Does the family law industry profit from conflict? - part 3 of 8
The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
Evidence published for review
Every source row behind this page is currently marked unverified: an automated check matched every quote and number to an archived copy of its source, and an independent review pass read every row, but the per-row human sign-off defined in the research methods has not been recorded yet. Check any claim against the sources list before relying on it.
Custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, parenting coordinators, supervised visitation, reunification programs, parent-education classes and financial experts are appointed or ordered by the court, and under many of the rules reviewed here the parties pay, with public funding or caps in some states. Public cost data exist for only some services.
Custody evaluations
California's statewide rule has the court "Determine and allocate between the parties any fees or costs of the evaluation" and requires evaluators to disclose "conflicts of interest or dual relationships" [Cal. Rules of Court 5.220, 2023-01-01 ANC-004]. Colorado lets the court order an evaluation on a party's motion or its own, and requires the evaluator to disclose within seven days any "familial, financial, or social relationship" with the child, the parties, the attorneys or the judicial officer [Colorado statute 14-10-127, 2025 ANC-012; Colorado statute 14-10-127, 2025, (a) ANC-012].
One Ohio county's local rule sets evaluations by a court employee at $800.00 for a full evaluation and $700.00 or $600.00 for partial ones, and states that "The cost of a private custody evaluator shall be as charged by the evaluator" [Cuyahoga County (OH) Domestic Relations Court, 2022-10-04, Rule 39: Custody Evaluation ANC-011].
Colorado's statewide order form sets "A presumptive maximum fee of $2,750 per appointment" for privately paid child and family investigators, and the state court administrator pays them where a party is indigent [Colorado Judicial Department, 2022-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-015]. That role is an investigator, not a full psychological custody evaluator [Colorado Judicial Department, 2022-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-015].
In an anonymous survey of two hundred and sixty-eight judges from 42 states, judges found custody evaluations useful overall, but considered them "too expensive and too time-consuming" and perceived a shortage of trained evaluators [Family Court Review (abstract), 2024, Abstract ANC-024]. Only the abstract was archived, and the survey reports judges' perceptions, not outcomes [Family Court Review (abstract), 2024, Abstract ANC-024].
The 2010 California task force summarized what it heard from litigants: "The parties were required to pay huge costs for these services, and they believed the courts rubber-stamped their recommendations" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 14 POL-014]. It recommended that judges "limit the use of ancillary experts such as custody evaluators who are paid for by the parties to those cases in which it is necessary" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 25 POL-014].
Those are reported perceptions, not audited costs, and no recent national data on private custody-evaluation fees was found [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 13 POL-014; ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2020-06, Statutory Summary Charts DAT-014].
Guardians ad litem
In Wisconsin family actions the guardian ad litem is paid "at a rate that the court determines is reasonable", and the court orders either or both parties to pay; if both are indigent the county may be ordered to pay at a capped statutory rate [Wisconsin Legislature, 2026 ANC-002]. Texas sets ad litem fees in private suits "by reference to the reasonable and customary fees for similar services in the county" and orders one or more parties to pay them [Texas Family Code 107.023, 2005, (1) ANC-029; Texas Family Code 107.023, 2005, (a) ANC-029].
Massachusetts pays state-funded guardians ad litem $50.00 per hour including expenses, limits state-paid appointments to ten hours, and examines the parties' ability to pay before assessing costs to them [Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 1988-01-01, 1. ANC-009; Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 1988-01-01, B. ANC-009; Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 1988-01-01, D. ANC-009]. The state-paid rate was raised from $40 to $50 per hour in 2022 [Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 2023-01-11, Memorandum ANC-010]. Arkansas lets a judge approve "any fee the judge finds reasonable" when the parties can pay, but caps the rate at $125.00 per hour when the state pays any part of it [Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts, 2023-07, Domestic Relations & Probate Attorney Ad Lite... DAT-020].
Minnesota's legislative auditor found that in fiscal years 2013 to 2017 fees charged to families made up an average of 4 percent of the state guardian ad litem program's revenue, the rest coming largely from state appropriations [Minnesota Legislative Auditor, 2018-03, PDF p. 25 ANC-001]. The auditor also found the program's board had "established few standards to ensure guardians ad litem provide high-quality services statewide" [Minnesota Legislative Auditor, 2018-03, PDF p. 3 ANC-001]. The program serves mostly juvenile and child-protection cases [Minnesota Legislative Auditor, 2018-03, PDF p. 3 ANC-001].
Utah's 2005 audit reported that private guardians ad litem in district-court custody cases without abuse allegations "are generally paid for by a parent or are offered pro bono" [Utah Legislative Auditor General, 2005-02, PDF p. 9 ANC-031].
