July 15, 2026 Webinar Evaluation – Navigating Supervised Visitation: A Guide for Family Law Professionals

Presented by Deborah Wald, JD | Angelina Ray, Esq. 

Responses are confidential and your name/answers are not published. By entering your name below you are certifying that you personally attended the session.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Required for Credit/Optional otherwise

Email - Only used for tracking; responses are confidential *

Professional Designation, e.g. JD, LCSW, PH.D. LMFT, etc.)

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following: After completing this session, I am able to:

	1-= Strongly Disagree	2	3	4	5 - Strongly Agree
Identify the California legal and clinical factors relevant to requesting, recommending, or ordering supervised visitation.	1-= Strongly DisagreeIdentify the California legal and clinical factors relevant to requesting, recommending, or ordering supervised visitation. 1-= Strongly Disagree	2Identify the California legal and clinical factors relevant to requesting, recommending, or ordering supervised visitation. 2	3Identify the California legal and clinical factors relevant to requesting, recommending, or ordering supervised visitation. 3	4Identify the California legal and clinical factors relevant to requesting, recommending, or ordering supervised visitation. 4	5 - Strongly AgreeIdentify the California legal and clinical factors relevant to requesting, recommending, or ordering supervised visitation. 5 - Strongly Agree
Formulate supervision orders that provide supervisors with sufficiently specific direction concerning provider selection, visitation structure, exchanges, safety measures, and reporting expectations.	1-= Strongly DisagreeFormulate supervision orders that provide supervisors with sufficiently specific direction concerning provider selection, visitation structure, exchanges, safety measures, and reporting expectations. 1-= Strongly Disagree	2Formulate supervision orders that provide supervisors with sufficiently specific direction concerning provider selection, visitation structure, exchanges, safety measures, and reporting expectations. 2	3Formulate supervision orders that provide supervisors with sufficiently specific direction concerning provider selection, visitation structure, exchanges, safety measures, and reporting expectations. 3	4Formulate supervision orders that provide supervisors with sufficiently specific direction concerning provider selection, visitation structure, exchanges, safety measures, and reporting expectations. 4	5 - Strongly AgreeFormulate supervision orders that provide supervisors with sufficiently specific direction concerning provider selection, visitation structure, exchanges, safety measures, and reporting expectations. 5 - Strongly Agree
Assess visitation reports and other evidence to determine whether supervision should continue, be modified, step down, or terminate based on the child’s best interests and ongoing safety needs.	1-= Strongly DisagreeAssess visitation reports and other evidence to determine whether supervision should continue, be modified, step down, or terminate based on the child’s best interests and ongoing safety needs. 1-= Strongly Disagree	2Assess visitation reports and other evidence to determine whether supervision should continue, be modified, step down, or terminate based on the child’s best interests and ongoing safety needs. 2	3Assess visitation reports and other evidence to determine whether supervision should continue, be modified, step down, or terminate based on the child’s best interests and ongoing safety needs. 3	4Assess visitation reports and other evidence to determine whether supervision should continue, be modified, step down, or terminate based on the child’s best interests and ongoing safety needs. 4	5 - Strongly AgreeAssess visitation reports and other evidence to determine whether supervision should continue, be modified, step down, or terminate based on the child’s best interests and ongoing safety needs. 5 - Strongly Agree

With #1 Rated as POOR and # 5 Rated EXCELLENT please evaluate Deborah Wald, Esq. as to:

	1-=Poor	2	3	4	5 - Excellent
Level of Knowledge & expertise	1-=PoorLevel of Knowledge & expertise 1-=Poor	2Level of Knowledge & expertise 2	3Level of Knowledge & expertise 3	4Level of Knowledge & expertise 4	5 - ExcellentLevel of Knowledge & expertise 5 - Excellent
Teaching Ability	1-=PoorTeaching Ability 1-=Poor	2Teaching Ability 2	3Teaching Ability 3	4Teaching Ability 4	5 - ExcellentTeaching Ability 5 - Excellent
Ability to Maintain interest	1-=PoorAbility to Maintain interest 1-=Poor	2Ability to Maintain interest 2	3Ability to Maintain interest 3	4Ability to Maintain interest 4	5 - ExcellentAbility to Maintain interest 5 - Excellent
Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions	1-=PoorResponsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 1-=Poor	2Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 2	3Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 3	4Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 4	5 - ExcellentResponsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 5 - Excellent

With #1 Rated as POOR and # 5 Rated EXCELLENT please evaluate Angelina Ray, Esq. as to: (copy)

	1-=Poor	2	3	4	5 - Excellent
Level of Knowledge & expertise	1-=PoorLevel of Knowledge & expertise 1-=Poor	2Level of Knowledge & expertise 2	3Level of Knowledge & expertise 3	4Level of Knowledge & expertise 4	5 - ExcellentLevel of Knowledge & expertise 5 - Excellent
Teaching Ability	1-=PoorTeaching Ability 1-=Poor	2Teaching Ability 2	3Teaching Ability 3	4Teaching Ability 4	5 - ExcellentTeaching Ability 5 - Excellent
Ability to Maintain interest	1-=PoorAbility to Maintain interest 1-=Poor	2Ability to Maintain interest 2	3Ability to Maintain interest 3	4Ability to Maintain interest 4	5 - ExcellentAbility to Maintain interest 5 - Excellent
Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions	1-=PoorResponsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 1-=Poor	2Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 2	3Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 3	4Responsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 4	5 - ExcellentResponsiveness to questions, comments & opinions 5 - Excellent

Attorneys, please answer the following (required by State Bar):

	YES	NO
Did this program meet your educational objectives?	YESDid this program meet your educational objectives? YES	NODid this program meet your educational objectives? NO
Did the course update or keep you informed of your legal reponsibilities?	YESDid the course update or keep you informed of your legal reponsibilities? YES	NODid the course update or keep you informed of your legal reponsibilities? NO
Did the activity contain significant professional content?	YESDid the activity contain significant professional content? YES	NODid the activity contain significant professional content? NO
Were you provided with substantive written materials?	YESWere you provided with substantive written materials? YES	NOWere you provided with substantive written materials? NO

Please rate the written/visual materials presented, with #1 being POOR and #5 EXCELLENT

	1-=Poor	2	3	4	5 - Excellent
The materials were:	1-=PoorThe materials were: 1-=Poor	2The materials were: 2	3The materials were: 3	4The materials were: 4	5 - ExcellentThe materials were: 5 - Excellent

Attorneys - enter your Bar Number below:

Please provide any comments about any part of the program, and ideas for improvement.

By typing my name in the box below, I certify that I did attend the sessions for which this evaluation form applies: *

First

Last

Submit