I read a lot of news stories and columns about divorce, and I often find myself reading the same things over and over again. Similar stories, similar bits of advice and words of caution. So it really jumps out at me when I find something that offers a fresh perspective, and that was most definitely the case when I saw a column in a Michigan newspaper written by a high school senior who is a child of divorce.

What she had to say should resonate long and hard for any divorced parent, no matter what stage of divorce you're in. She writes about how her parents struggled to compromise as they worked to agree on a visitation schedule. As part of the process, the family was assigned a "friend of the court." Perhaps the most striking thing she wrote is that she never actually met the person who served in that official capacity.

When we talk about mediation here at FWW, it always seems to me like a foregone conclusion that whoever does the mediating would at least meet the children. The fact that it isn't a requirement is appalling. Perhaps there's a reason for it. Maybe the court doesn't want that person's decision-making process to be swayed by a child's undoubtedly emotional reaction. But you know what? I think that comes with the territory.

The writer goes on to say that by following the letter of the law, a parent could be thrown in jail if the visitation schedule isn't adhered to by all parties. And sometimes the visitations don't happen because emotions get in the way. Depending on how bitter and angry and resentful the parents are, the whole thing could easily be turned into a regrettable nightmare. But again, the most important message here is that you have a child of divorce telling you that nobody listened to her — mom, dad, the friend of the court — no one. She grew up feeling like she didn't have a role or a choice in what was happening to her family. She referred to herself as a prisoner of war.

This is a fun little story out of Canada, where a woman is having all sorts of trouble getting the judge to believe that her husband has got some questionable sources of income. She has made claims that the guy hasn't reported all of his income, but the judge isn't buying it. The guy definitely sounds suspicious, though. He's into some sort of real estate dealings and owns a hip-hop clothing store. And his estranged wife says he moves in gambling circles and wanted the judge to restrict him from taking the couple's two children to certain places.

Lots of talk, but apparently no proof. The woman was granted 55 percent of the family assets, but the judge issued a joint custody ruling despite the fact that the guy at least looks a little shady. He reportedly secured a $500,000 loan without any registered security. Something tells me that doesn't happen unless you know certain kinds of people, if you catch my drift.

You would think that appearances are everything when it comes to a judge making a custody ruling in a divorce trial. Maybe the guy used some of that half million to buy himself some really talented lawyers.

Click here for more.

The leader of an Ohio pro-marriage group is pushing the Catholic church to put the screws to Catholics who stray from their marriages.

She cites an example of a Virginia man who cheated on his wife and then left her and their seven children, moving in with "the other woman" who got pregnant with his child. Among the provisions of the couple's divorce, the mother is not to tell the children who is "to blame" for the divorce. Both parents are to jointly make decisions about the children's moral instruction. The parents have a joint custody arrangement, which this activist finds objectionable, because the father is now living with "the other woman."

There are a few other points she makes, generally saying that the provisions of the divorce agreement are contradictory with Canon Law. I think the point this activist is trying to make is that when people choose to live their lives as part of the church, they can't just adhere to the parts they find convenient. She's basically saying that since this guy called himself a Catholic and entered his marriage that way, he should be required to live up to everything involved in the faith.

The problem, of course, is that it's not very practical. To be sure, it absolutely sucks that this guy ran out on his family. If I were his ex-wife I'm not sure I'd ever want my children to see him again. But that's easier said than done, as we all know. It's an interesting religious and legal debate, but at the end of the day, there are real people — real children — involved here. Even if the mother violates all the provisions of their divorce — even if she tells the kids, "your dad is an asshole who ran off with a 21-year old and knocked her up" — it's still not going to keep those kids from wanting to be with their daddy.

There is a story out of Florida that is so sad, scary and horrifying, I almost don't know where to begin. A man is being held without bond after forcing his way into a day care facility and allegedly shooting his estranged wife to death in front of a room full of toddlers.

The couple has been in the process of a divorce since October, and have been going through mediation to determine custody and visitation of their 2-year old daughter, who was apparently at the day care facility when this happened on Friday. The divorce had become more and more contentious as time went on. The man purchased the alleged murder weapon at a pawn shop last week and spent time drinking in a bar on Friday before going to the day care and firing two shots into his wife's chest. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

The man blames the stress of the divorce. But obviously, there's a lot more going on here than that. This was pre-meditated, from the sounds of it. And clearly, the guy has something wrong with him. But here's hoping the legal system won't allow him to hide behind an insanity plea. Anyone who murders someone in front of children deserves to fry.

Not only does this couple's little girl essentially not have parents anymore, you've got a whole room full of children traumatized and maybe even scarred for life because of this. What an unbelievable tragedy.

Click here for more.

With a presidential primary going on, you'd think politicians in Michigan would have plenty on their plate, but one state representative thinks the legislature should take up its time on a bill that would help determine who gets custody of pets in a divorce.

Now, nobody loves dogs more than I do. I've got two of them. But does anyone think this needs to be the business of government? I guess at least one guy in Michigan does. Why, I have no idea. The law would require divorcing couples to spell out the arrangements for pets, or else the judge would decide what happens to the pets. Is it just me, or is that pretty much already the way it works?

I'd have to agree with lawyers quoted in a news story I read about this who say the court's time doesn't need to be taken up with such things. Pets are important. We love them. But people need to be able to decide these things on their own, without legal intervention.

