Collaborative Law – a Better Alternative
Many law firms are limiting their family law practice to collaborative divorce only for many good reasons. Many believe that collaborative practice enhances the odds for a better result as it is indicated by many cases. Collaborative divorce can be a multipart experience requiring recommendation and guidance from various perspectives if it is to be navigated soundly. But all this complexity is worth an effort because it prepares you to deal with the emotional challenges and changes reflected by divorce and offer the resources that can best assist you create a healthy changeover from marital to single life.
Collaborative divorce also insures vital safeguards for children, too. It keeps both parties well informed about the mental state and expectations of the children. Collaborative divorce helps them accept the big changes in their family structure without harming their sentiments. It assists both sides ensuring good future relationship with each other by informing both parties fully about the financial realities of your marriage and divorce in a way that eliminates pointless arguments about financial issues. It also educates you and your spouse new ways of problem solving and conflict resolution so that you develop useful skills for addressing your differences more constructively in the future.
There is a new approach is rising in the field of collaborative law, this approach is known as the Multi-Disciplinary Model. This form of collaborative divorce provides a divorce team consisting of two lawyers, two divorce coaches, a child specialist and a financial advisor to assist the couple. Multi disciplinary approach helps resolve situations in a more cost effective way then traditional two lawyer method of divorce.
The reason behind collaborative divorce does an excellent job of helping most couples pull off their best separation are simple. Collaborative divorce addresses the monetary and legal matters that must be resolved in any type of divorce, but it does so more efficiently for the reason that it provides the en suite help of three professions, not just one. The devise of collaborative divorce — with its team of professionals, its organized consideration to values, its highlighting on healthy relationships, and its focus on the future — takes into account the wide range of what actually matters to the majority of people when their marriages end. It considers not merely the spouses but persons around them who also matter to the divorcing couple and who will be both directly and indirectly affected by a good or a bad divorce like children, families, and even extended families, friends, and colleagues. It applies what we know about marriage and divorce from the realms of psychology, sociology, history, law, communication theory, conflict resolution theory, finance, and other realms in a very realistic, helpful, and tangible way.
Dissimilar from any other divorce clash solving method, collaborative divorce teams make steady use of essential information regarding how people are connected how they feel, how the sentiments influence our capability to correspond successfully and to process information, how we experience pain and loss, how we recuperate from the end of a marriage, what the children are experiencing and what they want in the divorce, and what the needs of each member of the family after the divorce are likely to be. In this way, collaborative divorce presents positive, complete, multidisciplinary expert support that answers to the real complexities of divorce as people experience it, rather than imposing an traditional, partial institutional legal point of view as the only viewpoint on a compound personal experience.
Munish Dev Rathee
http://www.articlesbase.com/divorce-articles/collaborative-law-a-better-alternative-100787.html
The Chicago Annenburg Challenge, Obama's ties, and speaking to schoolchildren…?
The CAC is a brainchild of Bill Ayers, and Obama was on the board. Ayers beliefs were as follows:
The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.
If you KNOW that Obama was friends with Ayers, served on the board of the CAC, was a community organizer, and these are the philosophies of the group in which Obama has his community organizing links, why do you think parents are upset about him speaking to our children? I don’t have a problem with him giving an uplifting speech to kids, but when they start "infusing radical politics" into children, you better be worried.
In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.
CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.
CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children’s education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama’s alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber’s objections.
Why do people not speak about the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, the community organizers "beliefs", and Obama in schools systems.
You’ve got it exactly right as to why conservatives have expressed reservations about Obama addressing school children. It’s as plain as day to those who want to inform themselves. This is the kind of reporting the media should be doing. The media is supposed to hold the powerful to account. They mostly don’t, and Obama is trying to shut down the few that do.
References :