Psychologist Used LDS Church Criticism to Portray Parent as Emotionally Impaired, Complaint Alleges

Washington psychologist Steve R. Tutty used a parent’s criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as evidence of emotional impairment in a court-appointed parenting evaluation, according to a complaint that was filed with the Washington Department of Health seeking discipline against him.

The complaint alleges that Tutty relied on inaccurate clinical histories, misstated accounts from people he interviewed and unsupported interpretations of psychological testing to discount children’s reports of sexual abuse.

The disputed assessment helped shape court decisions about parenting arrangements and treatment, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, Tutty listed calls for criminal investigations of the LDS Church and social media posts drawing “anti-religious reactions” as an example of the parent’s emotional impairment.

The posts cited in the complaint included a link to reporting on how the LDS Church handled child sexual abuse and a response to a church statement.

The complaint says Tutty used church-related posts in his interpretations of deviance and paranoia. It also alleges that he incorporated the parent’s reported experiences of religious abuse into his theory that the parent was alienating the children from the other parent.

The complaint contrasts those conclusions with Tutty’s own observations. It says his report described warmth, strong parent-child bonds and no insecure attachment, without identifying a harmful response to a religious discussion he observed. 

The parent argues that using religious criticism and readers’ reactions as evidence of impairment amounted to religious discrimination and did not support his parenting conclusions.

Other allegations challenge the evidence Tutty used to assess the children’s disclosures and fear. The complaint says earlier records documented symptoms and concerns that conflicted with his chronology of when those problems emerged.

It also identifies differences between interview accounts and his written report. In one example, Tutty allegedly described a person as having no concerns about inappropriate conduct beyond observations already discussed. 

A later declaration said the person had not witnessed abuse but was highly concerned. The complaint argues that not witnessing abuse did not justify reporting an absence of concern.

The complaint further alleges that Tutty testified he could recall nothing the complaining parent had done to support the children’s relationship with the other parent, despite records documenting efforts to encourage contact. 

On psychological testing, the complaint says Tutty proposed a specialist psychosexual examination to help confirm or refute historical abuse allegations. He allegedly predicted a negative result and used that anticipated result to discount the disclosures.

A psychologist who reviewed Tutty’s evaluation for the other parent rejected using the tests to determine whether someone had committed a particular act, according to the complaint. It says Tutty himself acknowledged that the existing test results did not invalidate the children’s disclosures.

The final allegation challenges Tutty’s attribution of a child’s fear to the complaining parent’s psychological condition and his prediction that other children faced a high risk of developing similar symptoms. The complaint argues that he did not adequately support either the explanation for the fear or the forecast for each affected child.

Washington’s standards for parenting evaluations require psychologists to focus on each child’s best interests, support conclusions with collected data from more than one source and interpret tests consistently with current research or professional standards. The rules prohibit religious discrimination.

A separate professional rule prohibits misrepresentation in psychological services and evaluation reports. The complaint asks the board to determine whether Tutty violated those standards.

Tutty previously faced separate state charges involving court-related evaluations. In a December 2025 notice, the Department of Health announced that the psychology board had charged him with unprofessional conduct over alleged failures involving consent, confidentiality, clarity about his role and avoidance of multiple relationships. 

Those allegations concerned conduct in 2018 and 2019. The notice does not establish the outcome of that case.

The new complaint asks the board to require a dated corrective addendum for any established violations, identifying material errors and which opinions and recommendations should be retained, qualified or withdrawn.