Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Child 's Attorney As Hearsay Conduit in Custody Litigation
Judicial genuflections to the rules of evidence are often encountered in published decisions. The evidentiary rules have been hailed as “the palladium of the judicial process” infringement upon which “destroys the vitality of that judicial process.” (Wagman v. Bradshaw, 292 A.D.2d 84, 91, 739 N.Y.S.2d 421 (2d Dept. 2002).) Such panegyrics to the rules of evidence are quite warranted, given that their overarching purpose is nothing less than to ensure the reliability of the proof put before the trier of fact. Standing at the very core of evidentiary doctrine, of course, is the rightly vaunted rule against hearsay, positioned like a majestic monument to the wisdom of those common law judges who constructed the doctrine to ensure the right of cross-examination so many centuries ago. This prophylactic rule stands as an essential bulwark against the incursion of unreliable information into the fact-finding process.
Yet, sadly, in practice, fidelity to the rules of evidence, and particularly to the rule banning hearsay, is far less than it ought to be. This is especially prevalent in custody proceedings where material of untested validity all too frequently seeps into the record. Ironically, much of the hearsay that subverts the reliability of the proof comes in the form of the child's own out-of-court statements. Even more ironically, the conduit of this evidentiary contamination is often the child's own attorney. This article reviews a number of recent decisions that bear upon these recurrent hearsay issues.
The Basic Rule
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?