Legal Document Type: Legal Motion: MOTION TO OBJECT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Case Information: Case 24SN-DR00104 | Status: OverRuled

Document Content:
MOTION TO OBJECT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION BY RESPONDENT'S SELECTED PSYCHOLOGIST AND TO REASSERT OBJECTIONS TO PRIOR UNADDRESSED ISSUES
COMES NOW, Petitioner, Micheal Lawrence Salmon, and moves this Court to reject the
psychological evaluation to be conducted by Susan K Vandeusen, who has been selected by
Respondent, and to instead appoint a neutral, court-approved evaluator. Additionally, Petitioner
seeks to formally reassert prior objections which have been ignored in these proceedings. In
support thereof, Petitioner states as "follows":

I. OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT'S SELECTED
PSYCHOLOGIST
1. The Evaluator Lacks Neutrality and Presents a Conflict of Interest
1. The appointed psychologist, Susan K Vandeusen, was personally selected by
Respondent, rather than being a neutral evaluator appointed by the Court.
2. It is in the best interest of the child, Felix Salmon, that any psychological evaluation be
conducted by a neutral, court-appointed forensic psychologist, rather than a
professional with a potential bias toward one parent.
3. Susan K Vandeusen has no verifiable history of conducting forensic custody
evaluations and lacks publicly available records or professional reviews, raising
concerns about their credibility.
1

2. The Appointment of a Neutral Evaluator Ensures Fairness
4. Petitioner respectfully requests that, should a psychological evaluation be deemed
necessary, the Court appoint a licensed, neutral forensic psychologist with a proven
record of unbiased custody evaluations.
5. A neutral evaluator ensures fairness and prevents undue influence from either party in the
custody proceedings.
3. Due Process and Fair Treatment
6. The appointment of a neutral forensic evaluator is consistent with the principles of due
process and fairness in family court proceedings.
7. The Court has a duty to ensure that both parties are treated equally in any
psychological evaluations that may impact custody determinations.

II. REASSERTION OF PRIOR OBJECTIONS
4. Unaddresse