BONUS EP: Custodial Evaluators

In this bonus episode of the JudgMental Podcast, Christine and Hugh dive into the latest developments in Louisville, Kentucky’s family court system—specifically, the controversy surrounding custodial evaluations. They discuss recent motions to disqualify commonly used evaluators, the issues of confirmation bias, testing fatigue, and the problematic “team approach” to psychological testing.

The hosts break down the findings from a Florida expert’s report, including concerns about the use of certain psychological tests, the misuse of “forensic” terminology, and the troubling confidentiality practices that leave families in the dark. They also explore the broader implications for families caught in the system, the delays and high costs of evaluations, and the impact on children and parents.

Listeners will hear real stories from the community, learn about similar cases in California, and get practical advice on what to look for in billing and evaluation reports. Christine invites anyone with experiences involving evaluators Marvin, McCreary, or Burley to share their stories and bills for further investigation.

Key topics:

Motions to disqualify evaluators in Louisville

Confirmation bias and testing issues in custodial evaluations

The “team approach” and lack of transparency

Confidentiality concerns and public record implications

Delays, costs, and the impact on families

National patterns and high-profile cases

How to submit your own stories and reports

Connect with us:

Website: judge-y.com

Christine: @Kentuckychristine (all platforms)

Podcast: Judge-y (YouTube, Instagram, TikTok)

Tune in for a candid, eye-opening discussion on the realities of family court evaluations and what needs to change.

Welcome to the Judgmental Podcast.

2

This is a bonus edition where

we talk about current events

3

happening in Louisville, Kentucky

pertaining to custodial evaluations.

4

This is a must listen.

5

Speaker 4: Next call.

6

We need some

7

Speaker 5: justice, justice, justice.

8

And I wanna ring bells in public.

9

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

10

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

11

I To the fo Yeah.

12

Speaker 6: I to the fo fo

13

teaser.

14

Christine: At motion hour today.

15

There was something really unique

that happened in Derwin's court.

16

An attorney has filed at least two,

and it's my understanding there are.

17

Three motions to disqualify a

commonly used custodial evaluator,

18

Kelly, Marvin and Kristen McCreary.

19

Marvin and McCreary.

20

Now there's an expert out of

Florida that has talked about a

21

lot of issues within their reports.

22

I posted a TikTok today.

23

Saying, Hey, anyone that's got, and I'm

gonna post the full motion that was file

24

was filed on my TikTok, and we can figure

out how to post it on our YouTube channel.

25

But I posted a TikTok, Hey, anybody,

McCreary and Marvin, within 24 minutes,

26

I had emails of people that don't follow

us that said, this was sent to me.

27

Here's the report of

what they did in my case.

28

Hugh: Yeah, , I'm not surprised at all.

29

I've seen such I, I've seen.

30

Oh, I've seen so many problems , and

this is what happens when you have a

31

virtual monopoly on, on doing a certain

type of work within family court.

32

This is what happens when we have

either, you know, too few of any of the

33

roles that are used in family court.

34

You, you just start having problems

like this and we've had it in different

35

cycles with different people with

custodial evaluations in the past, but.

36

Th Yeah, this has been going on for

some time, and it's not surprising

37

to me at all that people started

reaching out immediately about it.

38

Christine: I mean, in there, this motion,

they have a plethora favorite word, alert.

39

We should play a drinking game every

time I say that or say traumatic.

40

But I mean, people wouldn't

be able to make it through.

41

, Hugh: I wouldn't, I wouldn't.

42

I've got a pretty good tolerance,

and I think I would be, I would be on

43

the floor by the end of the podcast.

44

Christine: Or bizarre.

45

I had somebody randomly text

me and be like, not text me,

46

send me a Facebook message.

47

'cause people are so sweet online,

but just like, could you say bizarre?

48

Any one more time on the Talk

of Louisville podcast and it's

49

just calm down, don't listen.

50

Oh, that's funny.

51

That, that's one that

52

Hugh: I use pretty, I I think

I use that one more than you.

53

Christine: I don't even

know what else to say.

54

It's like bizarre is the only

thing I can come up with because

55

it makes no fucking sense.

56

But, so we could

57

Hugh: say that, but people would

probably take offense to that.

58

Christine: Oh, I mean, there's nothing I

do that doesn't offend people, apparently.

59

Allegedly.

60

Oh my gosh.

61

But so in this test, I just wanna

read a few of these things really

62

quick and then we'll post it.

63

But they found confirmation bias

testing fatigue, uneven unbalanced

64

interview time, the team approach to

psychological testing, which I thought

65

was really fascinating because as you

know, those two often work in a team.

66

It says the A FCC models say that

each person, each team member must

67

be clearly defined and documented.

68

I thought that was very

fascinating 'cause you and I

69

both know they're not doing that.

70

Hugh: That's worth a deep dive.

71

Christine: Yes.

