Key takeaway: A 730 evaluation is a court-ordered child custody evaluation in which a neutral psychologist or psychiatrist, appointed under Evidence Code section 730 and Family Code section 3111, investigates both households and files a confidential written report recommending a custody and parenting plan. The report is evidence the judge weighs, not a ruling the judge must follow.
If you are an executive, a founder, a physician, or the beneficiary of a family trust and you are heading into a contested custody case in Los Angeles County, the 730 evaluation is usually the most consequential event in the file. One neutral professional spends several months looking at your home, your calendar, your relationship with your child, and your conduct toward the other parent, and then writes a document the judge reads closely. Nearly every article on this subject tells you how to behave in the interview. That is the least important part.
What is a 730 evaluation in California?
A 730 evaluation is a child custody evaluation conducted by a court-appointed expert who reports to the judge rather than to either parent. Evidence Code section 730 provides that a court may appoint an expert on its own motion or on the motion of a party when expert evidence is required, and that statute is the appointment authority family courts use when they need a custody evaluator. The evaluator is neutral by definition. Your lawyer did not hire the evaluator, the other parent’s lawyer did not hire the evaluator, and the evaluator’s client is the court.
Section 730 itself is a general statute about court-appointed experts. It applies to construction defect cases, medical causation disputes, and accounting questions just as readily as it applies to custody. That is why the label “730 evaluation” is a piece of courthouse shorthand rather than a legal term of art. The custody-specific rules live somewhere else.
What is the difference between a 730 evaluation and a Family Code 3111 evaluation?
They are usually the same evaluation described by two different statutes. Family Code section 3111 is the custody-specific provision: it authorizes the court to appoint a child custody evaluator to conduct a child custody evaluation and to file a confidential written report with the court. Evidence Code section 730 supplies the general appointment power, Family Code section 3111 supplies the custody framework, and most Los Angeles County appointment orders cite both.
The distinction matters because the two statutes carry different obligations. Section 3111 imposes the filing and service deadline, the confidentiality restrictions, and the sanction for improper disclosure. Section 730, read with Evidence Code section 731, governs how the expert gets paid. When a lawyer tells you the difference is meaningless, the lawyer has not read the sanctions provision.
| Feature | Evid. Code § 730 | Fam. Code § 3111 | Fam. Code § 3118 |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it authorizes | Appointment of a neutral expert in any case where expert evidence is required | Appointment of a child custody evaluator to conduct a custody evaluation | A heightened evaluation protocol where there is a serious allegation of child sexual abuse |
| Typical use | The appointment vehicle cited in the order | The custody framework and report requirement | Cases involving a serious child sexual abuse allegation |
| Report requirement | Expert files a report as the court directs | Confidential written report filed and served at least 10 days before the hearing | Expanded investigative protocol with specified minimum components |
| Who pays | Apportioned between the parties under Evid. Code § 731 | Allocated in the appointment order, often shifted under Fam. Code § 2030 | Allocated in the appointment order |
| Operating rules | General expert rules | Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.220 and 5.225 | Statutory protocol plus rule 5.220 |
| Disclosure limits | General evidentiary rules | § 3111(d) makes unwarranted disclosure sanctionable, with a § 3111(e) sanction | Same confidentiality regime |
When does a California court order a child custody evaluation?
A court orders an evaluation when it cannot resolve a custody dispute on the papers and needs an independent investigation of the family. Family Code sections 3110 through 3118 govern the process, and California Rules of Court, rule 5.220 requires the court to specify the purpose and scope of the evaluation in its appointment order. Judges most often order one when the parents give directly opposing accounts of the child’s daily life, when a relocation request is pending, when substance use or mental health is genuinely in dispute, or when one parent alleges alienation.
The governing standard never changes. Family Code section 3011 sets out the best interest factors the court must consider, section 3020 states the legislative policy that a child’s health, safety, and welfare come first, and section 3040 establishes the order of custody preference between the parents and other candidates. Family Code section 3041 applies when a nonparent seeks custody, which in high-asset families sometimes means a grandparent with a long caregiving history. The evaluator’s job is to gather facts relevant to those factors, and the judge applies them.
Relocation cases deserve a separate note. If one parent wants to move the child out of the area, the evaluation will be built around the factors California courts apply in move-away custody disputes under the LaMusga framework, and the scope order should say so explicitly.
Why does the scope order matter more than the interview?
