In do-it-yourself divorce you may be at a disadvantage because:

1. You will not understand how the divorce judge makes his/her decisions.
2. Judges are bound by guidelines and precedence of other cases that you know about without a lawyer to guide you.
3. The court will not come to your aid, or help you put on your case. If you don't understand, you're on your own.
4. If your spouse retains an attorney, they will know how to work the system because they have years of practice.
5. Cross examination of witnesses is important, and you may not be effective in challenging testimony.
6. You may unintentionally show your emotions in the courtroom which could antagonize the judge who doesn't consider issues based upon emotions.
7. If there are children, property, pensions, or investments involved, you need an attorney to broker a financial agreement. Custody, support, visitation, alimony, and property division are best worked out by an attorney acting as your advocate.

Going pro se doesn't usually save money because thorny matters may protract the case. Saving a few thousand dollars and promptly losing your half of the house is not exactly a cost savings.

A lawyer may not be necessary in a marriage of less than 10 years with no children, real estate, personal property, alimony or support involved, and when the divorce is uncontested and no-fault. Electronic forms are abundantly available. If you go this route it is best to seek legal advice from an attorney who you do not retain but who makes the procedure understandable.

Most people cynically believe that well-connected, rich or politically powerful people are given favorable treatment in many instances. And in this case, they might be onto something. Political and personal connections paid off for Georgia state House Speaker, Glenn Richardson, in his recent quickie divorce.

In the same afternoon, his divorce case was filed, a hearing was held in private, and a final decree of divorce was granted by a judge who had been a partner in Richardson's law firm. This was done despite state law calling for a 30-day waiting period before a divorce becomes final. The case documents were ordered sealed immediately, with no time limit, to protect the couple and their three children.

Georgia law requires a hearing on which documents should be sealed and for how long. The facts will be kept from public scrutiny of the press and researchers. Another irregularity was the side-stepping of the judge who, through rotation, should've heard the case. Some observers feel that Richardson was able to select his judge, a friend and former partner, who would hear the case in chambers.

The frenzy swirling around this divorce began last year when Georgia democrats filed an ethics complaint against the Pepublican Speaker, alleging he had an "inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist" at the same time as he was cosponsoring legislation that would benefit her employer. This complaint was dismissed by a committee of the Legislature.

I thought that all states in the U.S. followed separation of powers in their government. Apparently, one Missouri state legislator thinks otherwise. He wants to impeach Circuit Court Judge Christine Hutson for her actions in giving a father, Brent Vance, custody of three of his six children, ages 14, 12, and nine.

This divorce case has political overtones since Claire Noland, who filed for divorce in 2005 against Vance, is the daughter of a former Republican state Senator who ran for Congress against a Democratic opponent who was supported by Judge Hutson. Rep. Lembke has railed against judges and has introduced a constitutional amendment giving the Missouri Senate an advisory role in judicial appointments.

I don't think the impeachment resolution is warranted. Judge Hutson's visitation orders were apparently violated by the mother since the father saw his children for only thirty minutes in a two-year period. The judge found that the children "have been alienated from their father by their mother."

This is a serious finding by the judge, who found that Claire failed to produce "any credible evidence of abuse" which she alleged. After hearing from 17 witnesses, the judge followed the custody advice of the children's attorney who believed the older children, aged 19, 18 and 16, were influencing the younger children against their father.

This is a messy divorce, now under appeal. Impeachment is meant for cases of dereliction of duty, crimes, and misdemeanors. Here the judge did what was best for the children's welfare. It was proper to award custody to the parent who will more likely allow contact with the other parent.

This judge should not face any impeachment hearing. The Legislature should not interfere with the operation of divorce courts. What do you think?

Click here for more.

