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.

In countries all over the world, married women endure domestic abuse. In most countries, though, they have an out-clause. While divorce is never pleasant, at least it's an option. I was shocked to read that divorce isn't allowed in the Philippines — or Malta — and that these are the only two countries in the world that don't permit divorce.

Both are Catholic strongholds that attempt to support and keep families whole. But how can family life be called viable in light of documented rampant domestic violence and physical abuse by husbands against Filipino women? This cruel spousal treatment violates basic human rights and often keeps women in bondage. Due to embarassment, as well as a societal attitude that domestic violence is unimportant, abuse is chiefly unreported

If women cannot legally escape from the abuse by securing a divorce, they are trapped in hostile marriages, believing nothing can be done about their situation.

I'm highly concerned about the children who witness physical acts of violence against their mothers. This may damage them psychologically for life and the children may perpetuate these acts in their own relationships with girlfriends and wives.

An added dilemma is the communities in which indigenous priests and tribal leaders perform marriages. Attempts to enact divorce legislation have the burden to satisfy diverse communities as well as the Catholic Church.

It appears that most Filipinos side with the Church, claiming you have to stay married for the sake of the family and "you will be rewarded in heaven." I find this reasoning to be offensive and a danger to women who experience acts of violence by a spouse.

I was reading a passionate and painful letter to the editor from a divorced father complaining about the "standard visitation rights" granted him. This dad sees his children every other weekend and every Wednesday night for two hours.

Living two miles away from his ex-wife and their kids, he requested more equal time for visitation. Why did the court decide that visits every other weekend are adequate? Why not every weekend?

Apparently, this guy did not want the divorce and bitterly faults no-fault divorce and the Florida family court system. I strongly support no-fault divorce but that shouldn't preclude reasonable non-custodial parent visitation. It appears that the parents were unable to come to court with a fair visitation agreement, so the judge applied standard visitation rights.

He's correct that visits every other weekend doesn't provide the opportunity to build a meaningful relationship with his kids. School night visits, which usually take place from 6-8 p.m., may interfere with homework or extra-curricular activities. The judge demands that he show "a substantial change in circumstance" to warrant additional visitation time.

This judge is being inflexible and bureaucratic. If he hasn't done anything wrong, this father should be able to make a reasonable request for modification. Children need and want the presence and support of both parents.

If hard feelings and rancor were not present, the split couple should have been able to reach a reasonable and equitable agreement regarding the children. This is an example of the all too common practice of women punishing their ex-husbands, just because they can.

This dad, if he is supporting his children financially, should be allowed to support them with a solid, stable, continuing relationship. Without more information, we can't explore why the mother and court are being hardnosed about additional time for visits. What do you think?

I was reading a column by Glenn Sacks, a men's and fathers' issues columnist, radio commentator, and blogger who criticizes conservatives for their feeble defense of men and fatherhood issues. He perceives a new tack by some Christian conservatives who have embarked upon a softer and more acceptable approach, advocating "shared parenting" in divorce actions.

There's really nothing new here. If religious leaders are facing up to vital family matters like divorce, custody, and the problem of large numbers of fathers frozen out of their children's lives, it is some progress.

Most enlightened people would favor joint custody except where abuse, drugs, or alcoholism was present. If both members of a divorced couple want to be part of their children's lives, they should both have that right, and that responsibility.

Sacks has been labeled, as an "unabashed testosterone-driven advocate for males", regardless of the subject. He quotes Michael McManus, criticizing the norm of granting sole custody to one parent and thereby separating the other from the lives of their children. McManus wants to replace no-fault divorce with mutual-consent divorce.

I don't agree with this proposed change. No-fault divorce became universal because there was a real need to reform the war-like atmosphere of proving fault on the part of one party. The key flaw of mutual consent divorce is that without your spouses consent, or proof of abuse or infidelity, you stay married, no matter what. I believe the Christian conservative movement's hidden agenda is to simply make it more difficult to secure a divorce.

I just read the Washington State Supreme Court holding that indigent persons have no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney in divorce and custody cases. I am outraged at a legal system which victimizes poor people.

After 10 years of marriage, Michael King sued Brenda for divorce and also sought custody of their three children. Brenda had no funds to pay for attorney representation at the trial despite applying to legal aid societies which could not find a pro bono attorney.

Brenda, a ninth-grade drop out, attempted to act as her own attorney but had difficulty presenting her version of disputed facts. She found herself enmeshed in a legal maze which she didn't comprehend and was not equipped to challenge Michael's seasoned attorney.

The outcome was inevitable. The family court awarded primary custody to Michael who could make all decisions regarding the children. I was even more offended by the judge granting Brenda non-supervised visitation on alternating weekends, four weeks each summer and school spring break in odd-numbered years.

After an outpouring of criticism, pro bono attorneys appeared and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, asking for a new trial, claiming denial of due process of law. Unfortunately in the U.S. there is no constitutional right to a state-appointed attorney for indigents in non-criminal cases.

I'm trying to understand why the father was granted primary custody since there was no evidence that Brenda was an unfit mother. There was evidence that Michael's employer ordered him to take anger management classes because of threats he had made.

When Grandma or Grandpa decide to divorce, adult children tend to side with the abandoned parent. When this happens, grandchildren follow the cues of their parents, resulting in estrangement from one grandparent. Adult children have the burden of explaining the divorce to their own children who can worry that their parents will also separate.

Grandparents don't want to become distant from their grandchildren, but family separations do occur. In an article I was reading, one 12-year-old wondered if she would be seeing her Granddad anymore. The answer? "Yes, but not with Grandma." It was awkward for her when Granddad came over since she was closer to her grandmother.

