Allegations Against Psychologist Under Review
A statement of charges has been issued against Dr. Steve Tutty, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, concerning allegations regarding his professional conduct. The document outlines accusations against Dr. Tutty; however, these are unproven and contested claims. Dr. Tutty has denied the allegations and maintains that his work has consistently followed the law and adhered to professional standards.
The charges assert that Dr. Tutty engaged in specific conduct during his professional duties. It is important to note that a Statement of Charges is an accusation, not a finding of guilt or a determination of wrongdoing. The matter is currently pending review.
Dr. Tutty has stated that licensing complaints against custody evaluators frequently originate from disgruntled parents who were dissatisfied with an honest professional opinion. He maintains that he acted within the bounds of his professional responsibilities.
The case history includes a prior matter involving billing practices. This earlier issue was resolved through an informal disposition that was administrative in nature and has been closed. The current allegations are separate from this previous administrative settlement.
Prior Administrative Matter Closed
Records indicate a previous matter concerning billing was addressed via an informal disposition. This administrative action was closed, and no finding of wrongdoing was made as part of that process. The current statement of charges concerns different allegations.
Defense and Context
Dr. Tutty has denied the allegations contained in the statement of charges. He asserts that his professional work complied with all applicable laws and ethical standards. He further noted that complaints filed against custody evaluators often stem from parents who disagreed with the outcome of an evaluation.
Dr. Steve Tutty Steps Back from Family Court Amid DOH Charges
A prominent child custody evaluator, Dr. Steve Tutty, has begun withdrawing from active participation in family court cases as the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) advances formal charges against him, according to public records and statements from his office.
The charges, filed in early 2024, allege that Dr. Tutty modified clinical custody recommendations at the behest of a parent during a 2022–2023 evaluation—actions investigators claim deviated from standard professional practice. Specifically, the DOH’s Statement of Charges asserts that Dr. Tutty revised key findings in a report after receiving input from one parent, resulting in a custody recommendation that aligned more closely with that parent’s position.
Dr. Tutty, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist with decades of experience, has publicly maintained that his conduct complied fully with state law and established psychological practice standards. In a recent statement, he emphasized that custody evaluations are inherently collaborative and that input from involved parties—including parents, attorneys, and sometimes even the court—is both appropriate and common. “A custody evaluation is not a monologue—it’s a dialogue grounded in evidence, context, and professional judgment,” he said.
The DOH’s action follows a prior administrative resolution involving billing practices, which concluded in late 2022. That informal disposition—closed without formal discipline—addressed alleged overbilling in unrelated cases and was resolved through a stipulated agreement. According to board records, the prior matter did not involve clinical findings or patient safety concerns.
Notably, the current charges stem from a complaint filed by one parent, though investigators have noted that similar concerns were raised in two other evaluations conducted by Dr. Tutty over the same period. In each instance, the charges assert, the evaluator’s final recommendations shifted in ways that aligned with the requesting party’s preferences.
Dr. Tutty’s legal team counters that such adjustments are not only within professional bounds but reflect responsible, responsive practice. “It is standard to refine clinical impressions as new information emerges—and that includes listening carefully to the perspectives of those directly involved in the case,” said his attorney.
The DOH has scheduled a pre-hearing conference for late summer, with a formal evidentiary hearing anticipated in the fall. Dr. Tutty has not contested the charges and remains available for new referrals, though he has informed courts and attorneys of his intention to limit new case intake pending the outcome of the DOH review.
State licensing complaints against custody evaluators, including Dr. Tutty, often originate from parents who disagree with professional conclusions, especially when those conclusions diverge from their expectations or preferences. Licensing boards consistently distinguish between *clinical disagreement* and *professional misconduct*, noting that a Statement of Charges reflects a threshold of reasonable suspicion—not a determination of fault.
As family courts continue to rely heavily on custody evaluations, the outcome of this case may influence how evaluators balance responsiveness with clinical integrity in high-stakes domestic proceedings.
Investigative Review and Legal Analysis Initiatives
Our team has initiated an exhaustive review of recent lawsuits filed against the district in federal court. This litigation review aims to uncover potential patterns of systemic liability, civil rights violations, and taxpayer-funded legal exposure.
Furthermore, a contract legality analysis is underway to dissect the legal validity of Superintendent Michelle Olsen’s newly approved 2026–2029 employment contract. This upcoming coverage will specifically examine restrictive clauses designed to contractually limit board oversight and bypass the requirements of the Washington Public Records Act.
We are also conducting a board transparency audit to monitor how individual directors operate behind closed doors. This audit will track whether the newly enacted administrative bottleneck is being utilized to withhold information from the public.
Maintaining Independent Journalism
Independent, reader-supported journalism is the only way this work continues. Operating without corporate backing allows us to legally challenge school boards, stand up to prior restraints, and ask the uncomfortable questions that local establishments try to bury.
If you value this level of transparency and investigative rigor, please consider supporting our operational costs by upgrading to a paid subscription or making a one-time contribution of any amount.
We extend our deepest gratitude to the community for turning out in droves to defend free speech. We could not do this without your unwavering support. Thank you for reading, sharing our stories, and standing with us. Every contribution ensures that we keep bringing these truths to light.
Seeking Information and Tips
The establishment only thrives when people stay silent. If you are a current or former school district employee, teacher, parent, or community member with documentation or inside knowledge regarding administrative misconduct, retaliation, or fiscal mismanagement within PASD, we want to hear from you. Please reach out directly to our newsroom with records, tips, or leads, and help us keep bringing the truth to light.