I was surprised to learn that about two out of every three marriages in South Africa end in divorce. That is an even higher rate than in the U.S. Getting a divorce in South Africa is an expensive and slow process, taking up to two years.  There is a stalemate going on because divorce cases can currently only be heard by High courts in three divorce court centers for this large country. This makes the costs go up and forces estranged couples to place their lives on hold as they await a court hearing. The city of Johannesburg produces more than one thousand cases per month. The courts are challenged with a heavy work load. It's clear that the system is flawed due to centralization. Legislation has been introduced which will remove divorce cases from the High courts and assign them to regional courts, giving the public greater access.  The change will require additional magistrates, many of whom will have to be trained in family law. This legislation will alleviate the backlog and reduce the cost of divorce cases. It's a progressive step for South Africa to make divorce courts more readily available on a local and regional level. I feel confident that the law will be enacted and it will benefit South African families immensely. Click here for more.

I've wondered in amazement why some orthodox Jewish husbands are stubbornly reluctant to grant their wives a religious divorce, a get. It could be a power struggle, a control issue or disbelief that the woman stood up to the guy in asking for her freedom.

Jason Moscovitz of Montreal refused a divorce for 15 years after the Canadian civil divorce. Without the get, a religious woman can't remarry in the Jewish faith.

The Canadian Supreme Court upheld the lower court award of $47,500 to Stephanie Burker, the wife, for violating a civil contract to grant her a religious divorce. Moscovitz is again challenging section 21 (1) of the divorce law, claiming it discriminates against his religion and also violates separation of church and state.

Experts agree that the Supreme court will not rehear the case, which was a 7/2 decision. It is clear to me that the penalty clause does not discriminate against his religion since it applies to all religions where spouses refuse a religious divorce. Here Moscovitz already granted the get after a 15 year delay. Perhaps he is wishfully thinking that he can inflict more harm.

Orthodox women, in my opinion, already suffer unequal treatment in securing a religious divorce. Only men can grant a get and a man may remarry after a civil divorce, even if the wife refuses to accept the get. But if women remarry without a religious divorce and have children, the children are viewed as illegitimate, and therefore cannot marry under Jewish law. These women who enter a new relationship and marry without a get, are considered as adultresses and cannot marry under the religious rules.

After a divorce, how would you like it if you had to pay half of the mortgage on the marital home into which your ex has moved his unemployed new girlfriend? It rankles one divorcée each time she delivers her children for visitation with their father.

I wouldn't like it — it's unfair and unacceptable. This is among the horror stories which have resulted from the inability to sell the marital home due to the decline in value. Nationwide, there has been an almost 27 percent fall in housing sales in 2007. Certain markets have been harder hit and in 2008, prices haven't been reduced significantly in those area which enjoyed sharp increases in value.

Unable to sell at a fair price, divorcing couples are forced to stay attached. One woman took her home off the market after a $40,000 reduction produced no sale. She will get a second job to make ends meet.

Often husbands cannot afford separate living quarters if they are contributing to the marital home expenses. In another case, a divorcing husband and wife must continue to live together because they cannot move before the sale of their home. In divorce settlement agreements calling for a 50/50 split of the equity in the property, split couples gulp as they watch the equity shrink.

Without the sale of the home, divorcing couples cannot move on. Economists do not promise an upturn in the price of real estate. It is a market favoring buyers, and buyers are unwilling top pay asking prices. But if sellers paid top dollar when they bought the property, they can't take significant losses, especially going through a divorce.

The Federal Reserve has been lowering interest rates, and it may be necessary for the spouse remaining in the property to refinance at great costs. The immediate future is bleak but we hope in the near term there will be a correction in housing prices, compatible with the economy and consumer confidence.

Coupled with remarriage of a divorced parent and subsequent death, adult children are often left to cope with the relationship and care of stepparents. With fractured and blended families, grown children, and families that are geographically dispersed, many face challenges in caring for stepparents and ex-stepparents.

