Brief Focused Assessments in Oregon Divorce and Custody Cases

By Michael G. Romano, Managing Attorney | Last updated: September 10, 2026

In most contested Oregon custody cases there is one question holding everything up. Whether the 14-year-old’s sudden wish to live with her father is her own reasoning or somebody else’s. Whether a parent who has been gone for three years should start with overnights or step up over six months. Which of two schools the children attend in the fall. A full custody evaluation will answer that question eventually, along with forty others nobody asked about, for several thousand dollars and half a year of your life. A brief focused assessment answers just the one.

Judges in Portland and across the metro area, in Multnomah County, Clackamas County, and Washington County, Oregon, have authority to order this kind of narrow, neutral evaluation. Used correctly it saves parents real money and gets a case unstuck. Used as a cheap substitute for the evaluation a case actually needs, it produces a thin report that satisfies nobody and costs you the leverage you were trying to build.

What a Brief Focused Assessment Is

A brief focused assessment, usually shortened to BFA, is an evaluation of one or two narrowly defined questions that a judge identifies in a court order. A qualified mental health professional interviews the parents, usually interviews and observes the children, reviews the records that bear on the question, talks to the people who actually know something useful, and writes a report answering what the court asked. Nothing more.

The model comes from the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, which convened a task force in 2007 and published its Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment in 2009. Courts around the country had been ordering “limited” or “mini” evaluations for years with no shared definition and no standard method. The guidelines gave the practice a name and a shape.

The defining feature is that a BFA report is descriptive rather than analytic. A full evaluation compares two parents against each other and reasons toward a recommendation about custody. A BFA describes what the evaluator found on one question and stops. That restraint is the point, not a shortcoming, and it is also the reason a BFA report carries less weight at trial than parents usually expect.

Oregon’s Legal Authority: ORS 107.425

The phrase “brief focused assessment” does not appear in ORS 107.425 or anywhere else in Oregon’s dissolution statutes. Oregon judges order BFAs under the same statute that authorizes full custody evaluations, and they narrow the scope in the order itself.

Under ORS 107.425(2), the court on its own motion or on a party’s motion may order an independent physical, psychological, psychiatric, or mental health examination of a party or the children, and may require any party and the children to be interviewed, evaluated, and tested by an expert or a panel of experts. The court can authorize that expert to interview other people and to request records, and can order the parties to authorize the disclosure of those records. If the parties cannot agree on who the expert should be, the court appoints one. The court also decides who pays, and can split the cost between the parties based on financial ability.

Two neighboring provisions matter in practice. Subsection (1) covers a broader investigation into character, family relations, past conduct, earning ability, and financial worth, and says plainly that the investigative findings are offered subject to all the rules of evidence. Subsection (3) is a different tool entirely: it lets the court appoint an individual, a panel, or a program to help build a parenting plan, monitor compliance with orders, recommend parenting time changes, and provide conflict management. Parents and sometimes lawyers blur these three together. They are not the same thing, they produce different work product, and it is worth being precise about which one your order actually invokes.

ORS 107.425 applies in dissolution and legal separation cases, in motions to modify an existing judgment, in custody or support proceedings between unmarried parents under ORS 109.103, in third-party intervention cases under ORS 109.119, in parentage cases, and in habeas corpus proceedings. That range is wider than most people assume. A BFA is available in a post-judgment modification, not just in the original divorce.

Local practice varies. Multnomah County addresses court-connected family services in its supplementary local rules at SLR 8.038, and the Oregon Judicial Department maintains statewide information on children and families in court cases. Washington County and Clackamas County route these referrals differently. Ask your lawyer what the practice is in the county where your case is pending before you assume anything.

