Skip to content
Back to skills

Custody Evaluation Summary

ASecurity

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.

  • 16 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added June 8, 2026
ai-agentsgoexpresstestinggit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned June 8, 2026

npx -y skills add ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill custody-evaluation-summary --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Custody Evaluation Summary?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Custody Evaluation Summary
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/thomasmoreai-custody-evaluation-summary/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thomasmoreai-custody-evaluation-summary)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: custody-evaluation-summary
title: Custody Evaluation Summary
description: 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.
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/custody-evaluation-summary
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: general
practice: family
language: en
tags: [litigation, summarization, 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

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…