Skip to content 
What does a sudden drop in grades actually tell a Texas custody court? It may signal that a child is struggling, but it does not identify the cause or prove that either parent is unfit. A Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody may provide useful information when mental or emotional functioning is genuinely disputed, but it is not the same as a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation. Different rules authorize the procedures, different requirements govern who may perform them, and separate evidentiary rules determine whether the resulting opinions reach the judge.
That distinction matters when divorce coincides with missed assignments, school absences, behavioral changes, or emotional withdrawal. Academic difficulty may arise from parental conflict, disrupted routines, long commutes between homes, an unmet learning need, or circumstances unrelated to the divorce. Under Texas Family Code §153.002, the child’s best interest remains the court’s primary consideration. School performance may be relevant to that analysis, but no report card, diagnosis, or expert opinion decides custody by itself.
At The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC, we understand how quickly these concerns can leave parents feeling judged and uncertain about what comes next. Founded by South Texas College of Law graduate Bryan Joseph Fagan, our firm helps Texas families separate verified facts from assumptions and understand the legal process before making consequential decisions. That approach reflects our mission of educating families, protecting futures, and helping people reclaim peace of mind during difficult transitions.
This article explains when a Texas court may order a psychological examination, what the process may include, how its findings may be used, and how educational concerns fit into a custody case. With a clearer understanding of the rules and the evidence that matters, you can move forward with greater confidence while keeping the focus where it belongs: on your child’s safety, stability, and future.
Key Takeaways
- Two different routes exist. A party may move under Rule 204.1; in a Family Code case the court may also appoint under Rule 204.4.
- An examination is not a custody evaluation. §107.1025 says so expressly — and also says the examination may be included in a custody evaluation report.
- Who may recommend is regulated separately. Under §104.008, an expert recommendation on conservatorship, possession or access requires a Chapter 107 evaluation.
- The examination is not confidential in the ordinary sense, but the exception is conditional, not total.
- Rule 204.4 does not prescribe a test, fixed statewide cost, or universal timetable. Figures published by particular professionals or local programs describe their practices, not a statewide Rule 204 requirement.
Quick Answer
In a Texas family case, Rule 204 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure lets a court order a mental examination. Rule 204.4 lets the court appoint a psychologist or psychiatrist on its own initiative or on a party’s motion. Such an examination is not itself a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation, and no diagnosis or expert opinion decides custody.
What Is a Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody?
A Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody is a court-ordered mental examination of a child involved in a Texas custody case or another party to the case. It serves a forensic purpose and is not ordinary therapy. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.4, the court may appoint one or more psychologists or psychiatrists on its own initiative or after a party files a motion.
Rule 204.4 authorizes “appropriate mental examinations,” but it does not prescribe a statewide testing battery, price, format, or completion time. The appointment order controls who will be examined, who will conduct the examination, its authorized scope and conditions, and any deadlines, reporting duties, or cost allocations. Questions about an unclear or overly broad order should be raised through counsel and the court rather than by refusing to comply.
A Rule 204 mental examination is not automatically a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation. Texas Family Code §107.1025 provides that the examination does not by itself satisfy the requirements for a custody evaluation, although its findings may be included in the evaluator’s report. A diagnosis or expert opinion may provide relevant information, but it does not decide custody by itself.
If a child will also participate in an interview, parents should understand what to know about a child being interviewed and avoid coaching or rehearsing answers. That resource addresses interviews in the CPS context, which should not be confused with a court-ordered psychological examination.
Psychological Examination vs. Child Custody Evaluation
They are different procedures under different authority, and the Family Code says so directly. Under §107.1025, a mental examination described by Rule 204.4 does not by itself satisfy the requirements for a child custody evaluation. The same section adds the part that is easy to miss: such an examination may be included in the custody evaluation report and relied on by the custody evaluator to the extent the evaluator considers appropriate. The two are distinct, and connected.