I can appreciate the anomaly of feeling obligated for providing assistance to the spouse of your parent who has passed away. It feels odd to maintain the relationship with your parent's new husband or wife. In a study of grown children of divorce, Elizabeth Marquardt and Norval Glenn reported that these children are less likely to have a close relationship after their parent remarried. There was concern for how to care for their estranged divorced parents who were ill and living alone.

It's been noted that nearly 40 percent of adults have experienced their parents' divorce. Many others were born to parents who never married each other. The consequences of divorce and remarriage are felt by older children in different ways. Sometimes the stepparent relationship is good but in other cases there is resentment and a fear that their inheritance is at peril. We're in unchartered waters in the study of care for stepparents by adult children.

The problem of divorce, remarriage and the care for elderly parents and stepparents is greater if the children do not regard the stepparent as part of the family. It's the quality of the relationship which determines how or if care is extended to the stepparent who survives the biological parent.

If you've been involved in a contentious divorce settlement case, the outcome was likely affected by the discovery rules of procedure. Because spouses tend to secrete or minimize the existence and value of marital property, it's important to undertake rigorous discovery of assets.

I've come across an article by Ed Lederman, a prominent Denver attorney, who is critical of Colorado's special divorce discovery procedures. He believes divorce discovery should be handled like any other civil case. I don't agree with the attorney's basic premise that discovery doesn't require different rules for family and divorce law. I think the mandatory discovery is a good approach. The goal, once a divorce case is filed, is for both sides to be prepared to fully disclose all documentation.

There are generally five steps in discovery:

In marital property states, divorce courts are bound to distribute marital property "equitably" — not necessarily equally. Discovery procedures become the tool to facilitate a fair settlement.

There is a fear that sharia courts, which have sprouted in mosques, Islamic centers and in schools, would submerge British courts because Muslims would avoid state courts on issues of marriage and divorce.

Muslims who entered an Islamic marriage must also go through a civil ceremony to have their marriage recognized by the state. When they want a divorce, they must secure a civil divorce as well as an Islamic divorce.

The issues of marriage and divorce as practiced by extremist Muslims subjugate women, treating them as second-class citizens. The rules violate the human rights and values of the U.K. Husbands can divorce wives in the presence of two witnesses without going through a formal hearing. Wives then must appeal to the sharia courts for a divorce, and their requests are frequently not granted.

Critics of the Muslim regulations are alarmed at the erosion of the U.K. justice system. They point out that these courts are registered as charities and they qualify for government tax credits. A recent news story describes the frustration of a Muslim lady who had already received a civil divorce from her estranged husband who she has not seen for two years. Meeting with a senior sharia court judge, she wants to know why she must wait three months before she can remarry. He replied "these rulings are all in the Koran. The rulings are made for all." As a devout Muslim, she is obligated to wait for the sharia court to act on her divorce.

Personal finance expert Suze Orman recently wrote a piece for women in the middle of a divorce, outlining some of the critical steps for women in this part of their lives.

One of the hardest decisions of life is the one to end your marriage. Both spouses are in the same situation the settlement process isn't easy for either party — except women generally face a more difficult economic challenge. Women must be extra careful in protecting themselves, especially when they have left money management to their husband.

Here's a mini check list for women to consider in making an appropriate settlement:

1. Gather recent financial statements of banking, CD's, investments, credit cards and loans.

2. Check into your spouse's retirement benefits, 401K and IRA accounts and bonuses.

3. Credit card debts should be paid off prior to the divorce. If not possible, the agreement should indicate who will be responsible for which debt. Both spouses are liable for joint and individual debt.

4. Get an appraisal of the family home. Determine the equity amount and whether either party will remain in the home. Should it be sold? If one party is to stay in the home, insist that they refinance the mortgage to remove the name of the other so both parties are not liable.

5. Create a projected budget, anticipating income and expenses as a guide to post-divorce money needs. Can you get a job or will you need some retraining? This will help determine a request for spousal support for a limited time.

6. Can you afford the upkeep of the family home considering your potential income?

7. Determine the value of personal property, investments, and automobiles for decisions about their division.