The funny thing is, this happens to just about everyone. Even Richard Mellon Scaife, as we wrote about the other day, is arguing with his estranged wife over who gets the dog.

Click here for more.

A couple of stories I read in the last few days served as a reminder of how deeply-rooted Islamic beliefs can and do play havoc with marriage and divorce.

The first was a story I've actually written about here before. The Washington Post ran a front-page story on Saturday on the Egyptian woman who got three cell phone text messages from her husband saying, "I divorce you," and now that nation's courts are determining whether that constitutes a legal divorce. Under Islamic law, a man can end a divorce simply by declaring that desire to his wife on three occasions. The Post story wasn't much different than previous coverage, but apparently the Egyptian courts are presently debating the matter and preparing to rule. So this will be something to watch.

Meanwhile, a man in Saudi Arabia has decided to end his 10-year marriage because he discovered that when he and his wife were infants, they were breast fed by the same woman. It's apparently common in some cultures for surrogate mothers to nurse other women's children, and in Islam, any children nursed by the same woman are considered "milk siblings" — whether they are related or not. So despite a decade together — a union that has produced four children — the man wants a divorce because as far as he's concerned, he's married to his sister.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But the fact that the man in this "milk siblings" case wants a divorce really stretches the limits of my religious tolerance. It's just an entirely different sensibility at work that I don't think I'll ever understand.

The ongoing saga of conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife's very public divorce battle continues to unfold. Apparently now the billionaire and his estranged wife are arguing about who gets their dog and $1,800 worth of asparagus thongs.

And you thought there were petty arguments in your divorce.

It's easy to figure that insanely wealthy people aren't put through the wringer in a divorce. They've got the means and the "people" to deal with things. Seriously, do you imagine Scaife getting on the phone with his wife to have a discussion about the asparagus thongs, or is the whole issue more his lawyer's doing?

However those sorts of things play themselves out, it must be distracting for a divorce happen in public view. As you can see, the blogosphere has been buzzing with details of Scaife's divorce for going on two years, and so has the mainstream press. We've talked about it here too, including the $725,000 per month he's been paying in alimony.

We'd probably all like to have that kind of money to part with. But it comes with its own set of problems. I'd take an average Jane and Joe divorce — out of the public eye — any day of the week.

Click here for more.

As long as Britney Spears and Kevin Federline keep talking, or having court dates to settle their custody problems, or having meltdowns that land one of them in the psych ward, people are going to keep writing about them.

But K-Fed says that's OK. Why? People want to know what happens to the tabloid family of the year because it makes others "feel normal." I guess there's something to be said for that. Britney and K-Fed are hardly the first parents to have a dramatic divorce and custody battle. So to that extent, a lot of people can relate to them.

The problem is most people can't relate to the attempt to maintain one's stardom while a marriage is falling apart and kids' futures are hanging in the balance. Most divorcing mothers don't go staggering around on stage in their underwear, and most divorcing fathers aren't plotting their comeback and starring in Super Bowl TV commercials. And that's because most divorcing parents immerse themselves in the tasks at hand — both the legal ones and the day-to-day ones, like going to work and keeping a roof over their heads.

Hey K-Fed, maybe looking at other people's divorce and custody battles should make YOU feel normal.

Click here for more.

There's one thing about divorce that never ceases to amaze me. There are always legal and financial complications — even when there are official documents drawn up specifically to prevent that. I was reminded of this when I read a recent piece by a financial advice columnist with a suburban Chicago newspaper.

A man wrote in asking what to do about his ex-wife, who had one year to decide whether to sell their house or stay in it,refinance it, and take him off the title. Well, it turns out she's missed a couple of payments and now the mortgage company is coming after him for the cash. As far as the mortgage company is concerned, the guy and his ex-wife both are still on the hook. It makes no difference what the divorce paperwork says. And that's a crucial lesson for anyone who's in a similar situation.

Now, it's true that this guy has the law on his side to the extent that the judge in their divorce case is going to make the woman pay eventually. Or she'll be forced to sell. But in the interim, the best thing this guy can do is pay the mortgage company and then recoup the money from his ex-wife in court. Of course, making those payments is probably easier said than done. And therein lies the problem. You don't want to be stuck in that situation. With his name still on the title, he's not going to be able to get another loan, and those missed payments are going to start to impact his credit rating if he's not careful. Never mind the fact that he's probably got his own rent to worry about — now he's got to find cash to make those mortgage payments too.

We all know Israel as a bastion of democracy in a part of the world where that concept is more the exception than the rule. But after reading about Israel's divorce laws, you start to realize that the country is as ass-backward as many others.

There is a new amendment that's working its way through the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) that would make things significantly better for women in divorce cases. But it is meeting with resistance and may not end up being enacted into law. The new proposal would allow civil and rabbinical courts to divide marital assets before a divorce is finalized. Currently, the division happens after the divorce is finalized, and since men have to give consent for divorce they can usually strong-arm their soon-to-be ex-wives into giving them most of what they want.

Just writing that explanation made me glad I live in the U.S.

The new law would also place more emphasis on professional accomplishments gained during a marriage. So if a woman earned a degree or a promotion, she would have a significant claim on the assets the couple accrued as a result of her advancement.

The fact that they need new laws like this in 2008 (or whatever year it is on the Israeli calendar) is really pretty discouraging.

Click here for more.