Most of us at some point in time have heard the horror stories surrounding child support payments and alimony. You may have experienced it first hand, or perhaps a friend or loved one has become exasperated trying to collect money that is owed to them. But now a recent poll conducted by GFK Roper gives us a better picture of just how many people are affected by lack of support payments.

The poll showed that 24 percent of divorced Americans are supposed to be receiving child support payments, but only a handful of people are actually getting the payments. Only 25 percent of people who are supposed to be receiving alimony actually got the entire amount, 29 percent didn't receive any amount at all and only 17 percent received a partial amount. Perhaps the even scarier statistic is that only 6 percent of people not receiving child support or alimony payments are actually fighting for their rights.

Something has to be done when only 6 percent of people not receiving money owed to them because of a divorce are able to stand up and ask for what they deserve. There may be a few reasons why this is so. I know of a few people who have decided not to go after their ex-spouse because they know their ex does not have the money the court has ordered them to pay. However, this rarely seems to be the case.

Instead, there is a prevalent belief that either the court will not be able to make the ex-spouse pay, or more commonly it is too expensive to go to court in the first place. Because they are not receiving support payments in the first place, many people in this position can't come up with the money to pay for additional court costs and lawyer fees.

Do you sometimes find yourself forgetting what life with your spouse was like before you got married? Well, now there is a group in California that can help you do something about that.

The California Healthy Marriages Coalition has come up with the "Ten Great Dates" program, which it offers to couples 18 years of age and older. The concept is a rather simple one. Couples meet up at a central location to watch a thematic video, which changes every week for ten weeks. After the video, couples discuss as a group what they thought of the film and the ideas that were introduced, then they go on their own date.

The purpose of the meeting is to promote better communication between partners, anger resolution, and balancing a busy lifestyle — all things that can lead to trouble in any marriage. By participating in the meetings, couples in all stages of marriage can work on resolving problems before they become an issue. And since child care is provided on-site, you don't even have to worry about what to do with the kids while you're gone.

The idea of couples participating in marriage counselling before issues arise is not a new one, but here it is done in a new way. The group not only provides avenues for discussion but an actual practical way for you and your partner to make time for each other, something many married couples forget to do.

Click here for more.

Professors at the University of Grenada have discovered that 25 percent of children of divorced parents experience Parental Alienation Syndrome, also known as PAS.

PAS refers to "manipulation of children by the custodial parent, who incessantly tries to turn them against the other parent by arousing in them feelings of hatred and contempt for the target parent". The authors state that the target parent is usually men, since women typically have more custodial control and therefore more time to influence their children. It is estimated that approximately one in four children are affected PAS.

Children exposed to PAS will often not only reject their parent, generally their father, but his friends and family as well. The child may also take the hatred they have been taught to feel towards the target parent and apply it to grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and anyone else associated with the target parent, causing the child to "expel (these people) from their lives."

Symptoms of children experiencing this syndrome often include denigrating the target parent, having no trouble expressing negative feelings toward that parent, refusing to admit that they have been influenced by anyone, lack of guilt towards their opinions of the target parent, and recounting events that they could not have witnessed but have heard from other people. Typically, children between the ages of 9 and 12 are most likely to be affected. It is less likely to occur in divorces that are mutual.

Here at First Wives World, we've seen many women struggling with the fact that their ex-husband is not more involved with the kids. Trying to balance work life and home life with children is never easy, and it is very tempting to wish there was another person involved to help relieve the pressure. But have we really stopped to think about what that means?

In this article on Mom Logic, one woman talks about the issues with her custodial plan. I assume that she and her ex live in the same city and therefore her children are able to attend the same school from either parent's house, but here's what the court set up: Mondays through Wednesdays with one parent, Wednesday evening through Saturday morning with the other parent, with weekends alternating between parents. As the author says, "Essentially, the children are being shuttled back and forth every two to three days." Because she's afraid of how the stress of constantly relocating is affecting her kids, she says she lets them get away with more than she used to.

She and her ex don't get along well, and there's a huge communication gap between the two of them. With her children spending so much time there, she feels she is missing out. "No stories about new milestones that I'm missing or life's lessons that the children are learning, no tales of how these beautiful little people are growing or changing when I'm not with them. He has no interest in sharing any of it."