A federal review of all states found that in child abuse and neglect proceedings, 33 states and the District of Columbia pay attorney or guardian ad litem fees through the court handling the case [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017]. It covers dependency cases, not private custody disputes [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017].
No 50-state compilation of guardian ad litem or custody-evaluator fee rules for private custody cases was found [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017; ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2020-06, Statutory Summary Charts DAT-014].
Parenting coordinators
Colorado allows a court to appoint a parenting coordinator; without the parties' agreement it must first find that they failed to adequately implement the parenting plan and that mediation was inappropriate or unsuccessful, appointments are limited to two years, and "The state shall not be responsible for payment of fees" [Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (6) ANC-006; Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (1) ANC-006]. AFCC's 2019 guidelines say a coordinator may make "legally binding decisions" if authorized and "should be appointed by and accountable to the court" [AFCC, 2019, PDF p. 4 ANC-020].
Florida bars ordering parenting coordination without the parties' consent "unless it determines that the parties have the financial ability to pay the parenting coordination fees and costs" [Florida statute 61.125, 2025, The Florida Senate ANC-007].
No public cost data for parenting coordinators was found [Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (1) ANC-006; Florida statute 61.125, 2025, The Florida Senate ANC-007].
Supervised visitation and exchange
One California county court's 2026 referral list shows provider-reported fees such as "Intake fee: $50 Per Parent" and "Starting at $40/hr.", and states that "there is no governing body that oversees these programs" [San Bernardino County Superior Court, 2026, PDF p. 2 ANC-016; San Bernardino County Superior Court, 2026, PDF p. 1 ANC-016].
The Justice Department's 2025 Justice for Families solicitation expected $14,000,000 for about 20 awards for programs including supervised visitation and safe exchange for families affected by domestic or sexual violence, stalking or child sexual abuse [US DOJ Office on Violence Against Women, 2025, PDF p. 4 ANC-018]. The federal access and visitation grants, about $10 million a year, may fund supervised visitation and neutral drop-off and pick-up [HHS ACF, 2026-09-15, Access and Visitation (AV) POL-009].
Reunification programs
A Norwegian public-health agency's 2021 mapping review of research on children who resist contact with a parent found 54 primary studies and "no studies that examined the effectiveness of interventions using a randomised controlled study design" [Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2021-06-09, Key message ANC-028].
Federal law offers states extra grant funding if their law provides that "a court may not order a reunification treatment, unless there is generally accepted and scientifically valid proof of the safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value of the reunification treatment" [Pub. L. 117-103, 2022-03-15 POL-007]. California bars courts from ordering reunification programs that require or result in a no-contact order, an overnight, out-of-state or multiday stay, or a transfer of custody [California SB 331 (2023), 2023-10-13, 3193. POL-029].
No public cost data for reunification programs was found, and the program-side outcome study could not be archived [Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2021-06-09, Key message ANC-028].
Parent-education classes
West Virginia requires parent-education classes in divorces with minor children unless the court finds attendance not appropriate or necessary, caps the fee at $25 per attendee, and waives it for indigent parties [West Virginia Code 48-9-104, 2026, sec.48-9-104. Parent education classes. ANC-017].
A 2024 review reports, citing a 2008 review, that mandatory parenting programs for divorce were "codified into law in all but a handful of states" [Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2024-05-18, Expansion of Mandated Parenting Interventions... ANC-003].
Forensic accountants and valuation experts
California courts may appoint neutral experts on their own motion or a party's, and "may fix the compensation for these services" [California Evidence Code 730, 1990 ANC-033].
No fee data for forensic accountants or business-valuation experts in family cases was found [California Evidence Code 730, 1990 ANC-033].
Referral relationships and conflicts of interest
Texas requires a prospective custody evaluator to disclose "any pecuniary relationship that the person believes the person has with an attorney in the suit", and bars the appointment after such a disclosure unless statutory conditions are met [Texas Family Code 107.107, 2015-09-01, (3) ANC-005; Texas Family Code 107.107, 2015-09-01, (b) ANC-005]. AFCC's guidelines state that "A PC shall not receive any commission, rebate, or remuneration from making a professional referral" [AFCC, 2019, PDF p. 8 ANC-020]. One Ohio county requires evaluators to "avoid self-dealing" [Cuyahoga County (OH) Domestic Relations Court, 2022-10-04, Rule 39: Custody Evaluation ANC-011].
The American Psychological Association's 2022 guidelines say psychologists refrain from serving as custody evaluators when "personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships" could reasonably be expected to impair objectivity [American Psychological Association, 2022, PDF p. 17 ANC-008].