72

Oh, and then their test selection the

fact that they use the child abuse risk

73

evaluation, which is CARE, they were

utilizing it almost to like diagnose when

74

they were saying that it has not been

used in North America until recently.

75

And it goes to assess like Marvin

and McCreary claim, it assesses.

76

One's risk for engaging in certain

behaviors, and this evaluator

77

says, it ha it does nothing to

predict the future whatsoever.

78

Hugh: Yeah.

79

So I thought

80

Christine: that was fascinating.

81

Hugh: Yeah, I mean, I, I, there

was a time in my practice I

82

would regularly hire experts to

contradict custodial evaluations.

83

And honestly what was found

most was that the tests that

84

were being administered did not.

85

Did not correlate to

the results being found.

86

And I don't mean the specific results,

but the types of findings that were being

87

made, the appropriate tests for making

those types of findings were not correct.

88

The this test is, is intended to show

X, Y, and Z, not A, B, and C, and yet

89

they're basing A, B, and C on this test.

90

That's not meant for that, and that

was the thing that I found the most.

91

Now, I also found that only one time.

92

Maybe in my whole litigation career did

I find a judge listen to an encounter

93

expert and not just go along with

whoever had been court appointed.

94

But it, it did work from

time to time and I just.

95

That, yeah, that, that was the

problem that I saw the most.

96

It was within the testing of them.

97

I, the team approach though,

was very interesting.

98

Christine: Well, and this one's also

very fascinating because a lot of my

99

followers and our followers and our

listeners, they won't send us stuff

100

because on the top of the evaluations

that both Kelly, Marvin Christian McCreary

101

and Catherine Burle, that's another,

those are the three bigs in Louisville.

102

Right.

103

They put on their

privileged and confidential.

104

Have you seen that right?

105

Oh, yes.

106

Hugh: Oh, yes.

107

Christine: And so they found

that custodial evaluations

108

conducted in family law cases

are prepared for the court's use.

109

It's inappropriate, it's not

private and confidential.

110

And that's inappropriate to say.

111

And that may, that was always what was

so troublesome to me, is that these

112

people going through this are told,

Hey, don't ever show this to anyone.

113

You can't ever use this.

114

You know what I mean?

115

And, and they paid

thousands of dollars for it.

116

Hugh: Yep.

117

I mean, I mean we, we've heard

people say that their attorneys

118

won't even show it to them.

119

They'll just tell them kind of what's

happening, that they've been so scared

120

about the confidential language, they

won't even send it to their own clients.

121

Christine: And that was outta California

and we are talking with him tomorrow.

122

So if you're listening to this episode,

that one will ne likely be next, which is

123

out of California, like I said, where I

feel like we're baby California right now.

124

And then they do more of the te

types of team evaluations saying

125

they violated blah, blah, blah.

126

Then they were using clinical

tools in a forensic setting, which

127

is what's always bothered me.

128

They just put the word forensic in front

of a word they use and claim that It's

129

like forensic just means in court, right?

130

Hugh: Well, yeah.

131

I mean, you, we, there's a much

broader discussion about how

132

scientific psychological examinations

are, and there's, there's strong

133

opinions on both, both sides there.

134

But it seems like a way to try to make

it sound more efficient, more scientific.

135

Christine: More like important.

136

Hugh: But, but again, I, I think it, I

think we gotta point out that this is what

137

we're talking about is a motion that's

been filed in a case alleging things that

138

had happened in a custodial evaluation.

139

These are not our findings.

140

These are not things that we've read the

custodial evaluation, we've found them.

141

We're just telling you what's in a

motion that is currently in Division 10.

142

Christine: That's in a, a

matter of public record.

143

Yes.

144

And there's been two filed.

145

Then there's also the notion talking

about how the tests that were used

146

were u are typically utilized for

European, basically white people.

147

Which is very fascinating too, to think

about from a psychological standpoint.

148

Sure.

149

Because we have a very diverse

population here in Louisville, Kentucky.

150

Additionally, last one actually, I think,

no, there's like 17, I'm not kidding.

151

This is like so many bad

things, but identifying relevant

152

information in a timely manner.

153

This order to begin a custodial

evaluation was designed in December

154

of 2021, and so, and then the order

was entered, I mean the report report

155

was December of 2024, so three years.

156

Hugh: Yep, I've encountered it.

157

I've encountered oh, same a case

where we were all, we were about

158

four years into the case and

we still didn't have a report.

159

We had some preliminary, here's

probably what I'm going to find.

160

Yeah, that was with someone that was

appointed that was not a local person.

161

It was someone that we council had

agreed to use somebody completely

162

different than in, in the local scene.

163

But we were, we were all disappointed

that it, that process took much, much,

164

much longer than even, even locally.

165

Well, maybe not much, much longer, but

it took longer than we had experienced

166

here with, with people in Louisville.

167

Christine: But three years,

I mean, what's the point?

168

I mean, and the kids are just status quo.

169

Like what are the kids supposed to do?