The last row is the same in every column, and it is the line the rest of the table exists to support. For the wider Chapter 107 procedure — who may evaluate, what the report must contain, how counties administer it — see our guide to the Texas child custody evaluation process.
| Rule 204.4 examination | Chapter 107 custody evaluation | Ordinary therapy | A treating professional’s testimony | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | An appropriate mental examination of a child who is the subject of the suit, or of another party | A court-ordered evaluation of the child, the parties and the home in a contested case | Diagnosis, evaluation or treatment. Not a litigation process | To give the court relevant information about someone the professional personally evaluated |
| Appointment | The court appoints, on its own initiative or on a party’s motion, and may do so whether or not anyone has designated that professional as a testifying expert | The court orders it and its order names the evaluator, the scope and the elements | Chosen by the patient. No order, no appointment | Not appointed at all. A witness, not a court-appointed neutral |
| Who may perform it | One or more psychologists or psychiatrists | A person meeting the qualification and training requirements of §107.104 | A treating professional selected outside the Rule 204 appointment process; licensing and scope requirements depend on the profession | The professional who provided the treatment |
| Scope | Rule 204.4 authorizes appropriate mental examinations; review the appointment order for what the court authorized | The statutory basic elements, plus any additional elements the court orders | Set by the clinical relationship | Limited by §104.008 — may address the person evaluated, but may not give an expert recommendation on conservatorship, possession or access |
| What it produces | The examiner’s findings, which under §107.1025 may be included in a custody evaluation report | A report, introduced subject to the rules of evidence | Treatment communications and records may fall within Rule 510 where its definitions and requirements are satisfied, unless an exception applies | Testimony, admitted or excluded under Rules 702–705 |
| Who decides custody | The court | The court | No one. Not a custody process | The court |
A treating professional is not a custody evaluator
Under §104.008, a person may not offer an expert opinion or recommendation about conservatorship, possession or access unless that person conducted a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation. Another expert may still address an evaluator’s qualifications, the reliability of the methodology, or the relevance of the information obtained. And a mental health professional who has personally evaluated a party may give other relevant opinions about that party. None of this makes any recommendation binding on the court, and the section does not apply where the Department is a party.
When May a Texas Court Order a Psychological Examination?
Rule 204 provides more than one route, and they work differently. Under Rule 204.1, a party moves for an order compelling another party to submit to an examination, no later than 30 days before the end of the discovery period, with the motion and notice of hearing served on the person to be examined and all parties. The court may issue that order only for good cause shown and only in the circumstances the rule states, and the order must specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and who is to perform it.
Under Rule 204.4, in cases arising under Family Code Titles II or V, the court may — on its own initiative or on a party’s motion — appoint one or more psychologists or psychiatrists to make any and all appropriate mental examinations of the children who are the subject of the suit or of any other parties. It may do so irrespective of whether anyone has designated that professional as a testifying expert.
On the Rule 204.1 route, the leading case is Coates v. Whittington. Interpreting Rule 204.1’s predecessor, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the movant carries an affirmative two-part burden: the condition must be genuinely in controversy, and there must be good cause. Neither is met by conclusory pleading allegations or by mere relevance. Good cause requires that the examination be relevant to issues genuinely in controversy, that there be a reasonable nexus between the condition and the examination sought, and that the information cannot be obtained by less intrusive means. The Court also said that a routine allegation of mental anguish does not put a party’s mental condition in controversy. It conditionally granted mandamus.
Coates was a personal-injury case decided under a former rule. It did not interpret Rule 204.4 or a Family Code custody examination, and it is not authority on who may conduct an examination today — the rule has since been amended on that point.
What this article does not decide
Rule 204.4 does not repeat Rule 204.1’s good-cause, in-controversy, timing, service or order-content language, and Rule 204.1 expressly carves out “except as provided in Rule 204.4” in one of its subsections. Whether every requirement stated in Rule 204.1 applies to a Rule 204.4 appointment is not settled by the rule’s text. As of September 2026, our research did not locate a reported Texas appellate decision resolving whether every requirement in Rule 204.1(c) or (d) applies to a Rule 204.4 appointment. This article therefore describes what each provision says and does not claim that the Rule 204.1 threshold or order-detail requirements necessarily govern a Rule 204.4 appointment — or that they do not. A parent facing an examination should raise that question with counsel, because it may matter a great deal in a particular case.
