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 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.

The end of the summer is always a nightmare in family court, because this is when the courts see case after case with divorced parents at war over which school their children should attend.

According to the Detroit News, a Michigan judge has ordered that two children should remain in the Grosse Pointe school system even though their parents have divorced and their mother has moved to another school district 60 miles away. The parents share custody and the judge is scheduled to hear evidence from the mother, who says the kids should go to the schools near her new home because they are better than the ones in Grosse Pointe.

Typically, the court will decide which school children attend when one parent moves out of town to another district. Divorce decrees may award joint custody, but one parent will have primary physical custody, and that parent should be permitted to enroll the children in the schools near his or her residence.

Here are the basic legal guidelines for school determination:

1. Children should continue to attend their previous school until parents agree or the court orders otherwise.
2. For a child not previously enrolled in a school, neither parent should take any action without the other agreeing.
3. Children should be enrolled in the district of the parent where they spend most of their time.

Common sense should guide these decisions, with both parents agreeing to do what is best for their children’s education. Judges do not want to make these decisions, but are forced to if warring parents can’t come to an agreement.

This problem is occurring in all states. The education of children is too important to be jeopardized by divorced parents who refuse to make reasonable decisions. When this happens, courts are the place to resolve these disputes. I sympathize with this Michigan mother.

Keep in mind that each year, December 31 is "D Day," or the date determining your marital status for income tax purposes. If by December 31 you have a final divorce decree, you can file as "single" or as "head of household."

If your divorce isn't final by the last day of December, you may continue to file jointly or married, filing separately. Joint filing will result in lower taxes but there's a downside, because you remain liable for your spouse's taxes if he/she doesn't pay. IRS rules are a bit complicated but we'll try to simplify them here:

For head of household, there are three requirements:

1. During the year, you've paid for more than half of your home's upkeep.
2. The home was your and your children's principal home for more than half the year.
3. Your spouse hasn't lived in the home for six months.

Dependent exemptions:

1. You can receive $3,400 for each child but which parent can claim dependency exemption?
2. Dependency exemption can't be split; the custodial parent where the child lives more than half the year usually gets the exemption where both parents support the child.
3. An agreement should be made as to which parent will claim the dependency exemption.
4. The custodial parent can release the exemption to the non-custodial parent.
5. Where custody hasn't been determined, the parent who pays the majority of the child's expenses and has physical custody for the majority of the year, may claim the exemption.

Child tax credit:

Here's the gist of it: Augusta Roman tried for several years to have a child before resorting to fertility treatments. The day before the embryos were to be implanted, her husband, Randy, told her he wanted to wait until they had resolved their problems. After six months of counseling, they divorced.

The dispute escalated as the fertility lab consent form clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos would not be implanted and would be discarded. Augusta sued and was granted control of the embryos in the Trial Court but her husband appealed the case; the Appeals Court unanimously reversed the lower court. Augusta then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court which recently refused to hear the appeal, thus upholding the Appellate Court's decision.

The case raises a moral and legal dilemma for August, 45, who regards the embryos as her unborn children. She said she would sign away any support responsibility for the divorced husband. Her attorney attempted to distinguish this consent form from an enforceable contract.

While I commiserate with Augusta's sincere desire to become a mother, it would be bad public policy to ignore the clear meaning of the consent form. In fact, the form had an option, if chosen by both parties, for releasing the embryos to either spouse. But neither made that choice and instead, checked the option to discard the embryos.

Andy didn't want a child after the divorce and even though Texas law protects anonymous sperm donors from child support, this is a different case. There is legal precedent for sperm donors to be liable for support. Family courts could award financial support despite the waiver by the wife.

In Australia, there's an interesting debate going on over whether parents going through divorce should be required to take lie detector tests in order for courts to investigate false claims and manipulations, particularly where kids are concerned.

Ann Bressington, a South Australian member of Parliament, is proposing legislation mandating compulsory lie detector tests for parents going through divorce.

It's her contention that men and women go into Family Court and lie about the conduct of their partner, especially where child custody and property issues are concerned. These accusations result in thousands of hours spent by social workers investigating exaggerated and false accusations.

Bressington asserts that "we have children being coerced in interviews to support false allegations." All of this has a negative impact on children when they're in need of protection from the court. She believes that the lies often strip parties of assets making a mockery of family law.

In the U.S., suggestions were made that divorcing parties, prior to getting to divorce courts, be polygraph tested. I think this is a really bad idea and furthermore, it's not necessary. Polygraphs can be unreliable and only work if the tested person actually realizes they are lying. Spouses may firmly believe their testimony about their ex is factual and true. They don't think they're lying. Introducing criminal court tools into civil matters is alien to our privacy and civil rights.