall mean any report or evaluation prepared by a forensic evaluator which includes such evaluator's recommendations, opinions or conclusions as to child custody or visitation; and
(ii) "forensic evaluator" shall mean a forensic mental health professional, a probation service employee, a child protective service employee or any other person authorized by statute or the court to perform a forensic evaluation relating to a party or a child in order to assist the court in a child custody or visitation determination.
§ 2. Paragraph (a-3) of subdivision 1 of section 240 of the domestic relations law is REPEALED and a new paragraph (a-3) is added to read as follows:
(a-3) (1) No court shall order or allow into evidence a forensic report in the context of a custody or visitation proceeding.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph:
(i) "forensic report" shall mean any report or evaluation prepared by a forensic evaluator which includes such evaluator's recommendations, opinions or conclusions as to child custody or visitation; and
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD00645-01-5
(ii) "forensic evaluator" shall mean a forensic mental health professional, a probation service employee, a child protective service employee or any other person authorized by statute or the court to perform a forensic evaluation relating to a party or a child in order to assist the court in a child custody or visitation determination.
§ 3. Section 651 of the family court act is amended by adding a new subdivision (g) to read as follows:
(g) (1) No court shall order or allow into evidence a forensic report in the context of a custody or visitation proceeding.
(2) For the purposes of this subdivision:
(i) "forensic report" shall mean any report or evaluation prepared by a forensic evaluator which includes such evaluator's recommendations, opinions or conclusions as to child custody or visitation; and
(ii) "forensic evaluator" shall mean a forensic mental health professional, a probation service employee, a child protective service employee or any other person authorized by statute or the court to perform a forensic evaluation relating to a party or a child in order to assist the court in a child custody or visitation determination.
§ 4. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act, in relation to prohibiting forensic evaluations in a custody or visitation proceeding; and to repeal certain provisions of the domestic relations law relating thereto
PURPOSE::
To protect children by prohibiting forensic evaluations in child custody and visitation proceedings.
Read the full memo (810 words)
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS::
Section 1. Amends section 70 of the domestic relations law to prohibit forensic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings.
Section 2. Amends section 240 of the domestic relations law to prohibit forensic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings.
Section 3. Amends section 651 of the family court act to prohibit foren- sic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings.
Section 4. Effective date.
JUSTIFICATION::
The bill prohibits forensic evaluations in child custody and visitations proceedings.
Forensic evaluators currently perform an outsized role in custody and visitations proceeding, without accountability, standards, oversight or transparency and often with tragic consequences.
The role of forensic evaluators in custody and visitation matters has been the subject of empirical study which concludes that these evalu- ations are ethically inappropriate and should be excluded from the fact finding process.(1)
In fact, Dr. Ira Daniel Turkat, a highly regarded clinical psychologist concludes, "there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that child custo- dy evaluations result in beneficial outcomes for children. (2)
There is no scientific evidence to support the use of forensic evalu- ations. However, there are harmful, sometimes, fatal consequences that warrant their prohibition.
Judges need to render their decisions after considering all factors in the case, paying particular attention to claims of domestic violence, including emotional, physical and sexual abuse and the health and safety of the child/children. Only then should judges make decisions regarding the custody and visitation schedule for the child/children. For example, during the years of custody hearings in Nassau County Family Court, Kyra Franchetti's mother warned that Kyra's father was dangerous, had severe anger management issues and was suicidal. During her case, multiple forensic evaluators were involved at different stages. While Kyra's mother repeatedly raised concerns, no one attempted to protect Kyra from her murderous father. Worse, one forensic evaluator would have made it difficult, if not impossible, for Jacqueline to secure sole custody of Kyra. In July 2016, Kyra was on a court-sanctioned visit with her father in Virginia when he shot Krya to death while she slept. He then set his house on fire and killed himself. Kyra was only two years old. (3) This is not an isolated incident. Dr. Turkat cites cases in Virginia, Mary- land and California where custody and visitation decisions made the recommendation of forensic evaluators ended tragically. (4)
In addition to those horrifying consequences, Dr. Turkat conducted the first qualitative study on the harmful effects of child custody evalu- ations. This 35-state study found other striking detrimental effects, including emotional, physical and sexual abuse. (5)
There is also the issue of the financial cost. Litigants in child custo- dy and visitation proceedings may spend tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, for a forensic evaluation. (6) Further, these are replete with inadmissible hearsay. Custody evaluations have been criticized as "a modus operandi crafted by a professional community impacted by an economic incentive to see its opinions accepted in the courtroom. (7). It is time for this practice to end.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY::
2024 S.4149/A.2750; 2022 S.7742/A.3503; 2020: A.10424
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS::
Undetermined
EFFECTIVE DATE::
This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.
(1) EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS; A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance; Timothy M. Tippins and Jeffrey P. Wittman; 43 (2) FAMILY COURT REVIEW 193 (May 3, 2005)
(2) PsycholOgical Recommendations in Custody Disputes Can Be Harmful, Even Fatal; Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, 32 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAILY LAW 5 ( Spring 2019)
(3) https://kyraftanchetti.org/kyras-story/
(4) Psychologist Recommendations in Custody disputes Can Be Harmful, Even Fatal; Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, 32 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW, pp 5-8 (Spring 2018)
(5) Turkat, After Children Die, New Study Questions Psychologists' Recommendations in Custody Battles, https//vvwvv.prweb.corn/releases/after children die new study questions psychologists recommendations in custody battles/preweb15647980.
(6) Harmful Effects of Child-Custody Evaluations on Children=n, Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, 52 COURT REVIEW: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN JUDGE'S ASSOCIATION 152 (2016) (7) See also, The Custody Evaluator Meets Hearsay: A Star-Crossed Romance; Timothy M. Tippins and Lauren K. DeLuca, 30 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACEDEMY OF ATRIMONIAL LAWYERS 549 (May10, 2018), also citing with approval, forensic psychologist Jeffery J. Wittman, Child Advocacy and the Scientific Model in Family Court: A Theory for Pretrial Self-As- sessment, 13 J. PSYCHIATRY & LAW, 61, 78 (1985) ("Our field is famous for supporting conclusions during testimony simply on the basis of accu- mulated clinical experience; a phrase which may mean nothing more than accumulated personal bias")
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.