A Practitioner's Guide to Third Party Helpers in Florida Family Law Cases

[This article was published in the Florida Family Law Section "Commentator" magazine, Volume XLIV, Issue 4, Summer 2025. Click here to read it on the magazine site.]

Aside from mediation, what other third-party helping services might I want to employ in my family law case? What is the difference between a social investigation and a parenting plan evaluation? What is a minor child evaluation? When might I want to ask for a Guardian ad Litem to be involved in my client’s case? Can a parenting coordinator help? 

Florida statutes and family law rules describe four other ways that the parties or the Court can enlist the assistance of a neutral third-party in Florida family law cases. They are through a Social Investigation, Minor Child Evaluation, Parenting Coordinator, and Guardian ad Litem. Other names are sometimes used to refer to a third-party helper or process, but the best practice is to conform the court order to a role defined by Florida statutes and/or the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. The statutes and rules governing the respective processes inform who can be appointed to help and what should be in the court’s order appointing the third-party helper for that process. The attorney should include the applicable rule and statute that the third-party helper is operating under in the proposed order. It is also helpful for the order to mention any case-specific issues or questions that the third-party helper should address. There are many factors to consider when deciding which tool, if any, to use. Affordability is usually at the top of your client’s list, but there are other considerations.

1)       Social Investigation (“SI”): Governed by Fla. Stat. § 61.20 and Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.364, SIs are typically considered the most comprehensive tool available for third-party assistance. As the name suggests, a SI is an investigation surrounding the social factors that involve and affect a family. Practitioners sometimes also refer to this process a “parenting plan evaluation,” “custody evaluation,” or “timesharing evaluation.” There is not a uniform or common understanding of what the investigative process is, or what the SI report should entail. Every expert is different, as are their processes and reports. Some professional organizations have published guidelines or best practices for the process, but they are not state-specific and do not refer to or incorporate Florida’s statute or rule governing SIs.[i] Typically, a social investigator will interview the parents, children, and others who know the family, as well as visit the parents’ homes. The social investigator should also review pertinent documents, like school/medical records, samples of communications between the parents, and the court pleadings.

The governing rule, Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.364, outlines what an order for a SI should contain. The rule also requires that the written study should contain recommendations about a parenting plan  (these are not two separate processes) and require that the investigative report include “a written statement of the facts found in the social investigation on which the recommendations are based.” Most experts will also include an analysis of the statutory factors set forth in Fla. Stat. §61.13(3) in their report, although this is not specifically required by the rule, nor the statute governing SIs.

The governing statute, Fla. Stat. §61.20, requires that a mental health professional, qualified staff of the court, or representative from the Department of Children and Families conduct the investigation.

There is a common misconception that a SI is only appropriate if the case involves mental health issues. Also, some psychologists suggest that all SIs should include formal psychological (psychometric) testing of the parents, children, or both. However, neither Florida’s statute nor the rule governing SIs suggest this interpretation. Psychological evaluations and formal assessments may be helpful in some cases, but they are not required.[ii] Instead, SIs may be ordered “when the issue of timesharing, parental responsibility, ultimate decision-making, or a parenting plan for a minor child is in controversy” (emphasis added).[iii] There is no requirement that there be alleged mental health components to the case, only that a parental issue is in dispute.  

The mental health of the parties is one-half of one of the twenty statutory factors to consider when making recommendations about parental issues. An expert appointed pursuant to Fla. Stat. §61.20 is typically equipped to assess this factor in the forensic interview setting and can often do so without formal assessment tools. If formal testing is warranted, the social investigator may request that the parents receive psychometric testing during the investigation or as one of the recommendations in the report. Many of the other statutory factors are fact-based and do not require expert witness testimony (i.e. geographic viability of the proposed plan; the home, school, and community record of the child, preference of the child, etc.). Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.364 describes the SI process as a “study concerning all pertinent details relating to the child and each parent”. This rule requires the social investigator to provide their written study directly to the court and the parties at least thirty (30) days prior to a hearing (absent court order otherwise).

It is possible for the Court to order a “limited” SI that might direct the expert to investigate and address a certain aspect of the case, or even just do a home study. The trend towards ordering limited SIs can be attributed to the cost and time it takes most experts to complete a SI.

