Can I Request a Psychological Evaluation in My Divorce Case?
Yes. You ask by motion, and the rule that governs it is Rule 60.01, which most people have never heard of.
It is not something you arrange on your own and hand to the court. A psychological evaluation in divorce is a court ordered examination, and the order has to come first.
That single fact changes how the request gets made, who chooses the evaluator, and what the report can be used for. Here is the whole mechanism.
What Does the Rule Actually Require?
Two gates, and the order itself has to be specific about six things.
Rule 60.01 provides that “In an action in which the mental condition, physical condition, or blood relationship of a party, or of an agent or a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party (i) to submit to physical, mental, or blood examinations by physicians or other appropriate licensed health care providers.”
The first gate is in the middle of that sentence. The condition has to be “in controversy.” Not merely interesting, not merely disputed in tone. In controversy.
The second gate is procedural. The rule says any such order “may be made only on motion for good cause shown, upon notice to the person against whom the order is sought and to all other parties.”
Note the word only. There is no route to an evaluation that skips the motion, and there is no route that skips notice.
Then the rule tells the court what its own order must contain. It “shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope of, and identity of each person conducting the examination or evaluation.” That last item is the one worth reading twice. The order names the evaluator.
Is a Psychological Evaluation the Same as a Custody Evaluation?
No, and they come from different places in the law.
Rule 60.01 is a discovery rule about a party’s condition. A custody investigation is a separate device under Section 452.390 RSMo, which lets the court “order an investigation and report concerning custodial arrangements for the child,” carried out by “the county welfare office, the county juvenile officer, or any other competent person.”
The investigation statute carries two features the examination rule does not. The report goes to counsel “At least ten days prior to the hearing,” and “Any party to the proceeding may call as witnesses the investigator and any person whom the investigator has consulted.”
That second sentence is the sleeper. Everyone the investigator talked to is a potential witness, which means an investigation opens a door that a testing order does not.
A guardian ad litem is a third thing again, appointed under Section 452.423 RSMo, and our page on what a guardian ad litem does covers that role. Some cases have all three. Many have none.
Why Would a Psychological Evaluation in Divorce Help a Custody Case?
Because mental health is a named best interests factor, and testing is one of the few ways to put evidence rather than accusation in front of the court.
Section 452.375.2 RSMo directs the court to weigh “The mental and physical health of all individuals involved, including any history of abuse of any individuals involved.”
Two parents can each describe the other as unstable. That is a fight nobody wins on volume. An evaluation converts the argument into a record, and a record is the thing a court can actually use.
It also does something less obvious and often more useful. An evaluation can point at what would help, whether that is treatment, a service, a referral or a different schedule. In a high conflict case that is frequently worth more than the diagnosis on the front page.
Can Both Parents Be Ordered to Undergo Testing?
Nothing in Rule 60.01 limits an order to one party, and each request stands on its own motion and its own showing.
The rule speaks of “a party” whose condition is in controversy, and either side may move. So a parent who asks for testing of the other parent should understand that the same rule points back at them, on the same two gates.
That cuts both ways and it is worth thinking about before you file. We will not tell you what a court will do with a request, because nobody can, and the honest version of this advice is about the record rather than the ruling. If you ask, expect to be asked.
What About Substance Use or Prescription Misuse?
Rule 60.01 reaches more than a conversation with a psychologist, and the extra word is blood.
The rule authorizes “physical, mental, or blood examinations by physicians or other appropriate licensed health care providers.” Substance use questions often sit closer to that third category than to the first two, and the statutory factor in Section 452.375.2 RSMo about the health of everyone involved is broad enough to hold them.
What the rule does not do is let anyone go looking. The condition still has to be in controversy, and good cause still has to be shown on notice.
Who Pays for a Psychological Evaluation in Divorce?
Usually the party who asks for it, and the cost of a psychological evaluation in divorce turns on the evaluator and the scope of the order rather than on any published rate.
