Psychologist Faces Formal Charges Over Custody Evaluation Practices

Dr. Steve R. Tutty, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist practicing in Washington and Utah, is facing formal disciplinary charges from the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) related to his conduct during a 2018 child custody evaluation.

The Examining Board of Psychology issued a Statement of Charges against Tutty on October 27, 2025. While the charges outline several alleged ethical shortcomings, Tutty maintains his work adhered to both legal requirements and accepted professional standards. He emphasizes that licensing complaints often arise from disgruntled parties who disagree with professional opinions—especially in high-stakes custody matters—and that a Statement of Charges represents an accusation, not a determination of fault.

Alleged Ethical Concerns in 2018 Custody Matter

The core of the current charges stems from a custody evaluation conducted in 2018 for “Parent A,” who retained Tutty to assess two adolescents, both over the age of 13. Investigators for the DOH allege that Tutty did not clearly define his role, resulting in a perceived blending of evaluation and therapeutic advocacy responsibilities. Notably, Parent A reportedly emailed Tutty stating he would “speak on [the children’s] behalf in the courts,” a description Tutty allegedly did not dispute or correct at the time.

One of the most prominent allegations centers on modifications made to Tutty’s clinical reports. According to charging documents, Tutty submitted initial evaluation reports to Parent A on January 9, 2019. Five days later, Parent A expressed concern that the reports did not include a proposed change to the children’s residential schedule. In response, Tutty issued updated reports on January 28, 2019, which—according to the DOH—contained the requested residential schedule changes. The charges assert that these revisions were made despite the original clinical assessments not appearing to support such an outcome.

The DOH further alleges that Tutty allegedly deprioritized clinical data in favor of parental preferences and did not issue a formal diagnosis despite test results and self-reports indicating diagnostic considerations. Additionally, investigators claim Tutty did not obtain signed consent-to-treatment forms from the minor children and did not secure releases of information before sharing confidential evaluation materials with Parent A.

Tutty, for his part, maintains that his conduct in this matter followed standard practice for custody evaluators, who often serve in adaptive, collaborative roles. He notes that parental input is a routine part of the evaluation process and that consent and communication protocols used were consistent with professional guidelines.

Prior Disciplinary Settlement with Kaiser Permanente

This matter marks Tutty’s second significant interaction with the Examining Board of Psychology. In 2021, the DOH brought administrative charges related to billing practices involving Kaiser Permanente members between 2018 and 2019—overlapping with the custody evaluation at issue.

The 2021 case alleged “gross, wilful, or continued overcharging” and “misrepresentation” in billing. According to state records, administrative issues in Tutty’s office—including incorrect tax ID numbers, missing signatures, and delays in submitting treatment records—led Kaiser to deny certain claims. Tutty’s practice then pursued collection directly from patients.

The DOH documented impacts on four patients:

  • One adult patient was billed approximately $2,000 and paid out-of-pocket for two visits during the billing dispute.
  • Another patient received three email payment demands totaling roughly $800.
  • A third received six email notices demanding payment of about $750.
  • A fourth was billed approximately $1,400.

That matter was resolved through an informal administrative disposition, which the DOH closed in 2022. The settlement included a financial restitution plan and updated billing protocols, with no formal findings of misconduct entered on the record.

Tutty underscores that billing disputes—particularly those involving complex insurance contracts—are common and do not necessarily reflect professional misconduct. He adds that the prior settlement was fully completed and remains closed, with no ongoing obligations.

Ongoing Case and Next Steps

The current Statement of Charges, issued in late 2025, initiates a new adjudicative phase before the Examining Board of Psychology. As with the prior case, Tutty is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and he has indicated plans to fully engage in the process.

Tutty’s legal counsel notes that the Board frequently receives complaints from parents who may disagree with evaluators’ conclusions—especially in adversarial custody contexts—and that formal charges often follow such complaints as part of routine oversight.

The DOH has not alleged harm to the children in the 2018 matter, nor has it contended that Tutty’s conduct compromised their well-being. Instead, the charges focus on procedural and documentation aspects, including role clarity, report accuracy, and consent protocols—all areas where professional standards can allow for reasonable variation in practice.

Allegations Surrounding Forensic Psychologist Dr. Steve Tutty

Dr. Steve Tutty, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, faces scrutiny regarding his professional conduct and business dealings, though he maintains that his work has consistently adhered to legal and professional standards.