One daughter, angry that her father left her mother, experienced "horror" at meeting his new "companion." Children also wonder if their potential inheritance will be lost to a stranger. Divorcing seniors divide family loyalties, with adult children caught in the middle.

In one family, a grandmother refused to attend the christening of her grandchild because her son had invited her ex-husband's new partner. The son found himself in a no-win situation.

Just as parents of adult divorcing children need to stay neutral and build good fences, there are rules for adult children to follow when their parents divorce.

1. Allow yourself to grieve over your parents' divorce.
2. Let your parents know how you feel to avoid anger from surfacing later.
3. Assure your children they will still see their grandparents.
4. Don't take sides — stay clear and neutral.
5. Don't try to mother or smother either parent with caring advice.

To Begin the Process:

• Put together copies of joint tax-returns.
• Both parties should review their credit report to see what debts exist.
• Make a new budget based on predicable sources and income amounts.

Do We Keep the Family Home?

• With children, there are sentimental and practical reasons for the custodial spouse to stay in the home. Schools and routines won't change, and it's best not to move during the divorce crisis.
• Do the numbers to see if you can afford the mortgage, upkeep and property taxes.
• Women, since their income will generally plunge, must be cautious if they remain in the home. Can they pay the bills if ex falls behind in alimony or support payments?

Separating Debts:

• Remove your spouses name from joint accounts or close these accounts if no money is owed.
• Credit card companies will not allow deletion of one name from a joint card. If your spouse is only an "authorized user," the name can be removed.
• To maintain your individual FICO credit score, ask for your credit history to be transferred to new individual credit accounts.

Can You Count on Ex to Honor Financial Promises?

• If your spouse is obligated to pay the mortgage and fails to do so, the bank can still go after both parties under the original mortgage. If he/she does not pay, you should pay in order to protect your credit.

Change Will and Insurance Beneficiary:

• Make this change as the divorce becomes final. Don't procrastinate and wait to do so.
• Any Power of Attorney which gives your ex authority to make financial and medical decisions needs to be revised.

Tax Issues:

The order becomes effective at noon Wednesday, October 3, "until further order of the court."

The reasoning for the order is unknown, as the proceedings are sealed. But insiders reported that Spears failed to attend the ordered parenting classes, did not meet with the drug counselor, and failed to submit to drug testing. Of course, we can't be sure these allegations are correct.

I don't think we need to be told why the court ruled as it did. The public exhibition by Spears gave the judge enough reasons to remove the children from her control. Most reasonable people also would've concluded that she is a danger to her children.

In previous hearings, it was learned that Britney was charged with a "hit and run" accident and driving without a California driver's license. She does have a Louisiana license, valid until 2009, but if you live in California, you are required to have a license in that state.

Spears has been on a collision course with the court for some time, as she apparently has not carried out the court orders to meet with a "parenting coach" who was to observe her parenting practices.

Federline has been seeking more than 50/50 custody, but is he a stabilizing influence for their children? We asked readers to share their thoughts in our Poll of the Week — as of this writing, 27% believe Federline should have full custody, 27% believe Spears should retain joint custody, 44% believe both parents are unfit, and 1% favor full custody for Spears. Be sure to add your vote!

The New York appeals court has now rejected Esther Yang's request to place the child in a top Manhattan school. For his part, Edward Carter did move Grace to a better Staten Island school.

I tried to find — without success — why the father was given custody over the mother who has no drug or alcohol problem, no criminal record and was gainfully employed. Before the divorce, Carter, a Caucasian, was unemployed and according to Esther, had applied for federal welfare claiming, that as a veteran, he suffered from psychiatric problems.

Esther was ordered to pay more than $700 monthly child support, and all property — including her two pieces of real estate — were divided equally. Esther was given visitation rights three weekends a month and had to prove that she lives within 30 minutes by car from the child's school.

Now there are more complications. Because Esther spoke to newspapers about the contentious issues, Carter has asked the court to limit Yang's visitation, alleging she placed Grace in danger. Carter has been called by strangers and received hateful telephone calls.

Esther is bankrupt, no longer has legal counsel, and has fallen behind in support. To add to the fray, Carter denied Esther an extra visit day so that Grace could attend the Chinese New Year celebrations, claiming Esther is not Chinese. In fact, she is Chinese, but immigrated to the US from Indonesia.

Amanda suggested that eight-year-old Grace should have input into the decision of where she goes to school. I don't think that a very practical idea, since the divorce decree gave the father the last word on her education.

Although they have joint custody, Esther Yang lives in Manhattan and Edward Carter on Staten Island. Grace spends Tuesday through Thursday with her father, and the other four days with mom. She was attending PS 16 near the father's home, where only 50% of the students scored at grade level or above. The mother, without authority, enrolled her in the coveted PS 6, on the upper East Side of Manhattan.

The father objected because of the long commute to PS 6 and re-enrolled her in PS 16. We don't know why her father didn't welcome the opportunity for Grace to attend a school where 90% of the students tested at grade level or above. Why would he stand in the way of this apparently gifted student who scored 92% in a private elite school test? She deserves to be in school with peers like herself. Her father says he fears she would lose the opportunity to participate in extra curricular activities at the school near his home.

In reality, this little girl is a pawn between parents, who are not providing an appropriate education that is in the best interest of their daughter. Why would this mother agree to let her ex-husband's choose their daughter's school? Perhaps what the father really needs to do is to move to Manhattan, to ease the commuting the child already does, though it may be a tougher commute between Staten Island and the Upper East Side. So far, the Courts have sided with Grace's father, but her mother has appealed. We'll just have to wait and see how it all turns out.