Dr. Steve Newton, Custody Evaluator and Psychologist
Dr. Steve Newton is an incompetent Custody Evaluator and Psychologist in Los Altos, CA who is now accused by the State Board of Psychology to be guilty of gross negligence. I'd love to show you my evidence of the same. His company is called "PlusFour Solutions."
My experience with him is that he is shockingly unprofessional in his custody evaluations. The judge agreed with me, and completely, 100% reversed his recommendations, while spending many pages of the decision explaining all the errors he made (which caused her to reject his evaluation report). Email me for a copy of the final decision from the judge, and full court transcripts. (You may also get this document from San Francisco Superior Court by referencing the case number: FDI-15-783694)
All appearances are that Dr. Newton does what he has to to keep the revenue stream flowing, rather than actually trying to get to the truth. The best guess is that he simply will always pick the parent as the "winner" that has the lawyer that will send him repeat business (often, the lawyer is Laura Furniss
). To be blunt, this isn't just "bias", this is absolute, blatant corruption that anyone who knows how to think will be able to see through. Below is an elaboration of just a few of the gross errors -- most of them obviously deliberate -- in a particularly expensive evaluation ($23,600).
Remember, the judge shot Dr. Newton's report down, reversing his conclusions. This is the top family court judge in San Francisco (the "supervising judge" for SF family court), and she was clearly angry in court at Dr. Newton's report. You don't get a stronger decision than this one, and it is 100% opposite of Dr. Newton's conclusions. On Yelp
, I give more detail on this. Note that Yelp has placed this in "not recommended reviews" because Yelp claims they don't think it is an actual firsthand experience (which is obviously wrong, as proven by the decision document I shared with them and will share with anyone who emails me). They have taken down other people's negative reviews of Dr. Newton.
Here's where it is first mentioned in the decision that Dr. Newton's report is rejected due to lots of errors:
After 15 bullet points of his major FAILS, it says this:
At the end of the decision, we have a conclusion, starting with another mention that Dr. Newton's report is rejected:
Again, if you contact me, I will happily share more information with you, including the complete trial transcripts (including me, a complete amateur, cross examining him and catching him in contradiction after contradiction), the shocking evidence Dr. Newton ignored, and so on. Note that the transcripts are posted on this web site, but I don't make the address public out of concern for privacy of the mother of my daughter. Just contact me, and they are yours (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Ignores hard evidence, bases things on weak allegations, so his favored attorney's client "wins"
He completely ignored hard evidence (for example, crystal clear, horrifying evidence of domestic violence -- punching until black and blue -- and endangering/threatening one's life with a motor vehicle, that has been captured with audio recording and photographs of injuries), while taking unsupported allegations from his favored side as fact. He ignored a 38 minute long audio tape of violent attack on me by the mother that happened while she was driving a car on the freeway. The judge was clearly disgusted by this, saying in court: "I will tell you, I have a real problem with an expert who ignores someone in a car screaming for 20 minutes, physically punching. "
Doesn't call witnesses that he thinks will counter the story of his favored attorney's client
He also simply won't call your key witnesses if he doesn't think they will tell the story that fits the narrative he has pre-decided. He conveniently didn't bother scheduling a call with them until nine months into the evaluation (seriously....nine months) after he has said he has already "almost completed the report", and then just outright forgets to call them. Just forgets. No explanation. In this case, these are the two witness who are the opposite of biased (i.e. they've known mother since age two, while telling a story that strongly supports the case of father), the exact kind of witnesses which should be given the most weight.
Labels witnesses "biased," against all logic and common sense
He also labeled another witness as biased toward father, even though the witness has been friends with mother for 25 years (and was named as a witness by mother). He even describes this person as having known both parents for 25 years, which is obviously impossible (or at least highly unlikely), given that the parents have only known one another for 7 years. (how does a professional make a mistake like this?) Yes, the witness is probably biased, but toward mother, which makes her story all the more compelling, since it is actually pretty strongly pro-father. Dr. Newton just ignores and confuses this though. (and he acted like he was blindsided by it in court under cross examination, even though he had heard numerous complaints about it previously. His only response? "Touche." What. The. Hell.)
Ignores email evidence for unknown reasons
Don't bother submitting things like emails (that can be proven to have been sent), that bolster your case strongly. If they don't fit his narrative, he'll just ignore them. Who knows why. (well, I have my theories, of course) What exactly was he paid $24,000 for if he isn't even going to look at very significant evidence? Oh, I see in his invoice he did indeed look at it, and charge to do so. He just didn't bother thinking about it and including anything about it in his report.
Fails to calibrate psychological tests properly, and tries to cover this up as if we are too dumb to notice
He uses "objective" true/false psychological tests, but his conclusions show complete ignorance of how to interpret them. Not only are these test known to be very gamable by those with an agenda
(and especially those who know what type of diagnosis to specifically avoid, and who are coached by clever lawyers), but then he didn't in any way calibrate them against what he observes directly. And then he (clearly deliberately) altered the definition of the disorder he diagnoses
that he pastes into the report, in an attempt to cover his failure to calibrate correctly, which would have changed the result. Like no one will notice. (I wish I could report more details about this one. It's the most interesting, and clearly malicious, thing he did. If you want to email me, I will gladly explain further and give you evidence, but I probably can't explain it on a public page because if I reveal details of the evaluation report itself publicly I can get fined).
Some of what he did was clearly simple incompetence, but other things seem to indicate outright corruption. These don't seem like simple mistakes. I just can't see how he can get away with it. (although, the documentary movie "Divorce Corp"
does an exposé on all this stuff, exposing the all the "shameless collusive practices" regarding custody evaluators, and my experience with Dr. Newton suggests it is pretty accurate)
I notice in the reviews at this page
that he has several other people (almost all very recently -- unfortunately they weren't there when we approved him back in December 2015) that seem to have run into the same issue.
Finally, there's also the matter of payment. He won't tell you how much it will cost or how long the process will take. He will have one of his assistants carefully tell you that any day she'll be able to give an estimate, but never be able to. (and good luck getting one of them on the phone, or to reply to emails. He's got 3 or 4 assistants, but I think they are in the office for a grand total of one hour a week.) Then, at the very end (did I mention that the process took nine months?) he'll stick you with the huge surprise bill and hold out the report until paid. No one else does business like this. Because in other businesses, you can't hide behind the fact that if you go public about things, you can get in trouble from the judge. (that's why I can't reveal evaluation report itself)
If you are considering using him I suggest, at the very least, email me (email@example.com) and I can get you a lot more information. I have to be careful so as not to share the actual report. Even if your lawyer is the one sending him business, keep in mind, his report will be so flawed the opposition will very likely rip it to shreds. I promise you, if you are still considering hiring him, you won't if you contact me and get the rest of the info.
Update! The Board of Psychology is acting to revoke his license for "unprofessional conduct" and "repeated negligent acts.
There is justice in the world after all. Again. Actual document and a few key snippets below. This is from a different case. It is now in the attorney general's hands. Note that this has nothing to do with my case, the Board of Psychology has yet to hear of my case.
Here is it's official location:
PDF Accusation at CA.gov