The Questions a BFA Can Actually Answer

A good referral question is well defined, narrow, and requires clinical judgment. If the answer is a plain fact, you do not need a clinician, you need a subpoena. If the question is “who should have custody,” a BFA is the wrong tool and no competent evaluator will take it. The useful middle ground looks like this:

• Is a teenager’s stated preference to change households based on developmentally appropriate reasoning, and are there signs of influence from a parent?
• Under what conditions, if any, should a long-absent parent resume contact, and what are the risks to the child and to the current caregivers?
• Does an alleged substance abuse or mental health issue affect this parent’s ability to keep the child safe during parenting time?
• Given a custody decision that has already been made, what parenting schedule is developmentally appropriate for an infant, a toddler, or a child with special needs?
• Which of two schools fits this particular child?
• Should these parents attempt joint decision-making, or does parallel parenting fit them better?
• Does a custody evaluation completed three years ago need a targeted update?

The February 2024 AFCC practice list on conducting beneficial BFAs recommends no more than one to three questions in the order, each narrowly drawn. That is good advice and it is where attorneys earn their fee. Whoever drafts the referral question controls what comes back.

When a BFA Is the Wrong Tool

The field has grown more cautious about BFAs since 2009, and the shift is worth knowing about. The 2009 guidelines listed reunification of a long-absent parent, access plans after a relocation, and cases involving a child aligned against one parent as appropriate BFA subjects. The 2024 AFCC practice list pulls back from all three, and advises against using a BFA where the case involves intimate partner violence, child abuse or neglect, relocation, parent-child contact problems, or high-conflict dynamics, or where the court needs an actual parenting time recommendation or an assessment of the parent-child relationship.

If you are handed a proposed BFA order that touches any of those, slow down. The evaluator who accepts that assignment either does too little and produces a report the judge cannot use, or does too much and steps outside the model, which makes the report vulnerable on cross-examination. Neither outcome helps you.

The 2009 guidelines flagged a related risk that has held up well. A BFA should not be substituted for a comprehensive evaluation just because a comprehensive evaluation is expensive. Do that at scale and you build a two-tiered system where families with money get thorough work and families without money get a summary. Cost is a legitimate reason to consider a BFA. It is not a legitimate reason to order one in a case that needs more. If your case genuinely calls for a full study, our page on Oregon child custody evaluations walks through what that process involves.

What the Evaluator Does

The method follows from the question, but most BFAs include at least one individual interview with each parent, observation of each parent with the children named in the order, individual interviews with each child where that is developmentally appropriate, contact with relevant collateral sources, and a review of the records that bear on the question. Psychological testing and home visits get added only when the specific question calls for them.

Observation is not automatic. Where there has been a long break in contact, or where there are certain kinds of allegations, putting a parent and child in a room together for the evaluator’s benefit can do harm. A careful evaluator will say so rather than check the box.

Several professional obligations are worth understanding, because they create both protection and cross-examination material. The evaluator is not supposed to have substantive ex parte contact with the court or with either lawyer. Every collateral source contacted must be disclosed, along with the ones the evaluator tried and failed to reach. Missing, incomplete, or unreliable data has to be identified in the report, with an explanation of how it affects the conclusions. The evaluator should disclose any prior professional or social relationship with a party, a lawyer, or the judge, and should not slide into offering therapy or advice to anyone involved. The American Psychological Association’s guidelines for child custody evaluations cover much of the same ground for licensed psychologists.

What the Report Should Contain

A BFA report is short by design, substantially shorter than a full evaluation, but short is not the same as thin. A report that meets the standard includes:

• The court’s referral question and the date of the report
• Names and dates of birth of everyone assessed, and the dates of the relevant family milestones
• Every data gathering method used, with dates and the amount of time spent on each
• Confirmation that the limits of confidentiality were explained to the parties and to collateral sources
• A summary of the data collected, and a separate list of the data that is missing and why
• Discussion of the referral question that acknowledges the limits of the data and considers alternative explanations
• Recommendations, but only if the court asked for them
• Any other concern the evaluator encountered outside the scope of the order, particularly anything touching child safety

That last item is the one exception to the scope rule, and it is deliberate. If an evaluator looking at school selection stumbles onto a safety issue, the guidelines expect it to be reported and expect the evaluator to tell the court a broader evaluation may be needed.

When you read a BFA report, read the missing data section first, then the methods list. An evaluator who reached three of eleven collateral sources and never got the school records has given you a report about a gap, not about your child. That is the cross-examination.