The appointment order defines the questions the evaluator is allowed to answer, and rule 5.220 requires the court to state that scope. An evaluation ordered to address “custody and visitation generally” invites the evaluator to roam through the marriage, the finances, the extended family, and every grievance either parent has stored up for the last decade. An evaluation ordered to address two specific questions produces a report about two specific questions.
In our experience representing clients in high-asset custody matters, the scope order is where the case is won or lost, and it is negotiated weeks before anyone sits down with the evaluator. The most common mistake we see is a parent who spends forty hours preparing to be charming for a three-hour interview and zero hours on the language of the order that governs what the evaluator will investigate. When the evaluator’s recommendation will shape the next decade of your relationship with your child, the scope of the appointment order matters more than anything you say in the interview.
Scope also controls cost. A focused or partial evaluation under rule 5.220 addresses a defined issue, such as whether a proposed schedule fits a child with a specific medical need, and it costs a fraction of a full evaluation. Where the dispute is narrow, asking for a narrow appointment is usually the better strategic and financial call.
Facing a custody evaluation in a high-asset case? Call (888) 42-BORNA for a confidential consultation.
Who pays for a 730 evaluation in a high-asset case?
Evidence Code section 731 governs payment of a court-appointed expert, and the court apportions the expert’s fee between the parties as it determines is just. In practice the appointment order sets the split, and in high-asset cases that split is rarely fifty-fifty. Where one spouse controls the income and the liquidity, courts routinely order that spouse to advance the entire evaluation cost, subject to reallocation later.
That order usually comes with a needs-based fee award. Family Code section 2030 requires the court to ensure each party has access to legal representation by ordering, where appropriate, that one party pay the other’s attorney fees and costs, and section 2032 requires the award to be just and reasonable given the parties’ relative circumstances. The evaluation fee is a cost. If you are the moneyed spouse, assume you will be asked to fund both sides of the investigation, and plan for it. Our guide to attorney fees in a California divorce walks through how these orders are built and what the court looks at.
There is a strategic dimension here that gets overlooked. The parties negotiating the appointment order are negotiating who pays and who gets appointed in the same conversation, so a spouse ordered to advance the full cost often ends up with real influence over which evaluator the case gets. Funding the evaluation buys you a seat at that table.
How much does a 730 evaluation cost in Los Angeles County?
A full private-pay child custody evaluation in Los Angeles County generally runs from roughly $15,000 to $40,000, and complex high-asset cases with multiple households, psychological testing, and a large collateral list can go higher. Published figures from other California firms cite ranges around $20,000 to $25,000, which is consistent with what we see. Cost varies with the evaluator’s rate, the number of children, the volume of records, and how much litigation follows the report.
A focused or partial evaluation under rule 5.220 typically lands between $5,000 and $12,000 because it answers a narrower question and requires fewer sessions and fewer collateral contacts. Court-connected evaluations through Family Court Services cost far less but are usually brief, are not designed for complex financial or multi-jurisdictional families, and carry a much shorter report.
Budget for the tail as well. If the report goes against you, the cost of cross-examining the evaluator, retaining a rebuttal expert, and briefing the objections can approach the cost of the evaluation itself.
How is the evaluator selected, and what qualifications does the law require?
California Rules of Court, rule 5.225 sets the education, training, and continuing education requirements for court-appointed child custody evaluators, including licensure standards and domestic violence and child abuse training. Rule 5.225 is a floor. It confirms the person is eligible for the appointment and tells you nothing about whether the person is right for your case.
Selection usually happens one of three ways. The parties stipulate to a name, each side proposes names and the court picks, or the court appoints from its own list. Stipulation is almost always the better path in a high-asset case, because it lets you research the candidate properly: prior published reports, testimony history, professional discipline, the mix of cases the evaluator usually takes, and whether the evaluator has ever handled a family with executive travel, private security, multiple residences, or a family office.
The questions worth asking are concrete. How many evaluations has this person completed in the last three years? How often has a court declined to follow the recommendation? Does the evaluator use psychological testing routinely or selectively? Does the evaluator have the bandwidth to finish inside the timeline the court set? In our experience representing clients in high-asset custody matters, testimony history predicts far more than a resume does. If the case is headed for a bench trial rather than a settlement, what matters is how the evaluator holds up under cross, which is a different question from how pleasant the evaluator is in a session.
What happens during a 730 custody evaluation, step by step?
