Washington Psychologist Accused of Altering Custody Reports Raises Alarms Across Family Court System

Case Studies · By Gale McArthur · 2026-04-21 · 7 min read

Dr. Steve R. Tutty, a Washington psychologist who has testified in custody and dependency cases for over a decade, faces formal Department of Health charges alleging he altered clinical recommendations to match a parent's request, blurred evaluator/advocate roles, and skipped basic consent standards.

Washington Psychologist Accused of Altering Custody Reports Raises Alarms Across Family Court System

A Washington-based psychologist who has testified in child custody and dependency cases for over a decade is now facing formal disciplinary charges that raise serious concerns about the integrity of expert evaluations in family court.

According to a Statement of Charges issued by the Washington State Department of Health, psychologist Dr. Steve R. Tutty is accused of altering clinical recommendations, blurring professional roles, and failing to follow basic ethical and consent standards in the course of custody evaluations.

The allegations, if proven, strike at the core of a system that relies heavily on expert opinions to make life-altering decisions about children and families.

Allegations of Altered Reports

At the center of the Department of Health's case is a 2018 custody evaluation involving two teenage children.

According to the charging documents:

Dr. Tutty initially provided reports that did not recommend a change to the children's residential schedule
After receiving complaints from a parent, he later issued revised reports
The updated versions allegedly included the exact recommendations requested by that parent

The Department of Health states plainly:

> The recommendations were changed to match the parent's request, despite the original clinical findings not supporting that outcome.

If accurate, this is not a minor error — it is a direct challenge to the expectation that evaluators operate as neutral, independent professionals.

Blurring the Line Between Evaluator and Advocate

The charges also allege that Dr. Tutty failed to clearly define his role in the case.

One parent reportedly believed that Tutty would:

> "speak on [the children's] behalf in court"

Rather than correcting this misunderstanding, investigators allege Tutty allowed the perception to continue.

This raises a critical issue in family law:

Evaluators are expected to be neutral fact-finders
Not advocates for one side

When that line is blurred, the reliability of the entire evaluation comes into question.

Failure to Follow Basic Clinical and Legal Standards

The Department of Health further alleges multiple procedural failures, including:

Failure to obtain proper consent from minor patients
Failure to secure releases of information before sharing reports
Failure to provide diagnoses despite available clinical data

These are not technicalities — they are foundational requirements in both clinical practice and legal proceedings.

Pattern of Prior Concerns

This is not the first time Dr. Tutty has faced scrutiny.

In 2021, he resolved a separate matter involving:

Billing misrepresentation
Overcharging patients
Administrative failures requiring patients to resolve errors themselves

He agreed to reimburse costs and submit to oversight as part of that resolution.

Additional complaints referenced in public records include:

Allegations of a "bait and switch" in who actually performed evaluations
Claims that clients were not allowed to submit evidence before reports were finalized
A reported privacy breach, including the unauthorized sharing of sensitive personal data

A Broader Systemic Concern

Dr. Tutty's work has not been limited to private disputes.

Records show he has:

Provided expert testimony in Washington dependency and family law cases
Participated in matters involving:
- Allegations of child abuse
- Parental fitness
- Termination of parental rights

That level of involvement raises a difficult question:

> How many decisions relied on evaluations that may not have met ethical or professional standards?

Legal experts suggest that if the allegations are substantiated, cases involving his evaluations could face renewed scrutiny.

Why This Matters

Family court decisions often hinge on expert evaluations.

Judges rely on these reports to determine:

Where children live
Who makes decisions for them
Whether abuse occurred
Whether a parent is safe

When those evaluations are compromised, the consequences are not abstract — they directly affect children's lives.

The Accountability Gap

The Tutty case highlights a broader issue:

Evaluators hold extraordinary influence
Oversight is often limited and reactive
Accountability typically occurs only after harm is alleged

In many cases, families must:

Challenge the report themselves
Fund their own experts
Navigate complex legal standards

All while the original evaluation continues to carry weight.

Looking Ahead

The Department of Health proceedings will determine whether the allegations against Dr. Tutty are substantiated and what consequences, if any, will follow.

But regardless of the outcome, the case raises an urgent question for Washington's family court system:

> What safeguards exist to ensure that expert evaluations are truly independent, evidence-based, and aligned with professional standards?

Until that question is addressed, cases like this will continue to erode trust in a system that families depend on at their most vulnerable moments.

Bottom Line

This is not just about one evaluator.

It is about the credibility of the system.

When expert opinions can be altered, influenced, or issued without adherence to basic standards, the risk is not just legal error — it is misplaced trust in decisions that shape children's futures.

Washington Psychologist Accused of Altering Custody Reports Raises Alarms Across Family Court System