Who May Be Examined?
A Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody may be ordered for a child who is the subject of the case or for another party, including a parent. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.4, the court may appoint one or more psychologists or psychiatrists to conduct appropriate mental examinations. The court may act on its own initiative or after a party files a motion.
Rule 204.1 provides a separate procedure for a party seeking an order that requires another party to submit to an examination or produce someone in that party’s custody, conservatorship, or legal control. That rule expressly addresses good cause and whether the person’s condition is in controversy. Rule 204.4 uses different language for cases arising under Titles II or V of the Texas Family Code, so every Rule 204.1 requirement should not automatically be treated as controlling a Rule 204.4 appointment.
In straightforward situations, the order may name one parent for a limited examination. In more complex custody cases, the order may include both a parent and a child. The signed appointment order controls who must participate, who will conduct the examination, and the examination’s authorized scope and conditions. Being named in the order is not itself a diagnosis or a finding that someone is an unfit parent.
If the custody dispute also involves CPS, an investigative interview or medical examination may occur under a different process. Our guide to what happens during a CPS investigation provides additional context about CPS interviews, examinations, consent, and court orders. Those investigative steps should not automatically be treated as a Rule 204 mental examination.
A court-ordered mental examination also does not become a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation merely because a parent or child participates. Texas Family Code §107.1025 states that a Rule 204.4 examination does not by itself satisfy the requirements for a custody evaluation, although its findings may be included in the evaluator’s report.
Who Conducts the Examination?
Under Rule 204.4, one or more psychologists or psychiatrists. Under Rule 204.1, a physical or mental examination by a qualified physician, or a mental examination by a qualified psychologist. For the purpose of Rule 204, a psychologist is a person licensed or certified by a state or the District of Columbia as a psychologist. Rule 204.4 also permits a psychiatrist to be appointed, so a psychiatric evaluation for child custody may arise under the same provision even though the professional and the particular examination differ.
What Can the Examination Include?
Rule 204.4 authorizes appropriate mental examinations but does not itself prescribe a testing battery, a fixed statewide price, or a universal completion timetable, and it provides no statewide list of examination contents. Review the appointment order to determine what the court authorized in the particular case. If you encounter a page listing the tests used in Texas custody cases, or quoting a price or a number of weeks, check what it is describing — practice and local programs are not the same thing as a statewide rule.
How Long Does a Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody Take?
A Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody has no standard statewide duration in Texas. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204.4 authorizes appropriate mental examinations, but it does not establish a testing schedule, completion period, or reporting deadline. Parents should begin with the signed appointment order because any deadline stated in that order controls the examination in their case.
The actual timeline depends on the authorized scope, the number of people being examined, the court-appointed professional’s availability, and the records or testing involved. In straightforward situations, the order may authorize a limited examination of one person. In more complex custody cases, the examiner may need to evaluate multiple people and review extensive records, which can extend the process.
A timeframe published by a psychologist, county, or local program describes that provider’s or program’s practice—not a statewide requirement. Other legal proceedings also follow different rules and schedules. For example, the guardianship evaluation process in Texas should not be used to estimate how long a Rule 204 custody examination will take.
A Rule 204 mental examination is also not automatically a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation. Under Texas Family Code §107.1025, the examination does not by itself satisfy the requirements for a custody evaluation, so the expected timeline for one process should not be assumed to govern the other. If scheduling problems threaten a court-ordered deadline, the issue should be raised through counsel and the court rather than by missing appointments or ignoring the order.
How Much Does a Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody Cost?
Rule 204.4 does not set a fixed statewide price either. What an examination costs turns on the same variables — who is appointed, what the order asks them to do, how many people are examined, and how the cost is allocated between the parties. Ask counsel how the order allocates the expense, because that is a question the order answers and a published range cannot.
What Happens to the Examiner’s Report?