California's State Auditor found in 2011 that two county family courts did not log complaints about private mediators and evaluators during the four-year audit period (April 2006 to March 2010) and needed to "strengthen their policies for dealing with conflicts of interest" [California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 6 ANC-019]. The audit tested small numbers of files in two counties [California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-019].
New York's judicial ethics committee advised that a judge whose spouse's firm had a continuing professional relationship with a municipality should refrain from appointing that municipality's attorney as a law guardian in custody matters, because continued appointments could give rise to an "appearance of impropriety" [NY Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, 2005-10-27 ANC-021].
These sources show that referral and appointment conflicts are regulated and sometimes audited. None measures how often they occur, so this page does not say that referral relationships are widespread [Texas Family Code 107.107, 2015-09-01, (a) ANC-005; California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-019; NY Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, 2005-10-27 ANC-021].
Sources for this section
0 of 182 rows in the evidence base have a recorded per-row sign-off. What the explainer does not claim.
ANC-001 Guardian ad Litem Program (evaluation report)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Program evaluation by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor (data FY2013-FY2017, report March 2018): survey of all 284 district court judges (219 responses, 77 percent); file review of 124 randomly selected cases (379 guardian reports, fifty-nine family court and 320 juvenile court); the auditor says the sample was not large enough to be representative and cannot be projected (footnotes 13-14, on the page after the cited recommendation page).
Reliability notes: Government audit. The program is predominantly juvenile/child-protection (the family-court portion is a minority); do not read as private-pay custody GALs. A state-funded model with ability-to-pay fees cuts against the premise that families bear uncapped GAL cost.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.32; pdf p.25. Claim tags: C3.2~ C3.2-
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-002 Wis. Stat. 767.407(6) (guardian ad litem for minor children: compensation)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text, current as archived. Sets no numeric hourly rate; the rate is judge-determined case by case.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.2+ C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-003 Mandated Parent Education: Applications, Impacts, and Future Directions
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: narrative literature review; no pooled sample (open-access full text).
Reliability notes: Prevalence figure is second-hand (cites Pollet & Lombreglia 2008, Family Court Review 46(2):375-394, whose full text was blocked). The review does not report fee levels. Authors argue for universal parenting supports (a position).
Pages quoted: section: Expansion of Mandated Parenting Interventions for Divorce; section: Abstract; section: Expansion of Mandated Parenting Interventions for Divorce. Claim tags: C3.6+ C6.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-004 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.220 (court-ordered child custody evaluations)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Primary rule text (amended effective 2023-01-01 per the rule's history). Sets no fee amounts; fees are set locally or by the evaluator.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-005 Tex. Fam. Code 107.107 (child custody evaluator: conflicts of interest and bias)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a statute-mirror site (texas.public.law); effective date is the 2015 redesignation shown on the page. The rule shows regulation of such relationships, not their frequency.
Pages quoted: section: (a); section: (3); section: (b). Claim tags: C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-006 C.R.S. 14-10-128.1 (parenting coordinator)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a statute-mirror site (colorado.public.law). Page states it is current through Fall 2025.
Pages quoted: section: (1); section: (6); section: (a). Claim tags: C3.3+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-007 Fla. Stat. 61.125 (parenting coordination)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text (Florida Senate site, 2025 version as archived). Contains a financial-ability screen and an indigency rule, which cut against unscreened cost exposure; it also confirms fees are allocated between the parties.
Pages quoted: section: The Florida Senate; section: The Florida Senate. Claim tags: C3.3~ C3.3-
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-008 Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: professional guideline text
Reliability notes: Voluntary professional guidelines, not binding law. Archived copy is a mirror hosted by a Spanish psychology college (the apa.org URL returned no text); the document is the APA 2022 edition. Contains no fee amounts.
Pages quoted: pdf p.14; pdf p.17. Claim tags: C3.1~ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-009 Uniform Probate Court Practice XXXII: Compensation of guardians ad litem: limitation on hours
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court practice text
Reliability notes: Primary court text archived via Wayback (snapshot 2026-05-10). The page shows an adopted/effective date of 01/01/1988 but no amendment history, so the $50 rate is the text as of the snapshot, not necessarily the 1988 rate; it is consistent with ANC-010's 2022 increase from $40 to $50 for state-paid Category F GALs. Applies only to Commonwealth-paid appointments; the page says the rate does not apply where the GAL is paid by a party or from an estate unless the court orders otherwise.
