Automatic Transmissions for Bicycles

The NuVinci Continuously Variable Transmission

Reinventing the two-wheeler

When I first learned to drive, I learned on a car with a manual transmission. It never seemed especially difficult because that was what I got used to. In fact, the first time I had to drive an automatic, I remember being very confused. What was I supposed to do with my left foot? Do I not have to shift at all? And if it’s automatic, then what’s with all these different choices on the gearshift lever? I quickly got the idea, of course, but still preferred the increased control and responsiveness I got from making my own decisions about when to shift. It would therefore seem that I should have the same attitude about bicycles, which not only require manual shifting but typically have many more than four or five gears. But manual bicycle transmissions have always given me trouble, and I’ve frequently wished I could have the convenience of an automatic transmission on a multi-speed bike.

Yanking My Chain

For the record, I am not what you’d call an avid cyclist. Indeed, I’m somewhat embarrassed to say I don’t even own a bike right now, because I work at home, I walk most places I need to go, and on the occasions when I have to travel beyond walking distance, I nearly always need to be transporting more people and/or goods than a bike could accommodate. Nevertheless, I like the idea of bike ownership very much—good exercise, good for the environment, and so on.

But even when my bike was my sole form of transportation a number of years ago, I never fully grasped the way bicycle gears worked. That is to say, I understood the mechanics, but actually using them was another story—the logic of how one must manipulate those levers to reach the desired balance between torque and speed always seemed a bit like a black art. It was not a simple linear progression of lower to higher as on a car, but a function of the ratio of the front gear size to the rear gear size, both of which are variable. My usual practice was just to fiddle with the controls until pedaling felt about right, then leave them where they were until I couldn’t stand it any longer.

Another problem with shifting gears on bicycles is that the derailleur—the mechanism that moves the chain between gears of different sizes—is by nature imprecise. Although some designs are better than others, over- or undershooting your desired gear is common, and if you’re pedaling too fast or under too heavy a load, the chain can easily slip off the gears entirely, requiring a greasy manual adjustment. Wouldn’t it be nice if bikes could figure out how to change their own gears as painlessly and accurately as cars with automatic transmissions?

Gearing Up for a Change

Sure enough, automatic bicycle transmissions of various kinds have been in development for nearly 50 years, though they’re still quite rare (and often expensive). Mechanically, the main thing needed for a basic automatic bike transmission is a motor or piston that moves the chain between gears in place of the standard lever-operated cable. This is a relatively straightforward engineering problem, but the slightly trickier thing is working out how and when to tell the gears to shift. That computation requires the use of a tiny, battery-operated computer along with sensors that determine the current gear and the speeds at which wheels, pedals, and sprockets are moving. The computer constantly recalculates the optimal combination of front and rear gears to keep the rider at a consistent pedaling cadence, automatically signaling the gears to shift lower when going uphill or higher when going downhill. Using a controller on the handlebars, riders can, if they want, adjust the gearing to provide a more intense workout or a gentler ride; they can also override the automatic shifting entirely and use it as a power-assisted manual transmission.

The first automatic bicycle transmission was designed by the Browning family, whose main claim to fame had been gun design. For a while, Browning Components, Inc. was an independent company based near Seattle that focused solely on bicycles and bike transmissions. (It is now entirely defunct, as far as I can tell.) Their most interesting innovation was a special gear with a hinged section (somewhat like a pizza slice) that swung in and out to guide the chain from one gear to the next. It kept the chain engaged in sprockets at all times, rather than simply dropping onto the next gear, virtually eliminating the possibility of the chain slipping; it also made it possible to shift smoothly and almost silently regardless of speed or load. You can still find used Browning bikes or transmissions with some effort and luck.

Shifting More Than Gears

Shimano, the largest manufacturer of bicycle components such as brakes and shifters, also got into the automatic transmission business for a while. One of their designs used a seven-speed, internally geared hub; another used a power-assisted derailleur system, but added an automatic, powered suspension to adjust the comfort of the ride to fit current conditions. But Shimano, too, stopped making their automatic bike transmissions, presumably because they were unable to find enough people willing to pay a premium for them.