How to raise their children has also become a problem. She doesn't know what he's teaching them when they're with him. She doesn't know if he's respecting the boundaries and controls that she uses with her kids, and she has no control over who the children come into contact with. If he has a new girlfriend, she can only hope that this person is loving and will respect her kids.

Over the last little while, we've posted quite a few articles discussing the state of divorce in various countries around the world. One thing that has become clear is that divorce is not a Western phenomenon. Today I found an article in The Times of India that discusses divorce in the city of Pune, India.

Pune saw an increase in their divorce rate from 150 cases per month in 2006 to 240 cases per month in 2007. There were a multitude of reasons given including lack of compatibility, cruelty, domestic violence, irregular communication, and interfering in-laws.

There were two interesting facts that I took from this article. The first involved the counseling provided by the family court where couples filed for divorce. I would never discourage couples from going to counseling, but this was interesting. The courts found that counseling, rather than encouraging couples to resolve their issues and stay together, ended up turning a unilateral divorce into a divorce by mutual consent. In other words, counseling turned one person demanding a divorce into both people agreeing that divorce was a good idea.

Secondly, one of the most popular reasons cited for divorce in India was interference from family members. Quoted from the article, "spouses prefer to talk about personal issues not with each other but with their respective families. This creates a communication void between them which results in misunderstandings.

Also, parents can't easily let go of their authority over their children. They are in the habit of interfering in the couple's day-to-day activities." Now, I come from a family were I love my parents very much, but if a month goes by without us speaking no-one is all that concerned, so it's hard to imagine parents who feel that they should interfere in a marriage.

It's a little bit more interesting than your garden variety "irreconcilable differences".

Click here for more.

Sometimes it amazes me how often we need to prove scientifically that which we already know through plain common sense. An article on the ScienceDaily Web site is a good case in point.

The article pointed out that children of divorce often become emotionally distant from their fathers, more so that their counterpart whose parents are still together. Compared to their pre-teen years, 56 percent of teens with divorced parents felt they were more withdrawn from their fathers, whereas the number was only 28 percent for teens whose parents were still together.

If we think about it, this makes sense for a variety of reasons. In most divorces, mothers are granted custody of the children and fathers are given only part-time access. Therefore it is the mother who is now taking care of the teen and it seems normal that the teen would gravitate away from their father. Additionally, many divorces are filed by women, which means it was usually the father who did something that led the mother to file for divorce in the first place. As society gradually loses it's stigma over divorce, it's more likely that the teen won't blame their mother for filing, but instead blame their father for making her file.

It looks like the best thing a father can do is to begin as you mean to continue. Don't wait to develop a strong bond with your child after you get divorced — create a relationship that is strong enough to handle a divorce. That means taking an interest in your child from the get-go rather than leaving it all up to the mother. Fortunately for fathers, it seems like they're finally beginning to listen.

Click here for more.

There was big news in the divorce blogging world a few weeks ago when a study was released saying that divorce was bad for the environment. When a couple splits up, there becomes a need for two apartments or houses, two beds, two cars, even two toasters. We salute the people who are able to divorce but voluntarily stay together. But imagine being forced to stay together even after the split.

This is the situation currently going on in Cuba. The tiny island is facing a severe housing shortage, estimated to be about 500,000 homes short of demand. People who divorce in Cuba — and there are a lot of them, with a divorce rate of 64 percent — are often forced to live together for years, or sometimes even their entire lives, simply because there is nowhere for them to go.

Mirta, a 45-year-old Cuban national, divorced her husband in 1997. Now, more than 10 years later, she and her ex are still living in the same two-bedroom apartment with their adult children. While many Cubans do not want to be on record as openly criticizing their government for the housing shortage, it's not difficult to imagine how many people must be affected by this issue.

The result has been a type of black market for housing, where people meet strangers on the beach, looking to swap their two-bedroom apartment for two one-bedroom units. This is a black market because under the communist rule, all housing changes and moves must be first approved by the government.