Cost, Timeline, and Who Pays

The AFCC practice target is a completed BFA in 60 to 90 days with no more than 10 to 30 hours of work. Compare that to a comprehensive evaluation, which routinely takes several months to schedule and several more to complete.

Fees vary by evaluator and none of this is set by statute. In the Portland market it is common to see a retainer somewhere in the range of $2,500 to $5,000 depending on whether one parent or both are ordered to participate, with hourly billing that generally runs from roughly $175 to $300. Most evaluators bill for everything: appointments, no-shows, late cancellations, document review, collateral calls, email, and report writing. Retainers are typically due in full before the evaluator opens the file.

Under ORS 107.425(2), if the parties cannot agree on how to split the cost, the court directs payment and can allocate it between the parties by financial ability. It cannot be charged against public defense funds. Get the allocation into the order. Fights about who owes the evaluator’s balance in month four are avoidable and expensive.

How a BFA Report Gets Used at Trial

The report does not walk itself into evidence. ORS 107.425(1) says investigative findings are offered subject to all the rules of evidence, and evaluation reports are treated the same way in practice. Either the parties stipulate to admission or the evaluator testifies and gets cross-examined like any other expert. Collateral information inside the report is hearsay, and how a particular judge handles it varies more than parents expect.

The other thing to understand is what a BFA report cannot do for you. It answers one question. It does not weigh the custody and parenting time factors that ORS 107.137 requires the court to consider, and an evaluator who opines on ultimate custody in a BFA has stepped outside the model. That overreach is attackable, but it also means the report you were counting on may be worth less than you paid for it. The strongest use of a BFA is usually to remove one disputed issue so the parties can settle the rest, and a well-run assessment does exactly that more often than it produces a trial exhibit.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a brief focused assessment in an Oregon custody case?

It is a court-ordered evaluation by a neutral mental health professional that answers one or two narrow questions the judge identifies in the order. Oregon courts order them under ORS 107.425(2), the same statute that authorizes full custody evaluations, with the scope limited in the order itself.

How is a BFA different from a full child custody evaluation?

Scope and depth. A full evaluation studies overall family functioning and parenting capacity and reasons toward a custody recommendation. A BFA describes what the evaluator found on one defined question and stops there. The report is descriptive rather than analytic, and substantially shorter.

How long does a brief focused assessment take in Oregon?

The professional target is 60 to 90 days with 10 to 30 hours of evaluator time. Actual timelines depend on the evaluator’s calendar, how quickly both parents schedule, and how fast the records and collateral sources come through. A comprehensive evaluation typically takes far longer.

How much does a brief focused assessment cost?

Retainers in the Portland area commonly run from about $2,500 to $5,000, with hourly rates generally between $175 and $300. Evaluators typically bill for document review, collateral calls, email, and report writing, not just appointments. Under ORS 107.425(2) the court can allocate the cost between the parents based on financial ability.

Can I refuse to participate in a court-ordered BFA?

Not without consequences. ORS 107.425(2) lets the court require a party and the children to be interviewed and evaluated. The time to object is before the order enters, by disputing whether an assessment is warranted or by narrowing the referral question. Refusing after the fact invites contempt exposure and hands the other side an argument about what you were hiding.

Does the BFA report automatically become evidence at trial?

No. ORS 107.425(1) says investigative findings are offered subject to all the rules of evidence, and evaluation reports are treated the same way in practice. Either the parties stipulate to admission or the evaluator testifies and is subject to cross-examination. Collateral statements inside the report raise hearsay issues that different judges handle differently.

Talk to a Portland Family Law Attorney About a Brief Focused Assessment

Whether a BFA helps your case depends almost entirely on how the referral question is written, and that gets decided before anyone hires an evaluator. Michael G. Romano has more than 26 years of Oregon trial experience and handles contested custody and parenting time matters in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas County Circuit Courts. If a brief focused assessment has been proposed in your case, or you think one might break the logjam, schedule a consultation or call 503-208-5529. You can also read more about how we handle Oregon divorce cases.

This page is general legal information about Oregon law and is not legal advice about your case. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.