Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Custody Evaluations

New York has recently been exposed to a resurgence of doubt regarding the usefulness of evaluations performed by mental health professionals (MHPs) in custody matters. In debates certain to affect the national family law community, the criticism questions the scientific validity of recommendations and observations that these professionals are called upon to make, asking whether the experts, in fact, have the expertise to participate meaningfully in the process. This article responds to some of the criticism by seeking to clarify the role that MHPs play.

20 minute read March 30, 2005 at 08:28 AM
By
Robert Z. Dobrish
Custody Evaluations

As stated in the article by Timothy M. Tippins (infra, p. 1), New York has recently been exposed to a resurgence of doubt regarding the usefulness of evaluations performed by mental health professionals (MHPs) in custody matters.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 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.

Continue Reading

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026