1. (a) The court may order the child(ren) and/or any party to submit to and fully participate in an evaluation by an appropriate expert or experts. The order, which shall be substantially in the form set forth in Rule 1915.18, may be made upon the court’s own motion, upon the motion of a party with reasonable notice to the person to be examined, or by agreement of the parties. The order shall specify the place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it shall be made and to whom distributed. In entering an order directing an evaluation pursuant to this rule, the court shall consider all appropriate factors including the following, if applicable:

   1. (1) the allocation of the costs, including insurance coverage, if any, attendant to the undertaking of the evaluation and preparation of the resultant report and court testimony of any appointed expert;
   2. (2) the execution of appropriate authorizations and/or consents to facilitate the examination;
   3. (3) any deadlines imposed regarding the completion of the examination and payment of costs;
   4. (4) the production of any report and of underlying data to counsel and/or any unrepresented party upon the completion of the examination; and
   5. (5) any additional safeguards that are deemed appropriate as a result of the alleged presence of domestic violence and/or child abuse.
2. (b) Unless otherwise directed by the court, the expert shall deliver to the court, to the attorneys of record for the parties, to any unrepresented party, and to the guardian ad litem and/or counsel for the child, if any, copies of any reports arising from the evaluation setting out the findings, results of all tests made, diagnosis and conclusions. No reports shall be filed of record or considered evidence unless and until admitted by the court. Any report which is prepared at the request of a party, with or without a court order, and which a party intends to introduce at trial, must be delivered to the court and the other party at least thirty days before trial. If the report or any information from the evaluator is provided to the court, the evaluator shall be subject to cross-examination by all counsel and any unrepresented party without regard to who obtains or pays for the evaluation.
3. (c) If a party refuses to obey an order of court made under subdivision (a) of this rule, the court may make an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, prohibiting the party from introducing in evidence designated documents, things or testimony, prohibiting the party from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition, or making such other order as is just. The willful failure or refusal of a party to comply with an order entered pursuant to this rule may also give rise to a finding of contempt and the imposition of such sanctions as may be deemed appropriate by the court, including, but not limited to, an adverse inference against the non-complying party.

4. (d) A petition for contempt alleging failure to comply with an order entered pursuant to subdivision (a) of this rule shall be treated in an expedited manner.

   Explanatory Comment—2007

   This rule addresses the process for any number of expert evaluations a court may order in a custody case, including, but not limited to, physical, mental health, custody and/or drug and alcohol evaluations, and/or home studies. Since the initial promulgation of this rule in 1981, the frequency of utilizing professionals as expert witnesses in child custody litigation has increased considerably. In appropriate cases, evaluations have served as a means to provide the court with a full and complete record and to facilitate settlement of the litigation.

   The proposed revisions to Rule 1915.8 are intended to afford the trial court and the parties a more flexible and case-sensitive means of determining the scope and parameters of a physical and/or mental examination, including deadlines, costs, underlying data, and access. In many instances, the previous sixty-day deadline was impractical and ignored. While some cases demanded that the evaluation be completed in less than 60 days, others demanded far more time than that. The revisions to this rule also specifically permit the trial court to draw an adverse inference from one party’s failure to comply with an order pursuant to this rule.

Source

The provisions of this Rule 1915.8 amended May 16, 1994, effective July 1, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 2882; amended May 23, 2007, effective August 1, 2007, 37 Pa.B. 2602; amended August 2, 2010, effective immediately, 40 Pa.B. 4634. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (340200) to (340201).