But a number of manufacturers are still developing and selling automatic bike transmissions of various kinds. For example, ProShift offers automatic transmissions that can be retrofitted onto racing bikes. SRAM, which makes wireless manual electronic shifting systems for conventional bikes and an automatic transmission for electric bikes, also sells the Automatix, a purely mechanical two-speed transmission built into a hub. And NuVinci offers continuously variable automatic transmissions for electric bikes, as well as manually adjustable, continuously variable transmissions for non-electric bikes, such as Priority Bicycles’ Continuum.

Adding an automatic transmission to a bicycle seems—in the abstract at least—like a wonderful step forward in user interface. It replaces something awkward with something invisible, which is the way good technology should be. But as numerous manufacturers have seen, cycling enthusiasts aren’t warming to the idea very quickly. Some are put off by the extra weight; some feel it’s not worth the money just to avoid having to move a lever; and some just think automatic transmissions are for wimps. Having never used one of these bikes myself, I can’t say whether the performance would be improved enough to make me want to ride my bike more often, but at least I would no longer view gear shifting as the annoyance I do now.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on June 26, 2003, and again in a slightly revised form on October 5, 2004.

Image credit: Keanu @ no:wp [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

My Latest Extremely Frugal Grocery Trips at the Scratch and Dent Store and Beyond

A few days ago I went shopping at two of my favorite stores, scratch and dent stores, where you can get so many delicious goodies for extremely cheap, because their packaging got messed up or they’re past their sell by date.
I was really excited to show you the pics from my shop, because what I got was certainly phenomenal deals for great products, and then I did another shop at a ‘regular’


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

How To Stay Safe On A Motorcycle Trip

Where I live cars are really expensive, and gasoline is also ridiculously priced. For that reason, many people locally opt to use motorcycles to get around instead of cars. However, frugality at the price of safety isn’t good, especially as motorcycles are known to be more deadline than cars. However, if you do want to get a motorcycle, pay attention to these tips by Nancy Evans, on how to ride


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

The benefits of prenuptial agreements

Prenuptial agreements are oftentimes misunderstood and provide a variety of advantages for couples who are considering marriage. Prenuptial agreements can protect the interests of both parties entering the marriage and are not just for couples with a significant amount of assets or for only the wealthy to consider.

Prenuptial agreements include the benefits of financial planning and clarifying responsibilities during the marriage, ensuring the new spouses are protected from the debts of the other and can also provide important protections for children from previous marriages or relationships, especially if a marriage comes later in life. Prenuptial agreements can help clarify how assets should be handled in circumstances of death and can avoid time-consuming and expensive disputes in the event there is a divorce.

There are a variety of legal complexities related to property and property division in Texas is it is helpful for the couple to be familiar with what these are. In addition, there are legal requirements to ensure the prenuptial agreement is valid that it is also important for couples considering a prenuptial agreement to be familiar with and ensure are taken care of. Without a prenuptial agreement, the parties will be subject to the state’s property division laws if they divorce.

Prenuptial agreements offer many advantages, including providing couples with more decisions-making power over their own affairs. Postnuptial agreements may also be an option couples should be familiar with and can consider. Because a prenuptial agreement can protect the interests of both parties, and offers so many advantages, couples considering marriage should be familiar with this important legal option.


Go to Source
Author: On behalf of Katie L. Lewis of Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law

The reality of judicial discretion in family law

As I am sure most family lawyers would agree, it is always worth listening to Mr. Justice Mostyn.  Recently the Hong Kong Family Law Association were treated to a speech by him on the subject of judicial discretion, and I wanted to share it with readers of this blog.

For the benefit of non-lawyers, judicial discretion refers to the situation in which the judge can apparently make any one of a range of possible decisions, having regard to the facts of the case. That is not to say that there are no limits upon what the judge can order, just that the decision can be anywhere in between the limits. As Mr Justice Mostyn explains, judicial discretion apparently exists in several areas of family law, but readers of this blog are perhaps likely to come across it in its most obvious form in the realm of financial remedies following divorce, where the judge can (seemingly) divide the assets in any way that he or she sees fit.

But does true judicial discretion exist, or is it just an illusion? Does it simply appear that the judge has full discretion, when they are actually just making a value judgment? Mr Justice Mostyn seeks to answer this question in his speech and concludes that, save in one situation, true judicial discretion does not actually exist in family law.

