Remember that scene in Shawshank Redemption when Red says he doesn't know what the word "rehabilitated" means? He tells the parole board that they should just go ahead and stamp their forms because he doesn't care anymore. In that case it worked - being genuine honest and saying what he really felt apparently appealed to the review board and they let him out of prison.
But should YOU be as honest in your custody case? Can you be jovial with a custody evaluator? Should you reveal your true frustrations with a parenting coordinator? Can you go "off-script" and use colorful expressions to illustrate your point during your testimony?
The disappointing truth is that there is a "proper" mode and tone when speaking to these people, and the further you stray from the norm the more risk you are taking. It's not like in the movies where the eccentric genius disregards conventional norms and yet the court is enamored by his unorthodox approach. Unfortunately our legal system is based on a system I often refer to as a "sausage grinder" that is designed to move cases through using a pretty narrow assessment process. Courts have little time or attention to really get to know you as a person. The way you are perceived by the court and expert witnesses is a lot more like how McDonald's slaps together a burger than we want to believe. What could normally be a refreshing change in terms of honest and connection can quickly get labeled as abnormal, deflecting or dishonest - or simply an admission of guilt.
When you are asked how you approach the children's homework, what your disciplinary habits are, or what kind of food you feed your children you might be tempted to be creative in your answer, but remember that these people are more looking for key phrases they can record than they are trying to learn "the real you" and your personality. For example, when you are asked whether you discuss matters of the court with your children, how should you respond? It would be nice if we could explain that mature children are smart and observant and they deserve a certain level of honesty in addressing their questions about what you're all going through. But should you be honest in your answer and explain that there is a gray area, and that you don't want to gaslight your children by not providing an answer?
The answer is probably "no" you should not offer that level of honesty. As much as we want to "be real" and maybe even philosophical about that answer, you probably shouldn't go there. Courts, evaluators and other expert witnesses are sometimes juggling dozens of cases and they deal with a wide variety of people over a very compressed amount of time. In the end these people make a living moving herds of people through the grinder as efficiently as they can. The last thing they want is to finish a $40,000 custody evaluation and have little to say for it. When you say things that sound like "yes, sometimes" to them with a long explanation, what they capture and record is usually just the "yes, sometimes" part. You don't get a fair shake when it comes to your explanation; that part gets buried in a part of the document people might neve read.
Logically you may feel that is everyone shows up to court and only gives the standard "nothing to see here" version of the answers, then wouldn't both parties sound exactly the same on paper? How can a judge decide who's more (or less) fit as a parent if they are all reading the same script in terms of answering these questions? Therein lies the rub. They can't. But what they CAN do it "tee off" on answers that sound weird or abnormal, which is very easy for opposing council to do by stripping off or shouting over the rest of your answer or your clarifications that explain your less-boring answer. In short, you often do not win for being "totally" honest if it requires a backstory nobody ever gets to hear.
The question of "how honest" you should be in answering questions like these is an excellent matter to discuss with your lawyers not only during case prep but way before then - how do you answer Our Family Wizard questions? Should you be "honest" there, or does boring-and formulaic work better? Should you write every email in a genuine tone to try to reason with a combative ex-spouse, or should yo write every response as if it will be read by the judge - even when you know it probably won't be?
Be sure to include this topic when you speak with legal counsel, as the jurisdiction of the court and which judge is hearing it often matters as much or more than conventional wisdom. Nailing this tone and positioning right from the start can prevent you from throwing logs on the other side's fire and building their case for them.