Timothy M Tippins

January 08, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that attorneys sometimes hope to enlist a testimonial expert into "double duty," especially when financial resources are limited. For example, the practitioner might consider asking the testimonial expert to assist in preparing questions to be used in the cross-examination of an opposing expert or to assist in formulating overall trial strategy. Though perhaps appealing at first blush, this temptation is to be resisted.

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

May 01, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a consultant and special counsel in contested custody cases, writes that the search for bias in an evaluation report will frequently bear fruit. He examines two of the most commonly encountered forms: confirmatory bias, the tendency to confirm one's initial impressions, and primacy effect, the undue influence of earlier received information over later received information, which often operate in tandem, creating a synergy that geometrically increases their distortional potency.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

March 09, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a consultant and special counsel in contested custody cases, writes that in removing retention bias - the presumed predisposition of the expert in favor of the party who has retained him or her - by using court-appointed custody evaluators, the courts have eliminated only the most transparent form of bias, leaving many more unchecked. This does not produce the hoped-for "unbiased professional opinion."

By Timothy M. Tippins

13 minute read

May 05, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, writes: Notwithstanding recommendations from the Matrimonial Commission, New York does not govern child custody evaluations with detailed statutory or rule-based requirements. This void renders the order which appoints a designated mental health professional to conduct an assessment a critically important document, but too often, little real thought is put into the construction of these orders.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

May 05, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, a practitioner and adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that the need for greater judicial vigilance and evidentiary scrutiny of forensic opinions has been underscored recently at the appellate level.

By Timothy M. Tippins

14 minute read

September 05, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins analyzes a recent Court of Appeals ruling that underscores the importance of constantly reminding oneself where one is in the equitable distribution process and the importance of factual evaluation of spousal contributions as opposed to the knee-jerk application of the unwritten presumption of 50/50."

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

March 03, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that psychology, as a scientific discipline, follows the scientific method: observation, speculation and testing. Clinical experience cannot carry a custody evaluator past the speculation step, and until the evaluator's theory has passed empirical muster through testing, it remains in the land of unsubstantiated speculation, beyond the realm of demonstrable knowledge, and outside the gates of evidentiary admissibility.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

July 07, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, discusses the fashioning of individual orders appointing forensic evaluators to assess the parenting abilities of competing parties and suggests language on non-cooperation, confidentiality, access, attorney-client privilege and ex parte communications.

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

May 07, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, special counsel in contested custody cases and an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, reviews a recent custody case where a court-appointed evaluator, after being designated as a defendant in the father's federal action against numerous individuals and public officials who were in some manner involved in the custody proceeding, made application to be relieved. The court's decision denying recusal preserved the principles of systemic integrity and the child's right to finality. But where does this leave the good doctor?

By Timothy M. Tippins

12 minute read

September 02, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Timothy M. Tippins, an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, writes that a refusal to acknowledge a reputable text may be motivated by an effort to shut down a cross-examination or it may result from ignorance of the literature that embodies the specialized knowledge of an author's profession.

By Timothy M. Tippins

11 minute read