Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In 2013, Timothy M. Tippins, a member of this newsletter’s Board of Editors, opined, in a New York Law Journal column, that there was an “urgent need for the legal system to impose mandatory and enforceable standards of performance upon those mental health professionals who offer potentially life-altering opinions in the custody court” (The Bar Won’t Raise Itself: The Case for Evaluation Standards, July 8, 2013). A year later, writing again for the same ALM publication, Tippins opined that “[a]ll involved must be accountable, and accountability requires standards of performance” (Custody Evaluations: The Quest for Quality, July 3, 2014). Though these articles addressed the work of custody evaluators, life-altering opinions are also being offered by file reviewers (work product reviewers), some of whom seem to be oblivious to, or unconcerned about, the inherent limitations of a file reviewer’s data.
By Matthew A. Feigin
This article is intended to help practitioners by warning of mistakes the author has seen matrimonial attorneys make in applying federal tax law.
By Laurence J. Cutler and Alyssa M. Clemente
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
According to the authors, using the holding of recent New Jersey Supreme Court case Bisbing v. Bisbing as a model, the clear and current trend throughout the United States that when a custodial parent is seeking to relocate outside of the state with a child, the best interest of the child standard should apply.
By David Bliven
This article addresses some deficiencies in reviewing separation or settlement agreements done in divorce cases, and recommends various clauses that practitioners may implement in their own practices.
Analysis of a case in which the Eighth Circuit reversed the confirmation by the Board of Immigration Appeals of a deportation order because the Immigration Judge’s finding of a fraudulent marriage was not based on proper evidence.