Timothy M Tippins

March 03, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins an adjunct professor at Albany Law School and faculty member of the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, analyzes the recent ruling in Strack v. Strack and explores the fundamental issue of whether a divorce action based on irretrievable breakdown be opposed.

By Timothy M. Tippins

11 minute read

March 03, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a lawyer and an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, analyzes custody case law, including a recent decision which holds experts accountable by mandating that they "support each and every" inference "with specific empirical evidence."

By Timothy M. Tippins

14 minute read

November 04, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a special counsel in contested custody cases and an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes: Custody cases were once seen as presenting common-sense problems to be solved by judges making common-sense decisions. Over the past three decades, however, high-conflict custody litigation has become increasingly complex, in no small measure due to the increased participation of mental health professionals operating in the forensic role of custody evaluators.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

November 03, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a practitioner and consultant, examines the issue of whether third-party information fits within the structure of permissible evidentiary predicates for expert opinion testimony and whether the underlying rationales for such bases are apposite in the custody evaluation arena.

By Timothy M. Tippins

14 minute read

July 12, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a consultant and special counsel in contested custody cases and an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that the sad reality is that too many mental health professionals do not explore alternative hypotheses. This critical failure makes it more likely that a court may give significant weight to testimony based on the erroneous assumption that the expert is providing a balanced understanding, resulting in decisions that are harmful to children and families.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read