AbstractThe boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision‐making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio‐moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case‐resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.