Timothy M Tippins

January 07, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, who conducts a national lawyer-to-lawyer practice as consultant and special counsel in contested custody cases, writes that the fact that many New York trial courts are now looking to Daubert and applying it is all to the good and ought to hasten the day when it is formally adopted, either by the Court of Appeals or by legislative enactment.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

January 06, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins discusses the potential impact of forensic custody evaluations and how courts need to officially establish the kind of forensic work-product they want to receive, considering they will alter the trajectory of families' lives.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

September 02, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, writes: On July 19 the equitable distribution law marked its 30th anniversary. While one's first instinct might have been to belt out the birthday song, in view of the recent Court of Appeals decision in Fields v. Fields, a funeral dirge might have been more appropriate.

By Timothy M. Tippins

11 minute read

November 05, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that the admissibility, scope and weight of psychological opinions in custody litigation are complex and controversial issues. For many years, the mental health profession has debated the ethical and empirical implications of such testimony, especially when opinions are expressed on the ultimate question of the child's best interest.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

September 01, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins, adjunct professor at Albany Law School, examines a number of specific provisions that can be placed in a child custody appointment order to ensure that an evaluator's report is written in a way that facilitates critical review, even if a case settles without going to trial.

By Timothy M. Tippins

11 minute read

July 03, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins writes that More than a quarter century ago, the late Justice Arthur E. Blyn cautioned that bench and bar must be ever vigilant in monitoring the evolving law because, while some changes are trumpeted into the corpus juris with great fanfare, "others come in quietly on little cat's feet." A recent decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department may well exemplify one of those sleeper decisions that carries greater import than a cursory reading would suggest.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

January 07, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, writes that in Fields v. Fields, the First Department majority held that the husband's interest in a townhouse, bought during the marriage but wholly sourced and sustained by separate property, was marital property. Given that the statutory structure is clear, one must wonder why three justices of the Appellate Division would go so far astray, embarrassingly so in light of a dissent that spells it out with such cogency. The emotionally driven first sentence of the majority opinion, focusing upon facts fundamentally irrelevant to the classification issue, revealed the true motivation for the opinion.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

May 01, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor of forensic psychology at Siena College and an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, questions whether, given the potential prejudice attached to a diagnosis of mental disorder and the questionable scientific validity of the classification system upon which such a diagnosis is typically based, diagnostic labels have a legitimate place in the custody evaluation context.

By Timothy M. Tippins

15 minute read

January 02, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a consultant and special counsel, writes that family law practitioners are accustomed to seeing references in custody evaluation reports to psychological testing. It is not at all uncommon for custody evaluators to employ psychological tests and projective protocols to gain additional data pertaining to the parents and the children being assessed.

By Timothy M. Tippins

11 minute read

March 05, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Timothy M. Tippins

9 minute read