That depends on which route produced the examination and on what the order says, and it is worth asking counsel early. What can be said generally is that Rule 204 addresses reports on the Rule 204.1 route, including a right to a copy on request and the possibility that testimony may be excluded if the examiner fails or refuses to make a report. Separately, §107.1025 allows a mental examination to be included in a Chapter 107 custody evaluation report and relied on by that evaluator to the extent the evaluator considers appropriate.
What happens to the examiner’s opinions and working materials is a separate question, governed by a separate set of rules, and the next section but one takes it up.
Can the Examiner’s Opinions and Materials Be Discovered?
When the examiner in a Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody will testify as an expert, the parties may seek the examiner’s opinions, their general basis, and certain related materials. That does not mean every document in the examiner’s file is automatically discoverable. The scope depends partly on whether the examiner is retained, employed, or otherwise controlled by a party.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194a.2(f) permits a party in a Family Code case to request a testifying expert’s identity, expected subject matter, opinions, and a brief summary of their basis. If the expert is controlled by the responding party, the rule also reaches specified documents, reports, models, data compilations, and qualifications. A court appointment does not, by itself, establish that the examiner is controlled by either party.
Rule 195a governs testifying-expert discovery in suits arising under the Texas Family Code. It addresses disclosure requests, depositions, court-ordered reports, supplementation, and expert fees. It also protects draft reports and most communications between a lawyer and a testifying expert, subject to exceptions involving compensation, facts or data supplied by counsel, and assumptions on which the expert relied.
Not every court-appointed examiner becomes a testifying expert. If the examiner will not testify, Rules 194a and 195a do not automatically make the examiner’s complete file discoverable; the appointment order, other discovery rules, privilege questions, and any protective order must be considered separately. A testifying designation also does not transform a Rule 204 mental examination into a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation.
Discovery and admissibility are separate questions. Under Texas Rules of Evidence 702, 703, and 705, the court may still examine the expert’s qualifications, the basis of the opinion, and whether the opinion will assist the judge or jury. Our overview of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides additional context, but the practical point is simple: disclosing an opinion does not prove that it is reliable, admissible, or entitled to significant weight.
Is a Court-Ordered Psychological Evaluation Confidential?
Not in the way therapy is — but the exception is conditional, and the conditions matter. Texas Rule of Evidence 510 gives a patient a privilege over confidential communications with a mental health professional and over records of identity, diagnosis, evaluation or treatment. Rule 510(d)(4) creates an exception for a communication made during a court-ordered examination, and it applies only where three things are true:
- ›the patient made the communication after being informed that it would not be privileged;
- ›the communication is offered to prove an issue involving the patient’s mental or emotional health; and
- ›the court imposes appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure.
So the accurate statement is narrower than “nothing you say is confidential”. A parent ordered into an examination is entitled to be told in advance that what they say will not be privileged, and the court is expected to impose safeguards. This exception concerns the examination itself. It is not a rule about your existing treatment records, which the next section addresses.
Can Mental-Health Treatment Records Be Disclosed?
Sometimes, and the test is stricter than simple relevance. A different part of the same rule — Rule 510(d)(5) — lifts the privilege where any party relies on a person’s mental or emotional condition as part of that party’s claim or defense and the communication or record is relevant to that condition.
The Supreme Court of Texas explained what that requires in R.K. v. Ramirez. Relevance alone is not enough. The Court rejected a relevance test outright, reasoning that it would ignore the purpose of privileges and that, because relevance is defined so broadly, almost any litigant could plead around the privilege. Instead, both parts of a two-part test must be met: the records must be relevant to the condition at issue, and the condition must be relied on as part of a claim or defense, meaning the condition itself is a fact that carries legal significance.
The limits on what may then be disclosed are as important as the test. Production must be no broader than necessary; the request and the records must be closely related in time and scope to the claims made; and information that does not meet the standard remains privileged and must be redacted or otherwise protected. When requested, the trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection before ordering production. The rule can reach a non-party’s records where the condition itself carries legal significance and the remaining requirements are satisfied.
What R.K. is, and is not
R.K. v. Ramirez was an original mandamus proceeding arising from a medical malpractice suit, in which a defendant physician resisted an order to produce his own records. It is not a custody case, not a Rule 204 case, and not about a court-ordered examination. It interprets the party-relies exception, and that is the only thing it is cited for here. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus because the production ordered was overly broad.
