Similar experience as above. Opposing hired Laurel Ferris and Sarah Erickson-Nelson to defend ex while he was under an active order for protection that was adjudicated by substantiating evidence and ex's own admissions of guilt during an evidentiary hearing. Ferris and Erickson-Nelson share a reputation in the twin cities amongst their colleagues for defending abusers with highly biased parenting evaluations for the court against victims of DV by accusing them of gatekeeping (alienation) as this allows them to produce PAS pseudo science in their evaluations which changes the best interest standard to the detriment standards (against the DV victims). Because of Parenting evaluators like Ferris and Erickson, victims of DV in MN are statistically 2x as likely to lose custody of their children. In fact, Laurel Ferris' own PE colleagues on local panels they participate in testified in regard to their witnessed knowledge of Ferris' self admitted bias and hatred toward survivors of domestic violence. The evaluation they produced was clearly a pre-made "Parental Alienation Syndrome" template that they fill in with names and some details as they went along. (I would wager it's the same template as the above poster and am curious now to compare) There was no consideration or caution for the substantiated abuse history in the court record, or the highly credible collateral witnesses involving Social workers and other state workers- all 12 of whom testified in court that Ferris and Erickson's written summary and conclusions didn't even remotely accurately reflect the information they provided their interviews. In fact in our final order the judge noted concerns and made findings of their bias from the overwhelming collateral testimony regarding the evaluator's highly egregious inaccuracies. Could this be why Ferris and Erickson don't allow clients or collateral witness to record interviews in their PE contract? Thankfully toward the end of my case more true facts started coming out as ex's false alibis started falling apart and he perjured himself on the stand. It was decided that neither side wanted to cross these two evaluators for their their disturbing, expensive, and ultimately unusable agenda-based testimony. The first red flag was when they didn't allow recordings of interviews. Sarah E-N plays "good cop" reeling you in to share information then Laurel Ferris plays the aggressive "bad cop" by most disturbingly gaslighting and re-victimizing survivors of DV despite the court's substantiating records of serious concerns and abuse. Whatever you do, never meet with either of these evaluators alone and without witnesses and do not sign any contracts with them preventing recording use rights. Both parties, counsel, and our judge are extremely dissatisfied with their ridiculously blatant PAS template and conclusions which are to the detriment of our shared child. Heed these warnings carefully. One of these days, if not already, Ferris and Erickson-Nelson's victims are going to seriously get hurt or perhaps die due to their negligence and dangerous agenda. Ferris and Erickson-Nelson were contracted with the simple task of investigating and producing a neutral evaluation which they have proved incapable of. Instead, they take it upon themselves to re-litigate matters already previously heard before the court. Both sides of counsel had to repeatedly remind them the were acting outside the scope of parenting evaluators roles and the contract. They acted more in the capacity of parenting consultants which is NOT what they were contracted to do. (Another major red flag) If you are the petitioner or respondent in a family court case wanting what's best for your children, steer clear from these two weirdos at all costs. Only allow credible forensic psychologists to produce evidence based, peer reviewed science accepted by the medical and legal community into your court record.

I DO NOT recommend Laurel Ferris. I hired her and Ms. Sara Erickson-Nelson for a Brief Focused Assessment and they did not do what they were paid to do. She was a very prejudice, biased and rude person and was unable to be neutral. She was incredibly unprofessional and extremely rude when I corrected her false information. She would have outbursts of shouting and yelling at me after she dismissed and minimized my evidence of threats of murder and violence from my ex. She was not willing to listen, learn or understand anything I told her so don't waste your money because she will misconstrue situations and gaslight you!