Can’t I just use my own expert witness instead of a colluding one who will testify against me?

In practice, many parents in California family courts report that they are required to work with court-appointed expert witnesses, affiliated with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts—including psychologists, custody evaluators, therapists, and other specialists.

Critics argue that this creates a system in which a relatively small network of professionals plays a significant role in shaping all outcomes. Declining to work with a court-appointed expert may lead to adverse consequences, such as fines, restricted visitation or the imposition of supervised visitation with child(ren), depending on the judge’s orders. From this perspective, such practices raise concerns about fairness, due process, and the degree of court involvement in family matters.

Observers also note that mental health professionals who are not regularly involved in court work—particularly those focused on clinical practice—are therefore hesitant to participate as expert witnesses. This reluctance can stem from concerns about confidentiality, obligations, professional liability, and the challenges of navigating legal proceedings.

Critics point out that courtroom procedures allow written reports from court-appointed professionals to be considered as evidence. They argue that, under standards such as the “best interest of the child,” courts admit secondhand information, which can raise questions about evidentiary reliability and transparency.

Overall, these concerns reflect a broader debate about the role of expert witnesses in family law, the structure of professional networks within the system, and how judges balance efficiency, expertise, and fairness—particularly in cases that deeply affect parents and children.