>> PROS: It is a comprehensive process that should consider any situation or factor relevant to the parental issues in the case. The “technical rules of evidence” do not exclude the SI report from the court’s consideration, with implications about hearsay evidence.[iv] However, keep in mind that expert witnesses are generally permitted to testify about the facts or data they relied upon to arrive at their opinion, if it is typically relied on by experts in the field, even if hearsay .[v]

>> CONS: It is often the most costly and time-consuming process. Many experts take twelve (12) to twenty-four (24) months to complete a SI, with costs ranging from $15,000 to $50,000 (or more!), making it out of reach for many litigants. Costs can be unpredictable, depending on the expert appointed. The process may be overkill for some cases. The report may be stale by the time it is received; some children may have even “aged out” or reached the age of eighteen (18) by the time the expert completes the SI.

2)       Minor Child Evaluation (“MC Evaluation”): Many practitioners are unaware of and/or unfamiliar with this process. As a result, it is less used than the other third-party processes mentioned herein. Governed by Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.363, a MC Evaluation may be referred to as an “examination”, “evaluation”, “testing”, “interview”, or “investigation”. Therefore, the MC Evaluation can have a broad or narrow focus. Unlike the SI process, there are no statutory references to a MC Evaluation. The rule requires that the court determines the need to appoint an expert for a MC Evaluation if the parties do not agree that one is required. There is no guidance in the rule about what would constitute that need. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.363was amended in 2014 to remove references to “social investigations”, differentiating SIs from MC Evaluations. The rule presumes that an expert will conduct the MC Evaluation but removed the term “licensed mental health professional” from the rule. The rule requires that the order for MC Evaluation include the expert’s area of expertise and professional qualifications. A court may order a MC Evaluation if it wishes to hear from the child without requiring the child to testify in court. Unlike the SI rule, this rule requires that the MC Evaluation report be completed within seventy-five (75) days of the order of appointment. Like the SI, there is not a consensus on what the MC Evaluation report should look like. The rule requires that the evaluator send the parties a copy of the report thirty (30) days prior to a hearing, but the evaluator should not provide a copy to the court unless the parties and their attorneys agree in writing.

>> PROS: This will likely be a quicker process than a SI since the rule requires the report be completed within seventy-five (75) days. Therefore, it may be less comprehensive than a SI and significantly less costly, typically ranging from $3,500 to $10,000. Attorneys and other professionals can conduct a MC Evaluation, if they qualify as an expert. The MC Evaluation can be more focused and tailored to the case’s needs. The basis of an expert’s opinion is generally admissible, even if hearsay, if it is typically relied on by experts in the field.[vi] 

>> CONS: It is possible that the scope may be too limited, especially if other issues arise during the MC Evaluation. Coupling the MC Evaluation with a SI will take longer and be more expensive in total than if the court had just started with a SI. The MC Evaluation expert may not be a mental health expert. A limited SI may be preferable to a MC Evaluation.

3)       Parenting Coordinator (“PC”): Governed by Fla. Stat. § 61.125 and Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.742, parenting coordination is an alternate dispute resolution process, similar to mediation. Unlike mediation, a PC will have an ongoing relationship with the parties. PCs are typically appointed for a period of two (2) years. A PC is an impartial third-party whose role is to assist the parents in successfully creating or implementing a parenting plan. Practitioners often think of this as the last tool in the toolbelt, but it is best utilized as soon as it becomes evident that the parents may be “high conflict” litigants. PCs can be attorneys or mental health professionals. A PC is required to have training as both a mediator and a PC and must be “qualified” in the circuit that the case is pending. Each circuit has different processes for the PC to be approved or “qualified” to act as a PC in that jurisdiction. Like mediation, the PC process is considered confidential, with some limited exceptions. The PC will typically work mostly with the parents, and not necessarily the child(ren). PCs help parents interpret and implement their parenting plan. PCs do not have the power to change anything substantive, absent the parents’ agreement otherwise.[vii] There is usually a psychoeducational component to the process, focusing on communication, conflict management, and parenting styles, as well as problem-solving skills. A PC can request status conferences to report a parent’s non-compliance with the process. The PC typically charges by the hour and requires regular retainers.