Administrative Matters and Licensing Complaints Regarding administrative matters, records indicate that in December 2021, Dr. Tutty entered into a Stipulation to Informal Disposition. This was an administrative settlement involving an agreement to reimburse $4,000 in costs and submit to unannounced practice audits. It is important to note that such a disposition is a closed administrative matter rather than a disciplinary finding.

Investigation into billing practices has reportedly led to instances where patients were allegedly required to send their own medical records to Kaiser Permanente to rectify errors. Dr. Tutty has stated that a Statement of Charges is an accusation, not a finding of fact, and that licensing complaints against custody evaluators frequently originate from parents who are dissatisfied with an honest professional opinion.

Alleged Complaints Regarding Privacy and Services Complaints filed with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office describe alleged ethical concerns. In 2019, one parent alleged they paid $6,000 upfront to Northwest Family Psychology for an investigation regarding the children. The complainant claimed they were promised the services of a specific doctor but were subjected to a "bait and switch" where an associate performed the work instead. The parent further alleged they were not permitted to submit evidence before the report was finalized.

In a separate 2021 complaint, an individual alleged a privacy breach involving a clinician at the practice, Michael Altig. The complainant provided email evidence allegedly showing that sensitive personal data, including a Social Security Number, driver’s license, and full debit card information including the CVV code, was emailed to an unauthorized third party.

Business Entities and Loan Applications Public records regarding a business entity, Big Sky Transitions L.L.C., indicate the Certificate of Organization was filed in Idaho on January 17, 2021. This filing occurred shortly after the federal government reopened the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

Records show the LLC lists its principal office at a private residence in Island Park, Idaho, which property tax records confirm is owned by Dr. Tutty. Despite the residential nature of the address and the entity's recent formation, Big Sky Transitions LLC allegedly received a $4,628 PPP loan, which was subsequently forgiven. The application claimed the funds were strictly for payroll. It remains a matter of public record inquiry whether genuine business operations requiring payroll were conducted from the remote residential home.

Associates and Background Questions regarding the vetting of staff have surfaced concerning Dr. Tutty’s associate at Northwest Family Psychology, Glyn Deputy. Court records from Idaho indicate that Deputy was charged with domestic violence-related crimes, yet he reportedly performs domestic violence evaluations and works with victims.

Additionally, records indicate an effort regarding Dr. Tutty’s past role as "Clinical Director" for Dragonfly Adventures, a troubled teen wilderness program that has since shut down.

Omission of 2007 Role Raises Questions Regarding CV Accuracy

Dr. Steve Tutty, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, has not listed his 2007 tenure at Dragonfly, a wilderness program, on the curriculum vitae frequently submitted to courts. During his time there, Dr. Tutty allegedly oversaw psychological testing and treatment. The omission has drawn attention because Dragonfly was founded by Glenn White and Mona Treadway, former leaders of the Crater Lake School. That institution was closed by the state of Oregon in 2004 following investigations into allegations of mistreatment of teen residents, sexual impropriety, and poor record keeping.

Archived records from the Dragonfly website indicate that Dr. Tutty joined in 2007 as the Clinical Director of the 21-day Adventures Program. The site states he provided psychological testing and treatment, as well as clinical training to staff. However, public records requests submitted to the state of Oregon reveal that Dr. Tutty was never licensed as a psychologist in that state during his tenure at Dragonfly. Dr. Tutty maintains that his work followed the law and professional standards. He notes that licensing complaints against custody evaluators frequently originate from parents who disagreed with an honest professional opinion, and emphasizes that a Statement of Charges is an accusation, not a final finding.

Extensive History in Washington State Courts

Despite these historical details, Dr. Tutty has maintained a significant presence in Washington’s legal and child welfare systems. His professional record shows extensive experience providing expert testimony in dependency matters for the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and county courts. Between 2011 and 2025, Dr. Tutty served as an expert witness in dozens of cases in Washington courts. These matters included issues of child abuse, parental fitness, and the termination of parental rights.

Current Proceedings and Administrative History

Current charges from the Department of Health (DOH) question Dr. Tutty’s objectivity, alleging a willingness to alter reports to suit a client’s narrative. The charges assert that his conduct deviated from objective clinical truth, though Dr. Tutty denies these allegations. Legal experts have suggested that custody decisions based on his evaluations may warrant review, though no specific mandates for vacatur have yet been issued.

In reviewing his administrative history, it is noted that Dr. Tutty previously entered into a billing settlement. This disposition was informal, closed, and administrative in nature, distinct from the current pending charges. Dr. Tutty continues to practice, maintaining that his professional history aligns with standard forensic and clinical expectations.