What, then, is the difference between an exercise of discretion and the formation of a value judgment? Mr Justice Mostyn says this:

“In a true discretionary situation, the court makes its pick from a range of choices none of which can be said to be exclusively right and none of which can be said to be wrong. In an evaluation the court is subjectively weighing concrete (“primary”) facts to determine the right result. If the required decision is a binary choice – a yes/no question – then, I would argue, the exercise is surely evaluative.”

Mr Justice Mostyn then examines how decisions are made in the various areas of family law in which judicial discretion apparently exists. For the purpose of this post, I will refer only to the financial remedies example.

Mr Justice Mostyn divides his argument between two factors that are at play in financial remedies cases: the ‘sharing principle’ (whereby, as a general guide, an equal division of assets between husband and wife should be departed from only if, and to the extent that, there is good reason for doing so), and the needs of the parties.

The application of the sharing principle, argues Mr Justice Mostyn, “is exclusively one of evaluation and there is nothing discretionary about it.” The process is to evaluate what assets of the marriage comprise ‘matrimonial property’ (i.e. essentially property acquired during the marriage), and to divide that property equally. There is no discretion involved.

Consideration of the needs of the parties, however, is the exception referred to above, where there is true judicial discretion. Here, the judge assesses the needs of the parties by reference to a number of factors. However, says Mr Justice Mostyn:

“This is not an “unfettered” or even a broad discretion. It is fettered and narrow. It is a discretion which is regulated by, and subordinated to, rules.”

Why does any of this matter? What difference does it make to those involved in family court proceedings?

Mr Justice Mostyn argues that:

“…most so-called discretionary situations are not in fact discretionary but require instead the formation of value judgments … such a process is fundamentally rules-based. In those situations where a true discretion is to be exercised, again, the process is always subordinated to clear rules and guidelines.

And he goes on:

“In the realm of discretion why do rules matter? The answer is simple. It is so that like cases are treated alike, and so that lawyers can confidently predict the result of a case in order to give good advice about settlement.”

Hmm. I suspect that there will be quite a large proportion of family lawyers who would find this a little difficult to swallow. Throughout my career, the position of most family lawyers attempting to advise clients as to what financial settlement the court is going to order has been to explain that the judge has a discretion as to what order he or she can make, and therefore that makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to say precisely what order they will make. This is not intended to be a ‘cop-out’ by the lawyers, trying to avoid committing themselves to something they will not be able to deliver, but a statement of the reality of the situation.

Having said that, I do think that Mr Justice Mostyn has a point. In many cases the reality is that there is no real discretion – the judge’s decision does simply boil down to a value judgment, constrained by rules and guidelines. Lawyerly thinking along those lines may just make it a little easier to advise clients.

You can read the full speech here.

The post The reality of judicial discretion in family law appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Rescue from Dunkirk

British troops escaping from Dunkirk in lifeboats (France, 1940).

Triumph of His Majesty’s Bathtub Navy

Stories of war—whether modern or historical—are not usually of much interest to me. I don’t like to dwell on tragedy, and war is always tragic, for every side, regardless of the motivations or outcome. Occasionally, however, in the midst of tragedy is a story of hope that is worth retelling. I told such a story here back in 2005, back when the Battle of Dunkirk (which has always been well known in Britain and France), was little known in North America. Then Christopher Nolan had to go and make an Oscar-winning movie about it. So the story is much better known now in outside Europe, but no less interesting, unique, or inspiring.

The year was 1940, and World War II was raging. Hitler’s army had overtaken Belgium and advanced into France. Britain sent over 300,000 troops to assist the French army, but in spite of those sizable numbers, the German force was winning, due to their superior armaments, training, and organization. By late May, German troops had the bulk of the allied forces surrounded, trapped in Dunkirk (Dunkerque in French), in the northernmost corner of France across the English Channel from Dover. To the east was occupied Belgium; to the south and west, the advancing German army; to the north, the sea.

Operation Dynamo

Britain had already suffered severe casualties in France, and they knew this battle could not be won. Retreat was the only option, but all escape routes had been blocked. Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay, headquartered in the reinforced tunnels beneath Dover Castle, was put in charge of evacuating the troops. The rescue plan was code-named Operation Dynamo.