A separate protection: what gets filed
Distinct from privilege and from discovery, Rule of Civil Procedure 21c governs sensitive data in documents filed with a court. Sensitive data includes government-issued identification numbers, financial account numbers, and a birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor when the suit was filed. It must be redacted before filing unless its inclusion is specifically required, and documents containing it in violation of the rule must not be posted on the internet. This is a filing rule. It does not decide discovery, privilege or admissibility.
How Do Texas Courts Decide Whether the Opinion Is Admissible?
By the rules of evidence, which ask a different question from everything above. Appointment is not admissibility, and admissibility is not privilege. Four rules do the work:
Rule 703 is sometimes misread. It means an expert may rely on material that would not itself come into evidence — not that an expert needs no factual basis. Rules 703 and 705 still govern the foundation, and Rule 705 is where a thin one is tested.
| Rule 204.4 examination | Chapter 107 custody evaluation | Ordinary therapy | A treating professional’s testimony | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | An appropriate mental examination of a child who is the subject of the suit, or of another party | A court-ordered evaluation of the child, the parties and the home in a contested case | Diagnosis, evaluation or treatment. Not a litigation process | To give the court relevant information about someone the professional personally evaluated |
| Appointment | The court appoints, on its own initiative or on a party’s motion, and may do so whether or not anyone has designated that professional as a testifying expert | The court orders it and its order names the evaluator, the scope and the elements | Chosen by the patient. No order, no appointment | Not appointed at all. A witness, not a court-appointed neutral |
| Who may perform it | One or more psychologists or psychiatrists | A person meeting the qualification and training requirements of §107.104 | A treating professional selected outside the Rule 204 appointment process; licensing and scope requirements depend on the profession | The professional who provided the treatment |
| Scope | Rule 204.4 authorizes appropriate mental examinations; review the appointment order for what the court authorized | The statutory basic elements, plus any additional elements the court orders | Set by the clinical relationship | Limited by §104.008 — may address the person evaluated, but may not give an expert recommendation on conservatorship, possession or access |
| What it produces | The examiner’s findings, which under §107.1025 may be included in a custody evaluation report | A report, introduced subject to the rules of evidence | Treatment communications and records may fall within Rule 510 where its definitions and requirements are satisfied, unless an exception applies | Testimony, admitted or excluded under Rules 702–705 |
| Who decides custody | The court | The court | No one. Not a custody process | The court |
Does the Psychological Evaluation Decide Custody?
No. The court decides. A diagnosis is not a custody finding, and an expert opinion is not a ruling. The court or jury decides the custody questions assigned to it. In In re Marriage of Fraker and Schubert, a Texas court of appeals explained that an expert’s opinion is not binding on the factfinder, even when uncontroverted, and that conservatorship decisions do not invariably require expert testimony. The court must evaluate the opinion with the rest of the admissible evidence. Rule 704 allows an opinion to embrace an ultimate issue, but it does not make that opinion automatically admissible or binding. §104.008 regulates who may offer a recommendation on conservatorship, possession or access; it does not make any recommendation binding. What a court weighs, and the standard it applies, are covered in our guides to what a court weighs in the evidence and the Texas best-interest standard.
A diagnosis is not a prediction
A mental health condition does not decide a custody case, and no honest page can tell you what a particular diagnosis will do to a particular outcome. What the law asks is whether an arrangement serves the child, on the evidence actually before the court. Anyone offering a list of diagnoses that cost parents custody is describing anxiety, not Texas law.
The limit on Fraker
Fraker involved a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation, not a psychological examination ordered under Rule 204.4. It was a memorandum opinion, and the appellant had not preserved her statutory admissibility objections. The court therefore did not decide whether the evaluator exceeded the appointment order, or whether the updated evaluation omitted required elements.
Can a Parent Refuse a Court-Ordered Examination?
