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.

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.

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 strongly believe there is something wrong with Saudi Arabian Islamic law. I just came across a very strange and disturbing annulment which shocks my common sense.

A Saudi marriage was forcibly annulled, in absentia, when a judge granted the annulment request from some of the wife's family because she married a man beneath her tribal status.

According to Saudi law, a woman must have permission of her family to marry. In 2003, Fatima received her father's consent to marry her husband, Masour, but her half-brother and other relatives persuaded the father to give them power of attorney to file for an annulment. Unknown to the couple, the case slowly proceeded through the courts and in February 2006, police served the divorce papers showing an annulment, granted nine months earlier.

Under Saudi law, the couple could no longer live together. Fatima went to her mother's home with her two children, aged two and four months. After three months, the couple took up residence in a distant city to live in anonymity. Police found and jailed the family. Fatima decided to stay in jail with her infant son and after nine months moved to an orphanage facility.

The husband's appeal to the court was denied in 2007 and now Fatima has appealed to King Abdullah asking for reversal of the court ruling. I am appalled that a marriage can be annulled for these reasons. It sounds to me that Saudi family law has run amuck. Breaking up a marriage is not compatible with the preservation of family life as advocated by Islamic tradition.

It's doubtful that authorities will intervene in what is considered a private family matter. If the King does not reverse this case, Fatima has threatened to take her own life. Womens' rights are trampled in Saudi Arabia. We in the west do not get it. What do you think?

Click here for more.

On January 1, New Hampshire became the fifth New England state to bestow Civil Union or Domestic Partnership rights to same-sex couples. These "Yankee" states have become increasingly gay-friendly, displaying rainbow colors intending to make CU rights equivalent to marriage. It is inevitable that the winds of change continue to recognize and provide partial relief from discriminatory practices against gay/lesbian couples.

A November 2007 poll by the Washington Post and ABC shows 55% of Americans think same-sex partners should be allowed to form legally recognized CU's. This is a ten point increase from the June 2006 poll.

CU provides same-gender couples with the rights, benefits and responsibilities as opposite-sex civil marriage. In most CU states, these benefits include health care and pension rights, health-care decisions, family leave, child parentage, custody and adoption, among others. Domestic Partnership status provides a tad fewer rights. CU and DP are partial measures meant to fend off the obvious denial of equal protection under state law. No matter the label, these couples still do not possess 1,138 federal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

There are strict guidelines for entering a CU — parties must be 18 years of age, of same sex, not close family members, and not involved in another CU or marriage. Procedures for dissolving a CU are the same as for divorce of a heterosexual marriage. Divorce action must be filed in a court and the issues of child support, custody, alimony, division of property are determined by a judge.