Forensic evaluators occupy the hardest seat in family court. Courts appoint them to deliver unvarnished findings, knowing that in nearly every case one party leaves dissatisfied. State records and court files show what happened when two of them. Dr. William Singer of the Northwest Evaluation Center and Dr. Steve Tutty, a clinical psychologist licensed in Washington since 2010, ended up in the Olympic Herald's sights: eleven articles between them, according to a name count across the site's archive. Six mention Tutty; five mention Singer.
Here is what the actual record contains for each of them, and what it does not.
Dr. William Singer: a written warning and one unpublished opinion
The Olympic Herald's Singer coverage rests on two official documents.
The first is a Washington State Department of Social and Health Services review of the Northwest Evaluation Center's domestic-violence intervention treatment program, concluded Nov. 6, 2025. DSHS issued a formal written warning and a corrective action plan: the program had failed to document, in writing, its reasoning in one assessment, as WAC 388-60B-0400(19) requires, and was ordered to amend that assessment by Dec. 6, 2025. That is the sum of the state's action, a documentation warning and a paperwork fix directed at a program's compliance with reporting standards. No license restriction and no finding of personal misconduct against Singer appears in the public record the blog cites.
The second is an unpublished, that is, non-precedential, Washington Court of Appeals opinion filed Feb. 10, 2026, reversing a King County judge's decision to vacate a domestic-violence protection order. According to the blog's own report, the panel faulted the methodology of one Singer assessment that had rated the respondent "Level 0," holding that treatment recommendations may not be diminished by the absence of criminal charges. The opinion addresses one evaluation in one case. It makes no finding about Singer's license, his fitness or his character, and unpublished opinions set no precedent.
Notably, the blog's alignment in that case is visible in its own pages: Singer's assessment had concluded the respondent did not exhibit abusive behaviors and did not require domestic-violence intervention, a professional conclusion that displeased one side of the litigation, and the side the Olympic Herald championed across multiple articles.
Dr. Steve Tutty: allegations that remain allegations
The Olympic Herald's Tutty coverage rests on a Statement of Charges issued by the state's Examining Board of Psychology on Oct. 27, 2025, concerning his handling of a child-custody evaluation, the kind of case in which one party necessarily leaves unhappy.
A statement of charges opens an adjudicative process. It is an accusation, not a finding, and no findings against Tutty appear in the record. Tutty has characterized the complaints as retaliation by disgruntled litigants; writing on his firm's website, he framed his departure from divorce casework as a considered exit from a system that punishes evaluators for outcomes.
What the blog's six articles never assemble is the career. Over more than 25 years, Tutty has evaluated and treated more than 2,300 children and adolescents and conducted more than 535 adult evaluations, many in forensic and traumatic-brain-injury matters. His published research includes five peer-reviewed studies on depression and ADHD treatment, among them a 2004 randomized trial in JAMA on telephone psychotherapy for depressed primary-care patients, work cited widely in what later became mainstream telehealth.
"When the court orders a mental health evaluation," Tutty has written, "our client is actually the judge and/or commissioner, and the balance between objectivity and client compassion can be difficult."
The shared pattern
Put the two coverage streams side by side and the mechanics match. An evaluator's work product displeases someone. A complaint follows, to DSHS, to the Department of Health, to a court. Then the complaint becomes the story, stripped of the distinction between an accusation and a finding.
Neither man can answer in kind. Psychologists are bound by confidentiality duties and by the rules of the licensing process itself; they cannot litigate their cases in the press. Singer has made no public response at all in the record reviewed. Tutty's only public response is the editorial announcing his exit from divorce work.
That exit is the documented consequence. A region with few qualified custody evaluators watched a veteran of more than 2,300 child evaluations leave the field while a blog counted its articles. Courts need evaluators who will tell them what the evidence supports rather than what a party wants to hear; a campaign that treats every unwelcome conclusion as a scandal teaches the next evaluator where the safe conclusions lie.
Eleven articles. One written warning about documentation, one unpublished opinion about a single assessment, and a statement of allegations that remains exactly that, an accusation and not a finding.
This article relies on public court records and public complaints. TROH welcomes a response from Mr. Tomashefsky and will publish it in full.