We reported a while back that more U.S. men are seeking alimony these days, and in a recent Telegraph article, it appears that British husbands are seeking financial support, as well.

One U.K. law firms states the number of men attempting to claim a piece of their wealthy wives' assets has increases threefold in the past year.

The number of "house husbands" has doubled over the past 20 years, as more women become the breadwinner. When it comes time for a divorce, SAHDs are looking to be compensated for their efforts.

I don't know about you, but it's not really a gender issue for me. If you've dutifully served as the homemaker and helped your spouse build a successful career, aren't you entitled to some sort of support?

Click here for more.

Women's rights activists are up in arms about a contentious divorce case in Tennessee that may result in the local marital property laws to be changed. According to an article in Tennessean.com, "a wage-earning husband gets to keep $1.7 million in stock. His homemaker wife gets nothing."

Okay, I admit, when we're talking about the rights of the stay-at-home spouse — and let's face it, while many husbands including my own are starting to stay home, it's generally the wife — and there are a few million dollars in play, I can see why people are getting concerned. Some are suggesting that if this settlement goes through as is, it could be precedent setting and go against state laws.

But, and there's a really big but, I don't think that this case has anything to do with the wife being a homemaker. The court says that the husband is being allowed to keep the stock and not share it because all he did was hold it after receiving it as a gift from his father. Her employment status is irrelevant.

In my opinion — and I know this is going to make me the bad guy — when you decide not to work, you take a risk. A gift given to one individual is just that — a gift with only one intended recipient. If Daddy had given him a cheese knife, is she entitled to half of that, too?

Click here for more.

I ran across an interesting article the other day. A young couple married, lived together, had a child in their seven-year relationship and got divorced. I know. There's nothing earth shattering about that. Keep reading.

It was a same-sex couple, except one of the two didn't know it.

Jennifer Jack married Andrew Mireles at 16. They parted ways after one child and seven years. Jack decided to flip through a high school yearbook one day, and she found a picture of her ex-husband, Andrew - or should I say, Phyllis?

Phyllis Mireles changed "gender" at some time in her life, taking on the name Andrew. No sex change, no funky surgery, and all the equipment was perfectly female, reports Fox News. Mireles claims Jack knew of Mireles' true gender all along — and I'm having trouble swallowing that Jack states otherwise.

It seems a judge is swallowing Jack's shocked disbelief - he's allowing an annulment.

I must be missing something. I mean, seven years, people. And a child. It's pretty tough to hide that you don't have a penis for that long. The courts buy this?

Mireles now finds himself in a custody battle for his (her?) kids. Jack's attorney states that Mireles is "a convicted felon and has some indiscretions that would put him back in jail if his probation was revoked."

I'm wondering where this came from? Were these issues before Mireles was outed from the proverbial closet? Was Mireles a bad person with his kids? Is this just some scheme to get back at him for being cross gender?

And what about Jack? Why the horrified reaction now? Is Jack embarrassed that she lived with a woman and now wants to protect her self-identity through revenge?

Remember — seven years, one child. And Jack didn't know her husband was a she? Yeah. Right.

The hand-wringing over Silda Wall Spitzer's future with her now defamed husband, the governor of New York, has officially begun. Newspapers, talk radio, TV pundits, therapists and armchair shrinks — yeah, that's you and me and all of us — all chipping in with our two cents.

Silda, Silda, Silda... Whatever was she thinking standing by her cheatin' hubby, the gov of New York? Well, she and the gov are married for 20 years. They have three kids together. She shelved her prestigious and lucrative legal career to raise the kids and to be a dutiful political wife. She's also a passionate philanthropist and organizer, having founded a children's advocacy program (Children for Children), among other activities.

This is a dynamic woman. She is no fool. Will her children, three beautiful girls, ever be able to trust the men in their lives? What message does it send to them if she stays?

All bets are off on Silda's marriage. Yep. In what's likely to become the Super Bowl of divorces, I anticipate a separation and divorce proceedings to begin within six to eight months, or at least before the end of 2008.

Britney has managed to regain visitation rights for her kids, though with some strings attached; Spears was hospitalized earlier this month in a psychiatric facility. The visits must take place in a therapeutic setting. Also, Britney's father Jamie Spears and Brit's psychiatrist must be at every visit. Both sides are impressed by how quickly Daddy Spears has helped calm the maelstrom that Britney's life has become. He remains her conservator for the time being.

Also new is that Sam Lufti, one of Brit's many hangers-on and someone actually accused of drugging her, has finally been served with a restraining order forbidding contact with the pop star through the middle of March. He seemingly had attempted to avoid being served with papers long enough for them to expire, only showing up at his place of residence a day after they were valid. A judge extended the restraining order and also ruled Lufti had been served so he was under obligation of the order.

All we can do is hope Britney's able to get the help she needs. The family support is coming together nicely in her favor.

Britney Spears' visitation rights were reinstated on Friday after her ex-husband Kevin Federline agreed to a modification in a court order. The troubled pop star will get to see her kids Sean Preston and Jayden James (we don't know when) after two stints at psychiatric facilities and several court appearances.

K-Fed has sole physical and legal custody of the boys; Britney's visitation rights were suspended on January 4 after her first hospitalization.

