Independent, private-pay clinical evaluation for adults in Minnesota, conducted by secure telehealth.
If a court has ordered a substance use assessment, that report will help decide real things: how your case is resolved, whether treatment is required, the terms of your release or probation, and, in family cases, parenting time. Who does the assessment, and how independent they are, affects how much weight that report can carry.
Arlucent provides independent, private-pay court-ordered evaluations for adults, done by secure video anywhere in Minnesota. They follow the ASAM Criteria, Minnesota’s DHS 245G standards (formerly Rule 25), and standard DSM-5 and ICD-10 diagnoses. We only evaluate: no treatment, no therapy, and no referrals to any program, which is exactly what lets the report stand on its own in court.
Criminal cases are the most common reason. A judge may order the assessment directly, your own attorney may recommend it, or it may come through pretrial or probation supervision. The report then helps inform sentencing, probation conditions, whether you qualify for diversion, and whether treatment is required. Charges that often lead to one include drug possession and other controlled substance offenses, assault or domestic violence where substance use is seen as a factor, theft and property offenses with a documented history of use, and probation violations involving a return to use.
Family court is its own situation. In divorce, custody, and parenting time cases, the court may order an assessment for one or both parents when substance use has been raised. The report informs the court’s decisions about parenting time, supervision, and the terms of contact. The method is the same as in a criminal case; what changes is the focus, which shifts to the questions that matter for parenting and for the child rather than to sentencing.
DWI cases work a little differently and have their own rules. If your case comes from a DWI charge, see the DWI Assessment page.
Probation is the fourth path. A probation officer, supervising agent, or treatment court team may ask for an evaluation when something has changed, when a violation is alleged, or when you are moving between programs. Here the report informs supervision decisions rather than the original sentence.
The evaluation is a structured conversation, guided by the ASAM Criteria. We go through your history: your substance use, any past assessments or treatment, your mental health, relevant medical background, and the circumstances that led to the court order. We use standard screening tools where they help. With your permission, and where it is relevant, we may also review records such as the police report, court records, prior assessments, treatment records, drug testing results, and, in family court matters, custody filings or a guardian ad litem report.
The ASAM Criteria look at six areas: withdrawal risk, physical health, emotional and behavioral health, readiness to change, risk of returning to use, and the person’s recovery environment. These are used as a structured way of reasoning, not a checklist or a scoring formula, to build a clear picture of severity, risk, and what kind of help is needed. When it fits the picture, the report may include an opinion on the level of care. That is a clinical opinion at the time of the assessment; it is not an approval, an insurance decision, or an order to enter treatment.
Where the clinical picture supports a diagnosis, we document it using standard DSM-5 and ICD-10 conventions, including severity, and we show the evidence it rests on. The report keeps three things clearly separate: what was documented, what the analysis found, and what the evaluator concluded. That structure is deliberate, because it is what makes the report usable in a formal setting. The evaluation does not reach conclusions about guilt, intent, or parenting fitness as a legal matter. Those are decisions for the court, not questions a clinical assessment answers.
In Minnesota, many substance use assessments are done by clinicians who work for, or are paid by, the same treatment programs that will provide the treatment being recommended. That is legal and often fine, but it raises an obvious question: is the recommendation based on what the person needs, or on what the program stands to gain?
Arlucent removes that question. We provide no treatment, no therapy, no referrals to any program, and no ongoing care. We have nothing to gain by recommending one level of care over another. Our job ends when we hand over the written report. That is not a slogan; it is how the practice is built, and it is what lets the report stand as an independent document in court, licensure, and other high-stakes settings.
There are three levels, from a standard evaluation up to a full comprehensive one. Which fits depends on how complex the situation is and what the report is for, and you do not have to work that out yourself; it is settled at intake. The three levels are laid out plainly on the How it works page.
See the three levels on How it works →
It starts with a short, confidential questionnaire that tells us whether an independent evaluation fits your situation. If it does, we confirm the details in writing, ask for any records we will need, and schedule the session. The evaluation is done by secure video, and the written report follows. If you have a court date, a licensing deadline, or any other deadline, tell us at intake so we can plan around it. Appointments are private-pay and confirmed once payment is received.
If you are weighing an independent assessment for a client, here is what the report gives you. It keeps documented evidence, clinical analysis, and evaluator conclusions clearly separate, with the ASAM reasoning shown as a structured record rather than a score. Diagnostic conclusions cite the evidence they rest on. A level-of-care opinion, where one is included, is framed as clinical opinion and is explicitly not a placement authorization or a treatment mandate.
Independence here is structural, not just asserted. The practice operates independently of treatment providers, of defense and prosecution interests, of employers, and of the deciding authority. We do not provide expert witness testimony, advocacy, or representation. We will answer limited questions to clarify what a report says, which is not the same as advocacy or ongoing involvement.
Deadlines drive scheduling, so tell us at intake about hearing dates, sentencing dates, probation reviews, or motion deadlines, and we will confirm scope, level, and timing in writing. Payment is private-pay only. We do not take insurance, public payor authorization, or third-party billing, and that is part of what keeps the practice independent.
Your evaluation is done by Rafael Lewis, M.A., LADC, the founder of Arlucent Assessments and a licensed alcohol and drug counselor in Minnesota. He is a doctoral student in counseling psychology at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota and the creator of the Arlucent Seventh Dimension™. He has held leadership roles in licensed substance use treatment programs, so he knows first-hand the standards, the paperwork, and the real-world pressures these evaluations have to meet.
More on his background is on the About page.
Whether an independent evaluation fits your situation starts with the short questionnaire. It is brief and confidential, and it is how we confirm the case is a fit and identify the right level. Scheduling, documentation, and payment are confirmed in writing afterward.
Arlucent Assessments · Independent Evaluation
Minnesota
© 2026 Arlucent Assessments™. All rights reserved. A division of Arlucent.
Arlucent Assessments provides independent clinical evaluation services only and does not provide therapy, treatment, clinical care, advocacy, referrals, or ongoing professional services.
Inquiries are handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality and privacy standards.