A full evaluation is an investigation, and it usually takes three to six months from appointment to filed report. The evaluator interviews each parent separately, interviews the children in an age-appropriate way, observes each parent with the children in each home, contacts collateral sources such as teachers, therapists, and pediatricians, reviews records, and in many cases administers psychological testing.
| Phase | What happens | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
| Appointment order | Court signs the order defining scope, cost allocation, and deadlines under rule 5.220 | 1 to 3 weeks after the hearing |
| Retainer and intake | Both parents sign the evaluator’s agreement, pay per the order, and submit intake questionnaires | 2 to 4 weeks |
| Parent interviews | Multiple separate sessions with each parent covering history, parenting, and the disputed issues | 3 to 6 weeks |
| Child interviews and home observation | Age-appropriate child sessions plus observed parent and child time in each residence | 2 to 4 weeks |
| Collateral contacts and records | Teachers, therapists, physicians, nannies, school and medical records, prior court filings | 3 to 8 weeks |
| Psychological testing | Standardized instruments administered and scored where the scope order calls for them | 2 to 4 weeks |
| Report drafting and filing | Confidential written report prepared, filed, and served at least 10 days before the hearing | 3 to 6 weeks |
High-asset families add friction at every phase, and the appointment order should account for it up front. Household staff end up as collateral witnesses, executive travel makes home observations hard to schedule, and residential security slows down access. Sort that out in the order instead of fighting about it in month four.
What does the report contain, and who is allowed to read it?
Family Code section 3111(a) requires the evaluator to file a confidential written report with the court and to serve it on the parties or their counsel at least 10 days before the hearing on custody. The report typically sets out the evaluator’s methodology, the sources relied on, findings on each disputed issue, and a recommended custody and visitation plan.
Access is tightly restricted. Family Code section 3025.5 limits who may access and disseminate a custody evaluation report, and Family Code section 3111(d) makes the unwarranted disclosure of a confidential custody evaluation report a sanctionable act, with the court authorized to impose a monetary sanction under section 3111(e). For a client whose name appears in trade press or on a cap table, this confidentiality regime is one of the few structural protections family court offers, and it is worth enforcing aggressively. Clients who want maximum privacy sometimes pair it with a private judge in a California divorce, which keeps proceedings out of a public courtroom.
Do not forward the report. Not to a business partner, not to a parent, not to a new spouse. A section 3111(e) sanction is a bad way to start a custody trial.
What happens when there is an allegation of child sexual abuse?
Family Code section 3118 applies where there is a serious allegation of child sexual abuse, and it requires a heightened evaluation protocol with specified investigative components rather than a standard custody evaluation. The statute exists because the ordinary evaluation format is not built to assess an abuse allegation reliably, and courts need a more rigorous record before making findings that will follow a family permanently.
If a section 3118 evaluation is ordered in your case, treat it as a distinct proceeding. The stakes, the protocol, the qualifications required of the evaluator, and the consequences of a finding all differ from a garden-variety custody dispute. The same is true where domestic violence is alleged, which triggers its own statutory presumption. Our discussion of domestic violence and child custody in California covers how that presumption operates and how it interacts with an evaluation.
What are the signs of a bad custody evaluation?
A defective evaluation almost always shows itself in protocol, not in tone. Rule 5.220 sets uniform standards of practice and evaluator duties, and the deviations from those standards are what give you something to argue. Watch for these:
- The evaluator exceeded the scope stated in the appointment order.
- The two parents received materially unequal process, such as four interview hours for one and one hour for the other.
- Collateral sources were contacted for one parent and ignored for the other.
- Home observations were conducted in one residence only.
- The report states conclusions without identifying the data supporting them.
- Psychological testing was interpreted outside the evaluator’s competence or without a stated basis.
- Allegations from one side were accepted at face value while the other side’s documentation was not reviewed.
- The evaluator had an undisclosed prior relationship with a party, a lawyer, or a therapist in the case.
- The report misstates dates, records, or the procedural history in ways that track one parent’s narrative.
- The recommendation does not connect to the Family Code section 3011 best interest factors in any traceable way.
None of this turns on whether the evaluator liked you. Judges care whether the investigation was sound.
If a report in your case has protocol problems, the window to act is short. Call (888) 42-BORNA for a confidential consultation.
How do you challenge a 730 evaluation report in California?
A California court is not bound by the evaluator’s recommendation, because the report is evidence the judge weighs alongside everything else in the record. The report’s weight tracks how closely the evaluation followed its own protocol, so your leverage sits in the appointment order and in who gets appointed, well before anyone sits down for an interview.