170

Which shows Well, that's

what, what happened in

171

Hugh: the case I was talking about

the kids were Yeah, were teenagers.

172

And by the time there could have been

a report, the parties just acknowledged

173

that their, you know, the kids, at

least in that case, the parents.

174

But parents had done a good

job raising their kids.

175

And the kids, you know, it was sort

of set what was going to happen.

176

And, and they had like.

177

Their final year before they went

off to college and whatever came

178

out in a report wouldn't have

mattered anyway at that point.

179

Christine: Yep.

180

Hugh: But, but that one was $70,000.

181

The custodian guy was 70,000.

182

Mm-hmm.

183

Christine: I mean, that is kids school.

184

So interim recommendations, which

this has always bothered me.

185

I never allowed for it.

186

But the fact that it's saying

they're issuing recommendations

187

while they're doing their

evaluation, I mean, that's insane.

188

Well, and conducting

189

Hugh: mediations.

190

Before the report's done

191

Christine: insane.

192

That's insane.

193

Insane.

194

I mean, what is the point of

this being, you know, I digress.

195

Failed to find strengths in this family.

196

I'm gonna quote this one, then I'll

read the rest of 'em really quick

197

and we can do a deep dive because

I know it's been a long episode.

198

But this evaluation fails to account for

the family's overall, overall wellbeing.

199

There is an absence of mental illness.

200

Substance abuse or domestic violence.

201

It appears that the conclusions

are an over pathological

202

formulation of this family.

203

So y'all, there is a family in Louisville,

Kentucky that has had a, it'll be for

204

four years before they go to trial.

205

They're not going to trial till 2026.

206

There's an absence of mental

illness, substance abuse, or domestic

207

violence, and they're in this.

208

This is what's happening in family court.

209

Insane.

210

Hugh: Yeah, they get, you get stuck in

the system and that that machine just

211

grinds you up and never, never releases.

212

You.

213

Christine: Then last like use of

professional literature and oh, sorry.

214

Gatekeeping alienation analysis.

215

This is interesting.

216

We need to go down that rabbit hole.

217

Credibility, determination.

218

And last but not least, least,

methodological imbalance.

219

And that's basically saying you talk

to one party way more than you talk to

220

the other, which happens all the time.

221

But y'all, I did a, I've gotten so many

emails from people all over the country.

222

If you have Marvin or

McCreary or Catherine Burley.

223

Send me your reports and send me

your bills all over the country.

224

If I wanna see the bills for these

custodial evaluators, it is my personal

225

or my, my work like investigative email

is, it's Miller time Louisville at

226

Gmail, and you can send all your stories.

227

Please submit all your

stories to judge y.com

228

and I'm sure you have stuff you wanna say.

229

I just wanted to get that in there.

230

Hugh: No, no, no, I agree.

231

I think the methodological imbalances

or, you know, talking to one person

232

a lot more than the other, I think.

233

One of the ways that I, you know,

I found in my practice that that

234

was happening pretty regularly

and even if it wasn't, the clients

235

had the perception that it was.

236

Mm-hmm.

237

So one of the ways you would look

at it is, look at detailed billings.

238

Same thing you do with an FOC or, or

sometimes a parenting coordinator if,

239

if they're keeping billing records the

way they should, you should be able

240

to see how long their conversations

are and who they're speaking with.

241

But that was, yeah, that was something

I encountered quite a bit, I think.

242

I think we gotta say again.

243

What we're talking about here is

raised in a motion, not something

244

that we filed, is raised in a

motion by a litigant in a case.

245

It rang true to us because of what

we experienced during our time as

246

practitioners, but it's something

that I think the public needs

247

to understand a lot better how

these custodial evaluators work.

248

I'm, I'm excited to, to dive

into this, but the, the.

249

Allegations that were being discussed are

being made in public record by a litigant

250

in a case that we're not involved in.

251

Christine: Yes.

252

And to connect this to Orange

County, there was an evaluator

253

out there that's currently being

investigated, and that's how the

254

parents that I interacted with had met.

255

But out there, this is Dr.

256

Reinhardt.

257

This is all public record.

258

Never met this woman, but

a custodial evaluation and

259

allegedly, according to this.

260

The father was given the children,

and again, according to if you Google

261

it this doctor was accused of SA

and was criminally charged for it.

262

So again, a pattern that I do not want

to see come to Louisville, Kentucky.

263

Hugh: yep, agreed.

264

Christine: So, all

right, y'all, judge-y.com

265

Kentuckychristine, on all platforms

for me, Judge-y on all platforms.

266

YouTube, Instagram,

TikTok, and thank you guys.

267

Hugh: Thanks.

268

Peace.

269

Speaker 4: Next call.

270

We need some

271

Speaker 5: justice, justice, justice.

272

And I wanna ring bells in public.

273

I wanna ring bes in public nor crowd.

274

Yeah, but I To the fo Yeah.

275

I To the fo Yeah.

276

Speaker 6: I to the fo fo

277

teaser.