A parent should not simply ignore a court-ordered examination. Failure to comply with an order under Rule 204 may lead to serious sanctions under Rule 215, imposed after notice and a hearing. Two qualifications travel with that. Rule 215 expressly excludes contempt as the sanction for failing to submit to a physical or mental examination — the contempt provision applies to other orders. And the rule recognizes an inability-to-comply limitation: the listed sanctions do not apply where the person shows they are unable to appear, or unable to produce another person for examination.
The practical point is the one to act on. If you object to an examination, the answer is to seek relief from the order, not to disregard it. An objection raised through counsel and put to the court is a legal position. Silence is not, and it is the version that carries consequences.
How Should a Parent Approach the Examination?
A parent should approach a Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody by following the signed order, answering honestly, and avoiding rehearsed responses. A court-ordered psychological examination serves a forensic purpose; it is not ordinary therapy or a test to “pass.” It also does not automatically become a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation.
Begin by reading the appointment order closely. Confirm who will conduct the examination, who must participate, what subjects may be addressed, and any stated conditions, deadlines, reporting duties, or payment requirements. Gather only records that were requested or that counsel has determined are appropriate to provide.
If the examination’s scope appears improper or seems to reach privileged information, raise the issue through counsel and the court. Do not try to resolve the dispute by missing an appointment or refusing to participate. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2(b)(7) permits serious case-related sanctions when a party fails to comply with a Rule 204 examination order.
Privilege requires careful attention. Texas Rule of Evidence 510 generally protects confidential mental-health communications and records, but it contains an exception for certain communications made during a court-ordered examination. That exception applies when the person was first informed that the communication would not be privileged, the communication is offered on an issue involving that person’s mental or emotional health, and the court imposes safeguards against unauthorized disclosure. Existing therapy records involve a separate privilege analysis and should not be treated as interchangeable with the forensic examination.
If the examiner may testify, the parent’s statements, the examiner’s methods, and the resulting opinions may later be examined through discovery or at trial. Our guide explaining what to expect at a Texas divorce trial provides broader context for how testimony and evidence may be presented. An expert opinion remains evidence for the judge or jury to evaluate; it does not determine custody by itself.
Where to Go Next
This page covers the examination itself. For the Chapter 107 procedure — who may evaluate, the required elements, the report and how counties administer the process — see our guide to the Texas child custody evaluation process. For the vocabulary a custody order uses, see conservatorship terminology in Texas.
Legal Resources
The rules and opinions described here were read against current Texas materials. Rules and statutes change, and how any of them applies depends on the facts of a particular case and on the court’s order.
- Texas Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 204 (physical and mental examinations, including Rule 204.4 for cases under Family Code Titles II or V), Rules 194a and 195a (disclosure and testifying-expert discovery in Family Code suits), Rule 21c (sensitive data in filed documents), and Rule 215 (sanctions for failure to comply with a discovery order, including the provisions that address a failure to submit to an examination). The official compilation.
- Texas Rules of Evidence — Rule 510 (mental health information privilege and its exceptions) and Rules 702–705 (expert testimony, the bases of an opinion, ultimate issues, and the sufficiency of the underlying facts or data). The official compilation.
- Texas Family Code §107.1025 — effect of a mental examination: it does not by itself satisfy the requirements for a child custody evaluation, and may be included in the report and relied on by the evaluator. A readable reproduction, not the Legislature’s official text.
- Texas Family Code §104.008 — certain testimony prohibited: who may, and may not, offer an expert recommendation on conservatorship, possession or access. A readable reproduction, not the Legislature’s official text.
Cases
- Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1988) — the in-controversy and good-cause requirements for a compelled mental examination, and the three elements of good cause. Note its posture: a personal-injury mandamus proceeding decided under Rule 204.1’s repealed predecessor. It did not construe Rule 204.4, and the rule has since been amended on who may conduct an examination.
- In re Marriage of Fraker and Schubert, No. 13-23-00340-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 24, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) — explains that expert opinions do not bind the factfinder and that conservatorship may be determined from the full record without expert testimony. The case concerned a Chapter 107 custody evaluator, not a Rule 204.4 psychological examination; the appellant’s statutory admissibility complaints were not preserved.