We do not publish fee ranges for evaluations, because the number depends on who is appointed and how wide the order is written, and a figure from a marketing page is not a figure you can budget from. Ask us and we will give you what we are currently seeing in these courts.
Two provisions do affect the bill. Rule 60.01 lets a court “require the party requesting the order to reimburse the person who is the subject of the order for that person’s reasonable round trip expenses in traveling more than sixty miles from the place of residence to the place of examination or evaluation.” And Section 452.355.1 RSMo lets a court order one party to pay a reasonable amount toward the other’s costs and attorney fees in any proceeding under Sections 452.300 to 452.415. Our page on making a spouse pay your legal bill covers how that request is framed.
The scope point deserves emphasis. Because the order specifies scope, the scope is negotiable, and a narrower order is a cheaper order.
How Does the Report Get Into Evidence?
Through the expert statute that governs family cases, which is not the standard most Missouri civil cases use.
Section 490.065 RSMo splits expert testimony by case type, and subsection 1 opens by naming its territory, “In actions brought under chapter 451, 452, 453, 454, or 455.” Under it an expert may testify “If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” relying on facts “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”
Expert opinions are also discoverable. Rule 56.01 allows discovery of an expert’s facts and opinions and lets the court require the party seeking that discovery to pay the expert a reasonable hourly fee. The ordinary tools reach an evaluation too, whether that is written questions under Rule 57.01 or a deposition of the evaluator under Rule 57.03. Our page on discovery in a divorce case covers the wider process, and Rule 61.01 covers what happens when a party simply refuses to participate in discovery at all.
What Does a Psychological Evaluation Not Decide?
Four things, and each one catches somebody.
A psychological evaluation in divorce does not decide custody. The court decides that on the eight factors in Section 452.375.2 RSMo, and an evaluation feeds one of those factors rather than replacing all of them.
It does not bind the court. Section 490.065 RSMo makes expert opinion admissible. Admissible and controlling are different words.
It is not a test of who is the better parent. It is an examination of a condition that somebody has put in controversy, and the order defines how far it goes.
It does not reopen a case that is already over. Changing an existing custody judgment runs through Section 452.410.1 RSMo, which has its own standard, and a new report is not by itself a motion.
And it does not stay private in the way people assume. Once a condition is in controversy and an order has issued, the resulting material lives inside the case, which sits in Chapter 452 RSMo rather than in a therapist’s file.
What Does the Rule Leave Open?
Two things, and we would rather name them than paper over them.
Rule 60.01 requires the order to identify each person conducting the evaluation. It does not say how that person gets chosen when the parties cannot agree. The rule is silent, and silence is not the same as a default.
The rule also requires good cause without defining it. What satisfies good cause is worked out case by case, and we did not find a Missouri appellate decision construing that phrase in the family law setting through the free sources available for this page. So we are not going to tell you where the line is. If your case turns on that question, it needs a lawyer looking at your specific facts rather than a web page.
Who Can Help With a Psychological Evaluation in a St. Louis Divorce?
The useful help is in the drafting, because the order decides the cost, the scope and the evaluator.
Bardol Law Firm practices only family law, and we are in the St. Louis County, St. Louis City, St. Charles County and Jefferson County courts regularly. If you think a psychological evaluation in divorce belongs in your case, or the other side has asked for one about you, bring us what has actually been alleged and we will tell you which of the three devices on this page fits, and what a narrower order would look like. Our child custody page covers the custody framework, our page on getting custody while a case is pending covers the timing, and our other family law questions and answers cover the rest.
You should not have to chase your attorney for basic updates while something this personal is pending. Every client here has a named paralegal on the file, and we generally return calls within one business day.
Family Law, Simplified.
If testing has come up in your case, in either direction, it is worth a conversation before a motion gets filed. Contact Bardol Law Firm or call 314.918.0100.
This page is general information about Missouri law and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.