Four tools do the work. You cross-examine the evaluator at the hearing on methodology, sample size, and unequal process. You retain a consulting or rebuttal expert under Evidence Code section 730 to review the file and testify about departures from accepted practice. You object under rule 5.220, which sets out the duties the evaluator was required to follow. And where bias or protocol failure is serious enough, you move to strike the report or to appoint a replacement evaluator.
Be selective. Attacking everything signals that nothing is actually wrong. Pick the two or three deviations that mattered to the recommendation, document them precisely, and build the cross around those. For a broader view of what the judge is weighing when the report lands, see our explanation of how California courts decide child custody under the best interest standard.
One caution about timing. The 10-day service window under section 3111(a) is short, and it is not enough time to retain a rebuttal expert, have the file reviewed, and prepare a cross from a standing start. Line up your consulting expert while the evaluation is still in progress.
Frequently asked questions about 730 evaluations in California
What does 730 mean in mental health?
In a mental health context, “730” refers to Evidence Code section 730, the California statute that lets a court appoint a neutral expert such as a psychologist or psychiatrist. Clinicians who take these appointments describe themselves as doing “730 work,” meaning forensic evaluations for a court rather than treatment for a patient. The distinction is significant: a 730 evaluator is not your therapist and owes you no therapeutic confidentiality.
What is a 730 evaluation under California Evidence Code Section 730?
Evidence Code section 730 permits a court to appoint an expert on its own motion or on the motion of a party where expert evidence is required. In family court, that authority is used to appoint a neutral child custody evaluator who investigates the family and reports to the judge. The evaluation itself is governed by Family Code section 3111 and California Rules of Court, rules 5.220 and 5.225.
What are 10 signs that a custody evaluation might be bad?
The reliable indicators are procedural: scope violations, unequal interview time, one-sided collateral contacts, observation in only one home, conclusions without supporting data, testing interpreted outside the evaluator’s competence, unreviewed documentation, undisclosed relationships, factual errors that track one parent’s story, and a recommendation with no traceable link to the Family Code section 3011 factors. Each of those is arguable under rule 5.220. A recommendation you dislike is not, by itself, a sign of a bad evaluation.
How does a parent prove the other parent is unfit?
California does not use a general “unfitness” test between two parents; the court applies the best interest standard under Family Code section 3011, which directs it to consider the child’s health and safety, any history of abuse, habitual substance abuse, and the nature of each parent’s contact with the child. Proof comes from records rather than accusations: police reports, medical and school records, treatment histories, communications, and testimony from collateral witnesses. A 730 evaluator can gather and assess that evidence, but the judge decides. Family Code section 3041 sets a different and higher standard when a nonparent seeks custody over a parent.
What is the difference between a 3111 and a 730 evaluation?
They generally describe the same court-ordered custody evaluation from two angles. Evidence Code section 730 is the appointment authority for a neutral expert in any type of case, and Family Code section 3111 is the custody-specific statute that requires a confidential written report and imposes the 10-day filing deadline and the disclosure sanctions. Most Los Angeles County appointment orders cite both statutes together.
What test questions are used in a 730 evaluation?
Evaluators who administer psychological testing typically use standardized, published instruments assessing personality and parenting attitudes, and the specific battery depends on the evaluator and the questions in the scope order. There is no fixed list of “730 test questions,” and no legitimate way to prepare answers in advance. If testing is part of the plan, your lawyer should confirm the evaluator is qualified to administer and interpret the specific instruments chosen.
How long does a 730 evaluation take in Los Angeles County?
A full evaluation usually runs three to six months from the appointment order to the filed report, and complex cases with multiple residences or extensive collateral contacts take longer. A focused evaluation under rule 5.220 can finish in six to ten weeks. Delay is common enough that the appointment order should set an outside completion date.
Can a judge reject the evaluator’s recommendation?
Yes. The report is evidence, and the judge is not bound by it. Courts do adopt recommendations frequently, which is why the quality of the underlying investigation and the strength of the record you build alongside it both matter.
Speak with a Los Angeles high-asset custody attorney
Borna Houman Law represents executives, entrepreneurs, physicians, entertainers, and trust beneficiaries in contested custody matters throughout Los Angeles County. We negotiate the appointment order before the evaluator is ever chosen, we vet candidates on testimony history rather than reputation, and we prepare the record that sits underneath the report. Call (888) 42-BORNA for a confidential consultation.
This article is general information about California law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, and no result is ever guaranteed. Statutory text is available at Family Code section 3111 on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and the evaluation rules at California Rules of Court, rule 5.220.