Pages quoted: section: 1.; section: B.; section: D.. Claim tags: C3.2- C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-010 Memorandum regarding increased hourly rate for state-paid category F GALs
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: administrative memorandum
Reliability notes: Primary court administrative memo (archived via Wayback; live page returned 403). Covers state-paid GAL investigators only; privately paid GAL rates are not set by this memo.
Pages quoted: section: Memorandum. Claim tags: C3.2- C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-011 Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court Local Rule 39: Custody Evaluation
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: local court rule text
Reliability notes: Single-county rule (effective Oct. 4, 2022), not statewide. Shows a low court-employed fee tier alongside uncapped private evaluators; no data on typical private fees.
Pages quoted: section: Rule 39: Custody Evaluation; section: Rule 39: Custody Evaluation. Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.7+ C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-012 C.R.S. 14-10-127 (evaluation and reports; qualifications of evaluators; disclosure)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a statute-mirror site (colorado.public.law); page states it is current through Fall 2025.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: (a); section: (b). Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-015 JDF 1318 Order Appointing Child & Family Investigator
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court form text (revised January 3, 2022)
Reliability notes: Court order form (JDF 1318, R: January 3, 2022) that applies fee caps set by Chief Justice Directive 04-05; not itself a rule, so typed court report. A CFI is an investigator role, not a full psychological custody evaluator; the cap is presumptive, not absolute. Shows a state-level cap and public payment for indigent parties.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.5. Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.2- C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-016 Supervised Visitation Providers 2026 (court referral list)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court-published provider list (self-reported by providers who signed a declaration)
Reliability notes: Single-county list; fees are provider-reported and the court says it does not screen or endorse providers. Some listed providers advertise sliding scales or free services upon eligibility (not quantified here). No individual providers are identified in this row.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.2. Claim tags: C3.4+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-017 W. Va. Code 48-9-104 (parent education classes)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text (current code as archived). One state's cap; other states' fees vary and are not shown here.
Pages quoted: section: sec.48-9-104. Parent education classes.; section: sec.48-9-104. Parent education classes.. Claim tags: C3.6+ C3.6~ C3.6-
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-018 OVW Fiscal Year 2025 Justice for Families Program (solicitation)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: funding solicitation (FY2025)
Reliability notes: Primary federal solicitation; shows expected, not awarded, amounts. Grant-funded programs may serve families at reduced or no cost, but the document does not state fees to families. Statutory authority 34 U.S.C. 12464 (VAWA); this is not the Title IV-D Access and Visitation grant program, and it is limited to families affected by domestic or sexual violence, stalking or child sexual abuse.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C3.4- C7.3~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-019 Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts: family court appointees (Report 2009-109)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Audit of two county superior courts (Sacramento and Marin) covering April 2006 to March 2010, requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee; file tests were small, for example nine Sacramento private mediators, five Sacramento private evaluators, five Sacramento minor's-counsel case files, seven Marin staff mediators, five Marin cases with private evaluators, and eight complaints reviewed (report summary, pdf p.6-8).
Reliability notes: Government audit of two counties only, now 15 years old; findings concern court administration (qualification records, complaint logs, conflict policies), not evidence that any evaluator acted improperly.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.6. Claim tags: C3.7+ C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-020 Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: professional guideline text (task force consensus document)
Reliability notes: Voluntary professional standards, not law; AFCC is a professional association whose members include the providers it guides. The existence of the prohibition shows referral payments are regulated, not how often they occur.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.8; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C3.3+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-021 New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 05-39
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: advisory ethics opinion on stated facts
Reliability notes: Advisory opinion (not binding); archived via Wayback (live site returned 403). Parties and individuals are not named. Shows that appointment-related conflicts are regulated and addressed, not their prevalence.
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-024 Are child custody evaluations beneficial to family law judges? A study from the judicial perspective
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: two hundred and sixty-eight judges in 42 states; anonymous survey; US; sampling method and response rate not stated in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only, archived from the NYU Information for Practice abstract aggregator (a third-party copy of the publisher abstract); the archived page shows no authors, journal or volume, so the authors and Family Court Review 62(1) are taken from the DOI slug fcre-12772 and are not verified from the archive. Self-reported judicial perceptions, not outcome data; the abstract says empirical validation of evaluation efficacy is lacking.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C3.1- C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Systematic mapping review; databases searched Nov 2020; 1 review article and 54 primary studies, mostly US cross-sectional surveys; no methodological appraisal or synthesis.
Reliability notes: Archived page is the English summary, not the full report; the page shows 'Published 09.06.2021' (day.month.year). Government agency review. It explicitly did not appraise quality or synthesise results and 'is not meant to be used to support evidence-based decision making'; it covers parental rejection/alienation interventions broadly, not US reunification programs by name, and gives no cost data.