Unfortunately, there were several major problems. Time was quickly running out for the cornered British troops. Ramsay believed he had a week at most to rescue the soldiers, who were packed onto the beaches and being shelled mercilessly. An exodus by sea was the only possibility, but German planes had sunk so many ships in Dunkirk harbor that it was nearly impossible to navigate, and U-boats posed a constant threat. Farther to the west, where the beaches were, the water was so shallow that British destroyers and transport ships could not get any closer than about a mile (1.6km). As if that weren’t enough, Britain had far too few vessels available to transport the hundreds of thousands of soldiers trapped on the beach, even under the best conditions.

Ramsay was deliberate and methodical in his preparations. He arranged transportation, food, and medical care for the troops that would soon be arriving in Dover. He sought out every available ship, and established a complex and efficient communications network. Logistics in place, Operation Dynamo was put into motion on May 26. But after the first day, the outlook was grim. Fewer than 8,000 troops had been rescued, and the most optimistic estimate was that a total of 45,000 might escape before Germany overtook the beaches—at the rate the operation was progressing, it would take 40 days to rescue all the remaining troops. Ramsay faced the possibility that the core of the British army would be wiped out. At that time, conventional wisdom held that Britain would inevitably be invaded as soon as France fell, and with so much of its army gone, Britain’s defenses would be in ruins.

The Bathtub Navy Saves the Day

In desperation, Ramsay put out a public call for help: everyone with a boat—any kind of boat—was asked to help rescue the troops. The response was instantaneous and overwhelming. A makeshift flotilla of 850 “Little Ships”—yachts, lifeboats, fishing boats, and anything else that could float—rushed to the scene. Most of the boats were manned by British sailors, but in many cases the civilian owners themselves risked gunfire and mines to make the 22-mile (35km) crossing. When possible, the small craft were used just to ferry troops to the larger vessels offshore, but thousands of troops used them for transport all the way back to England. By the morning of May 29, officials estimated that 2,000 troops per hour were being evacuated. Nine days after Operation Dynamo began, a total of 338,226 people—including about 95,000 French troops—had been rescued.

Churchill called it a “miracle of deliverance,” and the “Dunkirk spirit” quickly became the stuff of legend. In retrospect, the eventual allied victory might well have been thwarted had Britain lost hundreds of thousands of troops at Dunkirk. Nevertheless, the massive rescue could hardly be considered a victory. There was more to the story than the heartwarming tale of heroism.

The Other Side of the Story

For one thing, the escape was not as clean as the media made it sound. While swarms of small boats were shuttling soldiers off the beach, more than four hundred Luftwaffe fighters attacked, dropping bombs and inflicting heavy casualties. Soldiers returning to England described the beaches as littered with dead bodies. In all, tens of thousands of people lost their lives at Dunkirk.

In addition, the highly publicized rescue obscured the fact that thousands of British troops were still trapped elsewhere in France. Two weeks later, the British ship Lancastria was returning from a rescue mission when it was sunk off the coast of Brittany. Half of the 6,000 passengers lost their lives, but nothing was mentioned in the press about the incident for weeks, lest it dampen the spirits that had been uplifted by the Dunkirk miracle.

Meanwhile, France felt deeply betrayed. The British troops had ostensibly come to their rescue, but then fled the German army. Without any hope left from across the Channel, France surrendered to Hitler within three weeks. Notwithstanding the many French soldiers rescued at Dunkirk, many in France resented what they regarded as British cowardice. It wasn’t until 1944 that Britain redeemed itself, when British and American forces collaborated in the D-Day operation, leading to France’s liberation.

Dunkirk Redux

In June of 2000, on the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Dunkirk, Britain commemorated the event with a massive celebration. A large number of small boats reenacted the Channel crossing to Dunkirk. Although there weren’t nearly as many boats as there had been in 1940, some of the original craft had been restored specifically so that they could make the journey again. While British television crews lined the Dunkirk shore to relay the landings to exuberant crowds back home, the French media—as might be expected—gave little coverage to the event.

About 800 British and French veterans who had been rescued at Dunkirk attended a massive parade past the town hall. Prince Charles gave a speech at the Dunkirk Memorial in both English and French, praising the courage of all those who had helped in the miraculous rescue. The remaining members of the Dunkirk veterans’ associations—many in their 80s and 90s—chose that occasion to officially disband their organizations.

