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.

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.

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.