Pages quoted: section: Key message; section: Discussion. Claim tags: C3.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-029 Tex. Fam. Code 107.023 (fees and expenses of ad litem appointees in private suits)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a mirror site (texas.public.law); the fee-determination clause is 107.023(b)(1) (archive heading '(1)'), the payment rule (a) and the no-state-payment rule (c) are quoted; the deposit rule (b)(2) is in the cited text but not quoted.
Pages quoted: section: (a); section: (1); section: (c). Claim tags: C3.2+ C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-031 A Performance Audit of the Office of the Guardian ad Litem (Report 2005-01)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Performance audit of a state GAL office; reviewed 35 GAL Juvenile Court case files; Utah; 2005.
Reliability notes: Government audit, 20 years old; audit scope was the state office's juvenile-court duties, not private GALs. The private-GAL payment statement is background, not an audit finding.
Pages quoted: pdf p.9; pdf p.6; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C3.2+ C3.2~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-033 Cal. Evidence Code 730 (appointment of expert witness by court)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute via a mirror site. It is a general expert-appointment statute, not specific to forensic accountants; it provides no fee data for valuation or accounting experts (a recorded gap).
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.8~ C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
DAT-014 Statutory Summary Charts index (ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: index page.
Reliability notes: Index page only. The Fordham 2012 appendix itself returned HTTP 403 (and was not in the Wayback Machine), so its contents, including whether it covers fees, could not be verified. Archived via Wayback copy of the page. Date is that of the latest chart listed (6/2020); the page itself is undated (Wayback capture 2025-08-05).
Pages quoted: section: Statutory Summary Charts; section: Forensic Evaluators. Claim tags: C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
DAT-017 Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings (State Statutes Series)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statute review of all states, DC and territories, current through June 2021; no sampling.
Reliability notes: Official and genuinely 50-state, but its scope is dependency (abuse and neglect) proceedings, where the state or county commonly pays; it does not describe fee rules or rates for GALs or custody evaluators appointed in private divorce and custody cases, where parties usually pay. Do not read it as the custody-case fee rule. Source inconsistency: North Dakota is listed both as not addressing compensation (fn 28) and as court-paid (fn 29); Pennsylvania appears in fn 27 and fn 28.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5. Claim tags: C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
DAT-020 Domestic Relations & Probate Attorney Ad Litem Program (Arkansas)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: state program description.
Reliability notes: One state only, shown as an example of a state-set cap on custody-case ad litem fees. It is not evidence about other states, and the cap applies only when the state pays part of the fee.
Pages quoted: section: Domestic Relations & Probate Attorney Ad Litem Program. Claim tags: C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Public law text (whole-act HTML, so the section label is the document top). The statute's own congressional findings (e.g. about courts discounting abuse allegations) are legislative assertions, not independent evidence, and were not relied on. Incentive is conditional on State application and appropriation; the statute also requires judicial and custody-evaluator training (paragraph (3)(C)), a one-year increase term and a 4-fiscal-year limit (paragraph (2)), all outside the quoted segments.[cite: Pub. L. 117-103, div. W, s.1504; 34 U.S.C. 10446(k)]
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C7.4+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-009 Access and Visitation (AV) mandatory grants, program description page
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: agency program description
Reliability notes: Agency web page (updated date as shown on page); describes funding level and permitted services, not outcomes. Page lists the 'about $10 million' figure; the statutory amount is in POL-002.
Pages quoted: section: Access and Visitation (AV). Claim tags: C7.3+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
POL-014 Elkins Family Law Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Seven in-person meetings, May 2008-February 2010, with focus groups, an attorney survey, over 800 emails and letters, and public hearings; the litigant statements about cost are reported perceptions, not measurements
Reliability notes: Official court-system task force (judicial branch), 2010; recommendations, not findings. The cost statement quoted is the task force's summary of litigant input ('they believed'), not audited cost data. California-specific and 16 years old.
Pages quoted: pdf p.13; pdf p.14; pdf p.25; pdf p.57. Claim tags: C7.5+ C3.1~ C3.2~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Chaptered bill text (version dated 10/13/23) from the California Legislature site; original URL returned HTTP 403 to the archiver and the archived copy is the Internet Archive capture. The bill also directs judicial training (Gov. Code 68555 et seq.), not quoted here. The bill carries a popular name honoring a deceased child, deliberately not used here. No evaluation of effects located.
Pages quoted: section: 3193.. Claim tags: C7.4+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,Reforms aimed at the incentives