>> PROS: PCs offer a quicker and usually more economical way to resolve conflict between parents about their parenting plan than traditional, adversarial litigation. PCs will often respond to parents in real time to help resolve an issue. The process is aimed at effectuating real change to break the cycle of conflict between the parents. The process is confidential, with exceptions.

>> CONS: A PC can be considered too costly for unrepresented litigants. The PC does not have decision-making authority to resolve disputes in most circumstances. A PC who is an attorney may not have the necessary skills to effectuate real change and break the cycle of conflict between the parents. A PC who is a mental health professional may not have the knowledge and insight into the law and legal system to be able to predict an outcome in court (a useful tool when trying to keep parents out of court).

4)       Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”): Finally, a GAL is another useful tool for third-party assistance, governed by Fla. Stat. §§ 61.401-61.405. A GAL may be appointed to monitor and advance the best interests of a minor child of the parties’ relationship during the pendency of the litigation. A GAL has broad statutory investigative and evaluative powers, privileges, and responsibilities. Unlike a social investigator, minor child evaluator, or parenting coordinator, a GAL is a party to the proceeding. The GAL acts as “next friend,” “investigator,” or “evaluator,” and may “investigate the allegations of the pleadings affecting the child,” file pleadings, request and review documents, write interim reports, ask for other third parties to be involved in the case (evaluations, health care professionals, etc.), testify, and make oral or written recommendations during the pendency of the case.[viii] The GAL can recommend that the family utilize the services of other third-party helpers like those mentioned herein. Unlike SIs and MC Evaluations, the statutes governing GALs do not contain any threshold requirement of a showing of need to appoint a GAL.

Non-experts may even act as a GAL.  Family courts used to permit trained volunteers to act as GALs in family court cases. However, volunteer GALs are now only used in dependency and delinquency cases. If you want a GAL appointed in your client’s family law case, you will have to retain someone acting as a private GAL. The statute requires a GAL to file a written report that “may include recommendations and a statement of the wishes of the child”, at least twenty (20) days prior to a hearing.[ix] Like SIs and MC Evaluations, there is not a consensus on what a GAL should do or what the written report should look like. Best practice suggests that an order appointing a GAL be tailored to the circumstances, including mentioning any specific concerns or issues that should be addressed by the GAL.  

The GAL appointment automatically discharges thirty (30) days after the entry of a final order or judgment in the case.

>> PROS: A GAL has broad powers to act in the child’s best interest. A GAL can be more active and responsive during the pendency of the case than a Social Investigator or Minor Child Evaluator. GALs typically charge by the hour which can be more economical than the other processes, depending on the circumstances. GALs do not have to be expert witnesses. Although GALs are required to maintain some documents confidential, they may disclose the information in a report to the court, in the GALs discretion .[x]

>> CONS: GALs do not have to be expert witnesses. This may impact the scope of the GAL’s testimony during a hearing if they do not qualify as an expert (hearsay concerns). GALs typically charge by the hour. This open-ended arrangement could end up costing as much or more as a SI or MC Evaluation, especially if the order does not direct the GAL to address specific concerns or issues.

Each of these court-appointed helpers can request, recommend, or refer the parents or child(ren) to receive other third-party services such as counseling, psychoeducational classes, anger management, psychological testing, etc. when appropriate. There can be multiple helpers involved with the family unit. All the family’s helpers should be willing to work as a team. It is important that any mental health professional helping the family have experience with the dynamics often involved with families entrenched in litigation. It is also important to interview any potential expert or person being considered for appointment to do a SI or MC Evaluation, or to act as a PC or GAL. Like anyone, experts and others who serve in these capacities often do so because of their own personal experiences. Ask them what they understand their potential role to be, what their process involves, what tests might be administered, the potential costs, and the timeline for completion. The cost of any of these processes can be equitably apportioned between parties, although sometimes the judge will require the party who requested the appointment of the helper to initially bear the expense up front. The nature and complexity of the issues involved should drive which type of process and professional is best suited for the case.

[i] See Association of Family and Conciliation Court’s Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases (2022); see also American Psychological Association’s Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation in Family Law Proceedings (2010).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.364.

[iv] Fla. Stat. § 61.20

[v] Fla. Stat. § 90.704

[vi] Id.

[vii] Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.742.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Fla. Stat. § 61.402(5).

[x] Fla. Stat. § 61.404.