No matter the situation — and it's unclear exactly what her condition is (published reports say it's everything from bi-polar disorder to manic depression to obsessive compulsive disorder) — Britney will likely feel better when she sees her children. And the kids? At the tender ages of 2 and 1, respectively, these kids need their mother's presence in their lives. Is their mother troubled? To be sure. But childhood memories and emotional/physical bonds form very early. Attachment and abandonment issues come to the fore very quickly even in infancy.

I sure hope Britney, who seemingly has all the resources (both financial and familial) in the world, gets the help and treatment she needs to improve her mental and physical well-being. Even if she goes back to the business of being Britney/mega pop star, she'll never be whole if her kids are out of her life for long.

Click here for more.

It might be one of the stickiest situations in a divorce. It doesn't concern the kids, the house or the china: It's the question of who gets the family pet and it can be as complicated as any child custody case. Really.

Take the case of million Marsh Newmark who says he spent $60,000 in battling his ex for custody of their golden Lab mix Rocky. At first, the estranged couple had a shared custody arrangement. Newmark's ex got the dog Monday morning through Thursday night; Newmark got Rocky on the weekends.

The arrangement worked, for the most part, until one day two years ago when his ex's dogwalker told Newmark that Rocky wouldn't be returning. Newmark's ex reportedly accused him of abusing the dog. Low blow. Eventually, Newmark went to court to get custody of the dog but he lost the case and is now appealing. He hasn't seen the dog since last summer.

As bad as a divorce is for the people involved, it just may be worse for the pets. Pets are like children to most people...so the issues involved are nearly as emotional. When a couple who divorces doesn't have kids, the pets are the kids. The thing is, there are so many animals that need good homes, you'd like feuding exes could just go down to animal shelter and choose a new pet. 

Click here for more.  

The pair were in court yet again on Friday because of a motion made by James to have their daughter Jacqueline evaluated by psychological experts, reportedly in order to bolster his motion for joint custody.

Dina countered by saying that the time to hire experts had already elapsed, and to do so at this stage was simply an attempt to set their May hearing date back. The judge agreed, saying that the experts opinions were unnecessary.

The couple already has a parenting coordinator and a counselor for their daughter, who is six.

After the ruling, Jim was quoted as saying he was "disappointed" since he has "always wanted equal custody and equal parenting time".

Dina was rather perturbed by this claim as well, filing papers stating that "at no time during their marriage or separation has (McGreevey) co-parented Jacqueline as he asserts". She also said that whenever he has their daughter, he frequently leaves her in the care of others, such as his sister, friends or his partner.

It's sure to be an interesting road to May, and clearly there's very little chance of this one settling out of court. Let's hope when it comes to custody that both parties can focus on what's really best for the child, however, and not what they may perceive is best because it's best for them.

Click here and here for more.

Most of us at some point in time have heard the horror stories surrounding child support payments and alimony. You may have experienced it first hand, or perhaps a friend or loved one has become exasperated trying to collect money that is owed to them. But now a recent poll conducted by GFK Roper gives us a better picture of just how many people are affected by lack of support payments.

The poll showed that 24 percent of divorced Americans are supposed to be receiving child support payments, but only a handful of people are actually getting the payments. Only 25 percent of people who are supposed to be receiving alimony actually got the entire amount, 29 percent didn't receive any amount at all and only 17 percent received a partial amount. Perhaps the even scarier statistic is that only 6 percent of people not receiving child support or alimony payments are actually fighting for their rights.

Something has to be done when only 6 percent of people not receiving money owed to them because of a divorce are able to stand up and ask for what they deserve. There may be a few reasons why this is so. I know of a few people who have decided not to go after their ex-spouse because they know their ex does not have the money the court has ordered them to pay. However, this rarely seems to be the case.

Instead, there is a prevalent belief that either the court will not be able to make the ex-spouse pay, or more commonly it is too expensive to go to court in the first place. Because they are not receiving support payments in the first place, many people in this position can't come up with the money to pay for additional court costs and lawyer fees.

Here's a rundown of the latest in celebrity divorce. Just the thing to get you through those last ticking hours at work!

In British news, Cheryl Cole, a singer in the group Girls Aloud, may be divorcing her soccer hubby Ashley Cole after discovering that he slept with a hairdresser and offered her money to have an abortion. Originally, after these first claims were made, she said she'd stick by her husband, but other women have come forward since then claiming they too have slept with him. He has reportedly begged her to come back, but she remains away from the family home in an undisclosed location and refuses to speak to him. Sounds like this one will be over before you can say World Cup.

Coming back over to our side of the ocean, Dina Matos McGreevey and former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey (pictured here) are in court yet again for their messy, ongoing divorce. Dina had petitioned the court for full and broad access to Jim's partner's financial holdings, claiming that the couple's money was intertwined, and as such she had a right to see what he owned and possessed. The courts agreed in part, saying that the three joint bank accounts the gay couple share are up for view, but Mark O'Donnell's salary, stocks, and other various financial dealings are not to be revealed for court scrutiny.

Dina and Jim are still attempting to hammer out child support and custody issues, with Dina apparently trying to get every cent that she can. I must say it's hard to blame her. Most women would probably be rather angry to have their husband come to them after years of marriage and a child born and say they're gay. As long as she doesn't go all Heather Mills, she'll probably have a good shot at custody and a chunk of his cash.