Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Proposed APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations
The American Psychological Association (APA) has now proposed new guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations to replace those promulgated in 1994, which set 'aspirational goals' for those psychologists engaging in evaluations of children for divorcing families going through custodial litigation. APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings (1994). Although the original guidelines called themselves 'aspirational goals,' many states required their use through case law or ethical standards for psychologists. See, e.g., Pennsylvania and Florida. Since 1994, when the guidelines were adopted, they have been used effectively to cross-examine these experts and their reports. The proposed guidelines would substantially weaken their obligations and protect them from the effective cross-examinations that have challenged their work product.
Background
The original guidelines, currently in place, required, for example, that the psychologist examine information for the best psychological interest of the child, a logical charge for those trained in psychology. No one who practices in this area of the law would dispute that there are many factors to be considered in the placement of a child, the psychological interest being only one of many. Moreover, no one can dispute that after gathering the evidence presented in court, the psychological evidence being only one piece of the case, it is up to the finder of fact to weigh the evidence and make the final decision. Since 1994, those of us who have been familiar with these guidelines and used them to challenge the recommendations of the testifying expert have found that psychologists have bristled at the idea that their charge restricted them only to psychological interests rather than being able to make a final decision. As such, the new proposed guidelines delete the word 'psychological' before the words 'best interests,' thereby broadening their scope of inquiry and further reducing the role of the judge.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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 a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?