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.

"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce," says, Joyce Kauffman, a lawyer who handles same-sex divorce in Massachusetts. She has made some incisive observations about what gay and lesbian married couples go through to achieve a divorce. When these couples split up, they run into barriers of institutional discrimination not experienced by heterosexual couples or in any other area of the law.

Yesterday, we talked about custody issues. Child support in a lesbian divorce action becomes a problem in situations where the former wife has not adopted the children of the biological mother. Without a legal or biological connection, the custodial parent was unable to collect child support. Kauffman strongly advises each party to adopt each other's children so gay couples would be in a similar legal position as straight couples in seeking child support.

Alimony is another area where same-sex couples are treated differently. In Massachusetts, there is equality in marriage for all, but those laws are not applicable in other states, nor at the federal level. Under IRS rules, alimony paid by a heterosexual to an ex-spouse is tax deductible, but the same rules do not apply to same-sex couples, even though they were legally married.

To me, this is unfair and discriminatory. Why should the federal government, the tax office no less, determine that gay alimony is different from straight alimony? This amounts to government sanctioned discrimination rationalized on the basis that their marriages are not recognized by the feds. As divorce attorney David Epperly put it, "federal law looks at gay divorcées as strangers."

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.

In October, I wrote about divorce mediation as an alternative to court determination . Mediation requires a face to face meeting with a professional mediator, usually a lawyer.

Resolution Online, in Australia, provides divorce mediation via the internet, avoiding a face to face meeting of the parties. This procedure allows separating spouses to sit at their computer and participate in a private chat room moderated by an accredited family dispute resolution practitioner.

This resolution system feeds into new Australian family law which requires separating parents to attend a dispute resolution meeting with a registered mediator before they can have a court hearing. This internet process is touted as a viable substitute for those who want to avoid an in-person transaction.

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Separating spouses with children need direct contact over visitation, vacation, and education issues. Speaking in a chat room will not be as satisfactory as direct communication. Australia may be different since the only ground for divorce is "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage shown by a separation of 12 months with no prospect of reconciliation."

The computer model may work well if it avoids rancor and a shouting match, and it may be faster and more economical in time and costs. Participants will set out the issues each wants to resolve and the practitioner will lead them through each issue until an agreement is reached. The agreement is written to be presented to the court. Legal advice is not given and an attorney should be consulted for legal information and advice.

The pastor used $50,000 of the couple's money to start the church, and then co-mingled their personal finances with those of the church. All of the funds, including tithes, were under the exclusive control of the pastor who paid himself whatever amount he desired. It is alleged that he paid a mistress $750 per week or month from church funds. He also operated a catering and banquet hall business inside the building itself.

The judge has agreed to hear arguments as to whether the church should be considered a marital asset and ordered an appraisal of the property.

I don't think she can take church property even if she can trace the use of the $50,000. She implicitly agreed that the money, which was a charitable contribution, should be used in the creation of the church. If the pastor's name is on the deed, then the wife might have some claim. We would think that the church is a charitable organization under IRS rules and any tithes to the church belong to the non-profit corporation.

Profits from the catering business belong to the church and the pastor's wife has no legal right to the proceeds. The wife's attorney is pursuing a unique theory that the pastor invested in the church just like any other business. I don't agree.

The judge is holding a hearing to see if any of the church's assets belong to the pastor, making them eligible for inclusion in the divorce settlement. Just because the pastor controls its income and expenditures, that doesn't necessarily mean church assets are personal property. The wife won't succeed in this one, but the case isn't over. Stay tuned.

Click here for more.

With approximately 50 percent of marriages failing, property settlement is a widespread problem. Is there an ideal model for dividing marital property? When should a spouse be entitled to half of the marital assets?

Property division at a time of extreme emotional turmoil is often accompanied by anger, rejection, revenge and squabbles over assets. The economically deprived spouse should not presume marital property will be divided equally. I don't believe an even split is warranted in all cases.

