Difference between revisions of "Changing Family Law Agreements"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Mediation is, in general, the best option if simple negotiation doesn't get you anywhere. In mediation, the parties attempt to negotiate a resolution to their dispute with the help of a neutral <span class="noglossary">third party</span>, the mediator, who is skilled in family law issues and works with the parties to get them to a new agreement. | Mediation is, in general, the best option if simple negotiation doesn't get you anywhere. In mediation, the parties attempt to negotiate a resolution to their dispute with the help of a neutral <span class="noglossary">third party</span>, the mediator, who is skilled in family law issues and works with the parties to get them to a new agreement. | ||
Mediation is not always appropriate, particularly where the problem is limited to one particular term of the agreement and it seems that neither party is willing to bend on the matter. In such cases, arbitration on that one issue should be considered. The job of an arbitrator is to listen to the evidence and the arguments and then make a <span class="noglossary">decision</span>, called an ''award'', that resolves the dispute and is binding on the parties. It is always faster to arbitrate than to litigate, and when both parties have lawyers it's usually cheaper to arbitrate as well. | Mediation is not always appropriate, particularly where the problem is limited to one particular term of the agreement and it seems that neither party is willing to bend on the matter. In such cases, arbitration on that one issue should be considered. The job of an arbitrator is to listen to the evidence and the arguments and then make a <span class="noglossary">decision</span>, called an ''award'', that resolves the dispute and is binding on the parties. It is always faster to arbitrate than to litigate, and when both parties have lawyers, it's usually cheaper to arbitrate as well. | ||
Whatever method is chosen, it's almost always better for people to reach a resolution of the problem themselves without having to go to court. This way the power remains in the hands of the people whose lives are affected by the agreement and who must live with it on a daily basis, rather than in the hands of someone else, a judge, who doesn't know the people involved and may make a decision that no one is entirely happy with. | Whatever method is chosen, it's almost always better for people to reach a resolution of the problem themselves without having to go to court. This way the power remains in the hands of the people whose lives are affected by the agreement and who must live with it on a daily basis, rather than in the hands of someone else, a judge, who doesn't know the people involved and may make a decision that no one is entirely happy with. | ||