The Family Court Evaluation Trap: How 604(b) Custody Reports Are Ignored—at the Children's Expense

In high-conflict custody cases, family courts are supposed to prioritize stability, reduce conflict, and act in the best interest of the child. To that end, Illinois law allows judges to order a 604(b) custody evaluation—a comprehensive, court-appointed investigation conducted by a neutral mental health professional. These evaluations are meant to bring clarity and objectivity to difficult disputes, providing the court with expert guidance on parenting time, decision-making, and child safety.

But in practice, that process is increasingly being weaponized and undermined.

What families aren’t told is this:

Even after investing thousands of dollars and complying with court-ordered evaluations, one parent can effectively restart the process by hiring their own “expert” under 604(c)—simply because they didn’t like the original results.

This legal loophole turns custody evaluations into a costly, endless cycle of contradiction, delays, and injustice—particularly for the parent who plays by the rules.

Our Case: A 604(b) Evaluation That Was Ignored

After over a year of fruitless status hearings, and escalating conflict, the court appointed a 604(b) evaluator to assess our family’s situation. The goal, we were told, was to provide clarity and objectivity—something both parents could rely on to move forward.

We approached the evaluation process in good faith. It was invasive, expensive, and emotionally exhausting—but necessary. The evaluator:

• Interviewed both parents and their current spouses
• Conducted parent-child observations
• Visited both homes
• Reviewed school and medical records
• Consulted third parties like teachers and counselors

Then, the evaluator required something even more rigorous:

Both parents—and their spouses—were ordered to undergo blood alcohol testing.

This wasn’t covered by the court or split into manageable fees. Each couple had to pay around $600 out of pocket, in addition to the broader costs of the custody evaluation itself.

We complied without issue. Our household’s results were negative. We are either abstinent or drink very rarely, and the results reflected that.

But my husband’s ex-wife’s and her spouse's results were alarmingly different.

Her test revealed extremely high levels of alcohol biomarkers—consistent with frequent, heavy drinking.

The evaluator took this seriously and included a formal recommendation in the report:

She should undergo alcohol abuse counseling as part of any ongoing parenting plan.

It was a reasonable, evidence-based recommendation—intended not to punish, but to protect the well-being of the children.

And then, in court, the judge dismissed it.

The 604(c): A Second Opinion, Paid for by One Parent

The parent who disagreed with the evaluator’s findings simply objected. Not with evidence of bias or incompetence—just disagreement. And the court allowed it.

They were permitted to hire their own evaluator under 604(c)—someone paid exclusively by them, with no obligation to be neutral.

The result?

• More delay while the new evaluator conducted their review
• A contradictory report that aligns closely with the narrative of the parent who paid for it
• No accountability for the parent who disregarded the original findings
• Thousands more in legal and expert fees

We are now three years into this custody case, eight years post-divorce. We’ve had dozens of court appearances. We’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars. And still—no resolution.

What This Means: A System That Rewards Delay, Not Truth

The original 604(b) evaluation was ordered by the court. Both parties were required to participate. Both households were put through the same scrutiny. Both spent money they could hardly afford.

But when the results didn’t favor one parent, the court allowed them to buy a second opinion—and treat it as equally valid.

This isn’t just frustrating. It’s systemic failure.

Why spend thousands on a neutral evaluation if it can be overruled by a hired gun with a conflicting opinion?

Why require blood alcohol tests if the court won’t act on their results?

Why claim to prioritize the children’s best interests, then ignore red flags that put those interests at risk?

The answer, for too many families, is simple: the court is more committed to the appearance of balance than the enforcement of truth.

What Needs to Change: Common-Sense Reforms for Custody Evaluations

✅ 1. Limit the Use of 604(c) Evaluations

A 604(c) should only be permitted if there is clear, documented evidence of bias, misconduct, or professional negligence—not mere disagreement.

✅ 2. Presume Greater Weight for Court-Appointed Experts

604(b) evaluators, appointed by the court and paid by both parties, should hold greater evidentiary weight than private, party-paid evaluations.

✅ 3. Act on Serious Findings—Especially Around Substance Abuse

If a neutral evaluator raises concerns about parental substance abuse, the court must act on those findings. Dismissing them without reason endangers children.

✅ 4. Prevent Litigation Loops

Courts should enforce strict time limits on evaluation processes and move cases toward resolution. Status hearings should not continue for years without trial.

✅ 5. Create Financial Accountability for Delaying Tactics

If a party uses a 604(c) evaluation to stall litigation without cause, they should be held responsible for the opposing party’s additional legal and expert costs.

Conclusion: Custody Evaluations Should Bring Resolution, Not More Conflict

The family court system claims to prioritize children—but when it allows neutral evaluations to be ignored, alcohol abuse to go unaddressed, and delay tactics to go unchecked, it fails those very children.

Our family spent thousands to comply with a court-ordered process, took tests we didn’t need to prove our fitness, and followed the law every step of the way.

But when the truth was inconvenient to the other party—and to the court—it was swept aside.

We don't want special treatment. We want fair treatment. We want judges to stand behind the professionals they appoint. And we want a system that protects children—not a system that rewards delay, denial, and whoever can afford the next expert.

It’s time for family court reform.
Because when the truth can be bought, no one wins—but children lose the most.