Politics and media spin aside, the story of the Battle of Dunkirk inspires me for one simple reason: it shows ordinary people lifting the veil of war—the impersonal propaganda of numbers—and seeing each other as human beings. Fisherman didn’t row across the English channel to transport “troops”; they risked their lives to rescue people with names and faces. That the public could, however briefly, set aside their habit of detached reliance on the machinery of government and take personal responsibility for other lives—especially in a time of war—is to me an immensely hopeful sign. It’s a step toward understanding that the soldiers wearing different uniforms are human beings too.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on April 16, 2003, and again in a slightly revised form on January 21, 2005.

Image credit: Frank Capra (film) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Top seven myths of adultery

Affairs are often a symptom of a failing marriage rather than the cause.  We frequently work with clients who are seeking a divorce because they have found out their spouse is having an affair and clients who are the ones having the affair.

An affair does not necessarily mean the end of the marriage but for those couples where it is a deal-breaker, there so many myths surrounding adultery and divorce. Often offered as fact from well-meaning friends and family, we asked Rebecca Coates from our Tunbridge Wells office to dispel her top seven myths of adultery.

“I am always surprised when advising clients about adultery, the many misconceptions that exist about the law. Even those clients who wish to use it as a supporting fact in their divorce petition. So, I decided to bust the seven myths I hear the most.

Myth one: Adultery covers any sexual behaviour

This is not true. Adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other but at least one of whom is a married person. Attempts to commit adultery do not amount to adultery but could be used as examples of unreasonable behaviour. If your spouse has an affair with a member of the same sex this does not constitute as adultery in the eyes of the law

Myth two: You must name the person who your husband/wife committed the adultery with

There is no requirement to do this. You should only name them if you think the respondent is going to defend proceedings. The person with whom it is alleged that the respondent has committed adultery with, will be called the “co-respondent.” The co-respondent will be made a party to the proceedings and will be served with copies of the divorce petition.

Myth three: Adultery petitions are very common.

They are quite rare. Not only does the person filing the divorce petition have to have knowledge that the adultery has taken place (suspicion does not count) but the respondent must admit to the adultery.

If the respondent fails to admit to the adultery, the Court will arrange a hearing and both parties will be required to give evidence.

Generally, it is not possible to provide direct evidence so circumstantial evidence may be relied on. The Court may also require evidence not just of an opportunity to commit adultery, but also of an inclination or passion to commit it.

Once the Court has heard and/or read all the evidence, it will make a decision as to whether the respondent committed adultery based on the balance of probabilities.

This approach carries a certain amount of risk and I always recommend to clients that want to serve a divorce petition on the grounds of adultery, that they agree with their ex-spouse beforehand that they will admit to the adultery and complete and sign the Acknowledgement of Service form.

Alternatively, you can use the supporting fact of your spouse’s unreasonable behaviour but refer to the adultery as an example of their behaviour. A reference of “improper association,” can also be listed as another example of their unreasonable behaviour.

Myth four: I will get a better divorce settlement because my spouse cheated

A common myth but regardless of whether your divorce on the grounds of adultery, the adulterous behaviour of you or your ex-spouse has very little bearing on the financial settlement overall.

Myth five: Adultery petitions have no time limits

No, incorrect. If you have found out about your spouse’s adultery but have continued to live with them for a period exceeding six months, you are barred from relying on adultery.

For the avoidance of doubt, living together is defined as living with each other in the same household. I have been asked “What if the adultery is continuing? How does that work with the time limit?” The answer is that for this purpose, adultery refers to one act of adultery. Therefore, where the adultery continues, the time limit will not run until the last act of adultery.

Myth six: Adultery before marriage will still count if you find out about it after the marriage

If the affair took place before you were married, then it is not considered adultery. It is only considered adultery if the affair continues after the marriage.

Myth seven: It is not adultery if you have separated from your ex-spouse.

In the eyes of the law, you are committing adultery. If you are separated from your spouse and you sleep with a member of the opposite sex this is adultery under English Law as you are still legally married.

Even if you are living apart, have agreed to see other people or your ex-spouse is aware of the relationship it is still adultery and can be used as the basis of a divorce petition.”