- R.K. v. Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1994) — the party-relies exception to the mental health information privilege: relevance alone is insufficient, the condition must carry legal significance, disclosure must be narrow in time and scope, unrelated material stays privileged, and in-camera review is required when requested. A medical-malpractice mandamus proceeding, not a custody or Rule 204 case. Mandamus conditionally granted.
Attorney Routing
Kimberly P. Washington
Senior Managing Attorney
Kimberly Washington has been with the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC since 2015 and provides senior legal leadership in Texas family-law matters, including divorce, child custody, and mediation. Which rule authorizes a particular examination, and what that rule does and does not require, is one of the first questions to settle.
Licensed by the State Bar of Texas since 2008 · Juris Doctor, Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Conclusion:
A Psychological Evaluation for Child Custody should answer a defined question—not become shorthand for parental unfitness or a substitute for the court’s judgment. The most useful next step is to examine what the order actually authorizes, what evidence supports the request, and how the proposed evaluation relates to the child’s safety, stability, and best interest.
In straightforward situations, the main concern may be understanding the scope of an examination, preparing honestly, or correcting a factual error in a report. In more complex cases, the dispute may involve examinations of both a parent and child, family violence, self-harm, substance misuse, privileged treatment records, conflicting experts, or requests for immediate restrictions on possession. Those cases may require an attorney with deeper experience in expert discovery, evidentiary challenges, and high-conflict custody litigation.
If your case involves a requested or court-ordered examination, speaking with a Texas family law attorney before important deadlines can help you understand the procedure and choose a response that fits the actual level of risk. The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC helps families identify the issues that matter, understand their options, and connect with the right level of legal guidance—so they can regain clarity, protect what matters most, and move forward with greater peace of mind.
About the Author
Bryan Fagan
Founder, Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC
Texas Divorce & Family Law Attorney · Licensed in Texas Since 2012
Bryan Fagan founded the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC in 2012. His work includes Texas family-law strategy, firmwide leadership, team-based case planning, and client education designed to help families understand their legal options and make informed decisions.
Juris Doctor, South Texas College of Law, 2011 · Licensed by the State Bar of Texas May 4, 2012 · Bar No. 24080889
About the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC
The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC helps Texas families understand and navigate family-law issues involving divorce, child custody, possession and access, and related matters. Founded by Bryan Fagan in 2012, the firm combines legal representation with education designed to give families clearer information about their options and the decisions ahead.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. In a case under Family Code Title II or V, Rule 204.4 permits the court to appoint one or more psychologists or psychiatrists for appropriate mental examinations, on its own initiative or on a party’s motion. A party may also move for an examination under Rule 204.1, which carries its own stated requirements.
No. Section 107.1025 says a mental examination described by Rule 204.4 does not by itself satisfy the requirements for a Chapter 107 child custody evaluation. The same section adds that such an examination may be included in the custody evaluation report and relied on by the evaluator to the extent the evaluator considers appropriate.
Rule 204.4 does not provide a statewide list of tests or examination contents, and does not prescribe a testing battery. It refers to appropriate mental examinations, leaving the content to be worked out in the particular case. Review the appointment order to determine what the court authorized; that is the document that answers this question for you.
Not in the way treatment is, but the exception is conditional. Rule 510(d)(4) lifts the privilege for communications made during a court-ordered examination only where the person was informed beforehand that the communication would not be privileged, the communication is offered on an issue involving their mental or emotional health, and the court imposes safeguards against unauthorized disclosure.
Only if a stricter test is met. Relevance alone does not waive the privilege. The records must be relevant to the condition at issue and the condition must itself carry legal significance to a claim or defense. Disclosure must stay close in time and scope to the claims, unrelated material must be redacted, and the court must review the records in camera when asked.
A parent should not simply disregard the order. Under Rule 215.2, after notice and a hearing, failure to comply with a Rule 204 order may lead to sanctions. Rule 215’s listed contempt sanction expressly excludes an order to submit to a physical or mental examination, and the rule separately addresses inability to comply. A parent who objects should seek relief through counsel and the court rather than silently refusing.
