Bias in Custody Evaluations
Matrimonial Practice columnist Timothy M. Tippins writes: Although sometimes called a standard, "best interests of the child" is not. It is in no way an operationally defined specification. It is at best a legal construct representing an aspiration, one laden with personal, social, cultural and moral value judgments.
July 06, 2017 at 02:02 PM
9 minute read
Attorneys and judges involved in custody litigation frequently rely upon the reports and testimony of forensic evaluators. Unfortunately, not all evaluations are reliable. Any number of dynamics can diminish or destroy the reliability of forensic work-product. One of the most pervasive and pernicious of these is bias. To be informed consumers of forensic work-product, lawyers and judges need to understand the insidious nature of bias in its many forms and must know how to identify it in reports and testimony. Additionally, attorneys need to develop trial strategies that will expose bias, which is often hidden beneath the surface of the report, so that the trier of fact can see it plainly and appreciate its insidious impact on forensic reliability.
This article will address the nature of bias and discuss why it is so prevalent in the custody setting. Ensuing articles will deal with the challenges of identifying it in forensic evaluations and exposing it in the courtroom.
Bias as a Mode of Impeachment
Attacking the credibility of a witness by showing that he or she is biased is a well-entrenched method of impeachment. As Wigmore noted, “a partiality of mind is therefore always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony.” Wigmore on Evidence, Chadbourne Revision, Section 940 (Aspen 1970). Bias is so central to credibility that it is deemed “non-collateral,” meaning that the cross-examiner is not bound by the witness's denial of the impeaching question and may introduce extrinsic evidence to prove the bias. Id., Section 948.
Decisional law most often speaks of bias in terms of a witness's relationship to one of the parties or to some interest of the witness in the outcome of the case. Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority, 37 N.Y.2d 137 (1975); see also People v. Webster, 139 N.Y. 73 (1893). In the context of expert witnesses, case law has held that the fact and extent of the expert's compensation to be relevant to bias. Zimmer v. Third Avenue R.R. Co., 36 App. Div. 273 (2d Dept. 1899)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Disclosures in Prenups: The Legal, Personal, and Strategic Considerations
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250