Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Forensic Mythologies and Custody Evaluations
Author's Note: Readers interested in reviewing the research literature underlying the material presented herein can study the following: 1) Faust, D. & Ahern, D.C. (2011): Clinical Judgment and Prediction (In D. Faust: Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony. 6th ed.); 2) Garb, H. (1998): Studying the Clinician: Judgment Research and Psychological Assessment (APA); 3) Lamb, et. al. (2000): Accuracy of Investigators' Verbatim Notes of Their Forensic Interviews with Alleged Child Abuse Victims (Law and Human Behavior, vol. 6); 4) Stewart, R. & Chambless, D. (2007): Does Psychology Research Inform Treatment Decisions in Private Practice? (J Clinical Psychol, Vol 63).
Assumptions
As forensic psychologists and psychiatrists agree to accept appointments as evaluators or take the stand to testify about a custody matter, there are often many assumptions about forensic practice floating among those in the legal community, and even on the part of litigants, that are questionable at best. Some are entirely inaccurate and can lead to beliefs about forensic reliability that yield a misplaced acquiescence to the belief that the “doctor knows best.” A review of some of these misplaced assumptions, through the lens of clinical judgment research, reinforces the notion that zealously analyzing and challenging the data, methods and reasoning used by evaluators is critically important during any litigation process that may profoundly affect a child's life.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?