The formula for distribution should consider how a spouse contributed to the bread winner's ability to earn money. Did a wife sacrifice her own ability to work and become a house manager? Since marriage is an economic partnership, both parties contribute to the marital assets. A fair and equitable distribution needs to be devised, but that does not necessarily divide property equally.

The length of the marriage — as well as the age and health of the parties — must be considered. Did the wife work to facilitate a husband attending professional school? In long-term marriages, wives who did not work and do not have current job skills might be entitled to half of the marital property.

Community property consists of all property accumulated during the marriage, including retirement and pension benefits. Most stay-at-home wives have underestimated the value of their contribution to the building of the family resources.

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.

In addition, the new payment formula will take into account the amount of time each parent has custody of the children. The government's goal is to get the non-custodial parents, usually fathers, to spend more time with their children. If they have the children one or two nights a week, they will enjoy a reduction in support payments.

This should be a positive enticement, but it's threatening for the custodial parent, who may end up with less money.

Mothers' groups are annoyed and displeased. They believe this arrangement will create a division between parents if support is dependent on the time parents spend with children. Some custodial women believe they will be short-changed.

It's estimated that that the new formula will mean a reduction in payments for about 60 percent of non-custodial parents. It seems fair that both parents have an obligation to support their children. By taking into account the parents' total income and factoring in the actual costs of raising children, Australia is trying to adopt an enlightened approach.

Custodial parents, having the main daily and financial child raising duties, need extra funds to compensate for this burden. Australian law does adjust child-rearing cost figures as children reach the age of twelve, when costs increase.

Fathers' groups are still not content, claiming the present system is too harsh, often leaving them with little money to provide for a new family or to live on themselves. This may be true, but divorce is never going to be easy nor satisfy all sides.

Evert has been asked to bring documentation relating to the dates she flew in Norman's private and company jets. This information may help clarify the two remaining financial issues in the divorce — the tax liability for the private jet and Laura's claim that Greg's delay in settling has cost her nearly a million dollars. The deposition is scheduled to take place in early December.

After 25 years of marriage, Norman filed for divorce in May 2006 citing irreconcilable differences. He claimed there was no third party involved, but within months, Evert was seen publicly with Norman, whose fortune is estimated at $500 million. After agreeing to a $300 million settlement in June 2006, he has since canceled Laura's credit cards, refused to pay her legal fees, and changed the locks on their $35 million mansion in Jupiter Island, Florida.

I wonder why millionaires get into such a struggle over money when they are so clearly in the wrong. This stormy divorce saga, played out in public, reveals such a propensity for self-destruction. Laura feels betrayed by Evert — a friend and neighbor who recently divorced her own husband of 18 years Andy Mill. Evert has three minor children being dragged through this nightmare — who may or may not end up with their father's ex-best friend as their new stepfather — if Norman's divorce is ever finalized. I doubt we have seen the end of this sad and convoluted story.

Click here for more.

Wealthy people have been known to squirrel away assets in foreign trusts. But asset diversion is no longer a shill game of the rich. Spouses of ordinary means may give interest-free loans to girlfriends as they contemplate divorce. Or business owners may place their mistress on the payroll at extremely high salaries.

There are examples of guys who stop paying the mortgage on jointly-held property and allow the bank to foreclose. Then at the foreclosure sale, the ex will have his parents buy the property back so the ex-wife is cheated out of some of the marital property.

One New York attorney estimated that asset hiding tricks occur in half of all divorces. Suspecting this, women need to have an accountant comb tax records, credit card bills, bank statements and stock reports. The law works against ex-wives who may not have access to all of the financial information. This places them at a great disadvantage.

Business owners may devalue their share of the business but ex-wives may not be able to prove otherwise. It's clear that divorce courts favor the more powerful spouse, usually the guy. Judges don't have the time nor inclination to challenge the stated value of the property.

Women who are divorcing without many assets need to gather bank and credit card statements and financial transactions on your home computer. Start setting aside cash in your own name to pay for legal bills prior to a divorce settlement.

During the marriage ask questions about money matters. Everything you and your spouse buy or acquire during the marriage is legally owned by both of you and is marital property.

In your divorce, do you believe marital assets were diverted or hidden?