The article I read referred to this as a testament to "Cubans' ability to stay friendly — or at least civil — under the most awkward of circumstances." I guess, but I'm glad I don't have to do it.

Click here for more.

Imagine that you and your spouse have divorced and are sharing custody of your son. You've gone through the divorce process and all that entails — the usual custody battles and fights over the division of assets — and the bitterness and hurt feelings that accompanies the court proceedings. At the end of that process, you'll ask yourself "How did my spouse become this person? How did I end up hating him so much?"

Well, imagine at the end of this process you realized one incontrovertible truth — you still love your spouse. How do you handle this?

Peter Ehrlich wrote an article for the Toronto Star outlining this exact issue. His ex-wife and he share joint custody of their son, and she works at the same school his son attends. One day, while picking up his son from school, he was informed that his ex-wife hadn't shown up for work. Knowing it was extremely unlike her not to call if she couldn't come in, he went to her apartment only to find she wasn't there.

After frantically calling her friends, he finally tracked her down at the local hospital were she'd been rushed by ambulance because of a gall bladder attack. After finally locating her and realizing she was alright, he broke down in tears.

Divorce is always difficult, but it's especially so when two people may not be in love, but still love each other. It's easy to get caught up in the acrimonious nature of divorce proceedings, and to act like you hate the person you're divorcing. After all, the fact that you can't stand each other must be the reason you're divorcing in the first place, right? It's almost expected of you by your friends and family, and sometimes it's easier to act like you no longer love someone than to explain to everyone why you're divorcing someone you still love.

What is the one thing divorced couples have in common? Ask any of them, and you'll find at least one member of the ex-couple is not happy with the way divorce is currently handled by the legal system. One organization, Men and Women Against Discrimination (MAWAD) is attempting to do something about that.

MAWAD bills itself as an organization attempting to level the playing field in divorce proceedings within a system that they feel is skewed. Among their complaints, they state that the system is favored towards those who can afford the best lawyers, which means that women are usually the ones at a disadvantage.

On the flip side, they also feel that men are disadvantaged when it comes to child custody. The current system automatically favors mothers unless the father can prove she is unfit. As well, they state that the current system is extremely susceptible to doctored charges of child abuse and domestic violence.

So here's what they are doing about it. To date, MAWAD has introduced legislation for the following:
1. 50-50 parenting, where each parent enters custody talks on an equal footing, with no assumption of who would "naturally" be the best parent
2. Open family court documents and decisions, making them part of the public record
3. Mandatory consequences for false allegations of child abuse or domestic violence
4. Mandatory consequences for denial of visitation rights and child concealment.

Interestingly, for this last point MAWAD is looking to have the penalties for denial of visitation and child concealment reduced. Currently these charges are automatic felonies, which has resulted in enforcement agencies refusing to press charges. They argue for a "3 Strikes" system where the charge would not be considered a felony unless it was the third occurrence. Hopefully, this would result in more charges being laid.

Imagine you've just caught your spouse cheating — unfortunately for many, not a difficult task. You go through the entire gamut of emotions, and you ask your spouse to leave. But what do you do when they just won't go?

Lawyers are now counselling their clients not to leave until they have a full divorce agreement in writing. Martha McCarthy is a family law lawyer who has practiced for over 15 years. When asked if she would counsel clients to remain in the home despite a breakdown in relations, McCarthy answered she would, lamenting "But I hate giving that advice. Every time I give it, I hate hearing myself say it. I think it's awful."

During divorce proceedings, the court examines what it calls the status quo, and diligently attempts to maintain it. They examine if the status quo has changed and if so, who changed it. What this means is that a person who makes a temporary decision — "I'll move out until the arrangements are finalized" — may end up unwittingly making a permanent change. The court asserts that since they moved out, this is the new status quo and must be maintained.

Such was the case for Louise, a Canadian woman who discovered her husband was cheating on her. She asked him to leave and he agreed. However, after one visit to his lawyer he changed his mind and refused to move out. His lawyer had advised him that by leaving the home, he would be changing the status quo by making Louise the primary caregiver of their children. That would put him at a disadvantage when it came to custody and visitation hearings.