Get in touch

If you are looking for advice on adultery and divorce, please do contact our Client Care Team here.

The post Top seven myths of adultery appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Rebecca Coates

I am a one in ten. Or should that be four in ten?*

The real lesson that the figure for couples needing the court to sort out arrangements for their children teaches us.

As I have said here many times before, I practised family law for about twenty-five years, during which time I dealt with thousands of cases. With that experience I thought I had acquired a reasonably good understanding of family breakdown generally, and the problems that arise from it. In particular I believed I had obtained a fairly accurate impression of what proportion of separating couples were unable to resolve their problems without recourse to the courts.

My impression was that there were broadly three categories: those couples who could resolve their problems without needing a lawyer, those couples who were able to resolve their problems with the assistance of a lawyer or a mediator, and those couples who required to court to resolve their problems.  Obviously, I had nothing to do with the first category, so I could only guess as to their numbers. As to the second category, it seemed to me that this comprised the majority of my clients, and those who had to go to court comprised the minority. And of those who had to go to court the majority were able to settle without having to rely upon the court to impose a decision at the final hearing.

In short, it seemed to me that the number of couples who relied upon the court to resolve their problems was relatively small. Accordingly, when I first heard it mentioned some years ago (I don’t recall where) that only about 10% of separating couples go to court to resolve children disputes, that seemed to confirm my impression. That ‘10% rule’ has often since been repeated, to the point that it became generally accepted, including by me. However, new thinking on the subject has thrown my impression into doubt.

I know that many have challenged my impression in the past, but I was first really alerted to this new thinking in a speech that the new President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane gave to the Resolution Conference last month, and that has since been taken up by a post that the fathers’ rights group Families Need Fathers (‘FNF’) had published here last week.

Sir Andrew referred to work done on the subject by Teresa Williams, the Director of Strategy at CAFCASS. He said that figures she had compiled indicated “that around 38% of couples need to go to court to resolve disagreements over how they should care for their child post-separation”, which he called “a far cry from the previous comfortable urban myth based on a figure of 10%.” He went on to say that this new figure:

“…indicates a major societal problem, with nearly 40% of parents unable to sort out the arrangements for their own child without the need [to] apply for a court order.”

Hmm. 40%? That does seem awfully high. As I said above, I always subscribed to the ‘10% rule’, for the simple reason that, based upon my twenty-five odd years’ experience practising as a family lawyer, it ‘seemed about right’. I am prepared to accept that the 10% figure may actually be on the low side, but I’m quite sure that it was not the case that four out of ten of my clients with children had to go to court to sort out arrangements for them (and that is ignoring the number of couples who never needed to consult a lawyer anyway).

Of course, there is a major difference between how things are now and how they were when I was practising: the lack of legal aid. When I was practising, legal aid was available to all, which meant that all couples might have their problems resolved by agreement with the benefit of a lawyer, or a mediator (cases resolved by mediation are now about half the number they were before legal aid was abolished).

Anyway, whatever we think of it, it seems we must now accept the 40% figure as the new gospel. But why does all of this matter?

Well, in a sense it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter to the individual couple whether they are part of 10% or part of 40% of couples who need the court to sort things out for them. And you could say that it doesn’t matter to the court system, which is already (just) dealing with exactly the amount of couples that require its services.

However, both the President and FNF point to what the new figure says about the scale of the problem of parents unable to sort out arrangements for their children themselves, and the need to find new ways of dealing with the problem. That may be so, but if the figure is correct then that is an appalling indictment of parenting in this country. Surely, the vast majority (more like 90%) of parents should be quite capable on their own of working out what was really best for their children? Surely, therefore, the real lesson all of this teaches us is the need to educate regarding how parents should behave when they separate: how they should put their children first, how they should never use them as weapons in any dispute with the other parent, and that it is almost always in the best interests of children to retain as full as possible a relationship with both of their parents. Such a programme of education would I believe substantially increase the proportion of separating parents that are able to resolve their issues themselves, without recourse to the courts, or indeed outside assistance of any sort.

*With apologies to the band UB40 (at least that’s how I recall the lyric).

The post I am a one in ten. Or should that be four in ten?* appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch