Losing a job often means a spouse can’t afford to pay a divorce settlement. When Steven became Susan Stanton at age 48 after a sex-change operation, the Largo Florida City Commission fired Steven/Susan from his/her job as city manager — a job that paid $157,000.

The grounds: after 20 years on the job, and just when he decided to become a woman, they lost trust in him/her, and felt he/she was no longer leadership material.

That left Donna Stanton, the wife of the new Susan Stanton, in a quandary when they tried to figure out equitable distribution.

According to a story in “The Tampa Tribune” by reporter Stephen Thompson, and court documents, Steven/Susan Stanton amicably mediated his divorce from his wife of 18 years. The wife, Donna, would get $4,756 in alimony and an additional $799 a month in child support for their 15 year old son. Their marriage lasted 17 years.

Because Steven/Susan no longer has a job, he/she offered Donna Stanton a lump sum of $50,000 from his/her retirement account to cover the roughly first ten months of alimony.

That would make him current through December.

But — and here's the kicker — according to the settlement, if Steven/Susan doesn't get a job by then, even though he/now/she has applied for 100 city manager jobs, Donna Stanton is entitled to more from the retirement account.

One good thing: sex change and broken marriages make for great movies, or at least they did in 2003, when Tom Wilkinson starred with Jessica Lange in the highly-regarded television drama “Normal,” about a man who wants to become a woman after 25 years of marriage and two children.

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.

I always thought women had control over their bodies and had the right to choose. The judge in India decided the wife's decision to have an abortion without her husband's consent amounted to cruelty.

In normal circumstances, a woman would discuss the possibility of abortion with her husband or partner, although she would still have the final say. In this case, the husband and wife lived separately for over eight years out of a 14-year marriage. There didn't seem to be much time to discuss the situation.

I'd like to know when the abortions took place. Was the couple in a continual relationship despite living apart? The court noted that there were numerous feuds between the parties over "trivial matters." The judge mentioned the allegation that the wife took money and jewelry from the husband's parents.

I don't buy the court's rationale. This fuzzy reasoning was also found in my earlier report of an Indian judge who granted a husband a divorce because his wife was HIV-positive. In the abortion case, the wife claims the charges were concocted and not true. She was interested in returning to her matrimonial home and didn't want to divorce.

In Africa, AIDS-infected husbands often force wives to have sex without a condom. This could constitute the basis for a divorce. So far in the U.S., there are only a handful of court cases linking the disease and divorce. Chiefly these revolve around child custody and visitation rights of the AIDS-infected spouse. Because of the possible stigma, 90% of AIDS-related divorce cases nationwide are settled out of court.

I don't think the precedent of the India court should be widely followed. That decision is unique since the judge was punishing the wife for not informing the husband prior to the marriage that she had AIDS. In 1998, the Supreme Court of India ruled that persons who are HIV-positive must inform future spouses. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, women can obtain a divorce if their husband suffers from any venereal disease in a communicable form. Should this law — intended to protect women — be applied to men as well?

With over three million infected, India ranks third in the world for the number of AIDS patients — right after South Africa and Nigeria. Men alone are not responsible for fueling the epidemic since promiscuity among women is rising. Husbands in lower socio-economic classes have been generally "considerate and supportive."

For the first time on record, a court in New Delhi, India, granted a divorce to a man because his wife is HIV-positive. The judge allowed the divorce petition on the grounds that "marriage without sex is anathema."

Few facts have been revealed and I find this case troubling. I question the reasoning for the divorce and the public policy implications. Does this divorce send the right message to other couples experiencing similar medical situations?

This couple were married in October 2000, and it's implied that they never had a "cordial" sexual relationship. The wife became pregnant in March 2001 and her doctor advised that she undergo the HIV-1 and Elisa tests. The Elisa test showed she was HIV-positive.

The wife, who worked at a hospital, claimed the test results were erroneous and said she would get tested again in the seventh or eighth month of her pregnancy. The husband objected and persuaded her to undergo another test. The second test also showed she had HIV/AIDS. She had an abortion in July 2001. The husband tested negative, so she was not infected by him.

The judge found the wife guilty of cruelty by not disclosing her status. The court proclaimed that the husband "cannot be reasonably expected to live with her and lead a happy married life."

I thought that marriage was a commitment for better or for worse. While the wife may have been deceitful, if she knew before the marriage that she was infected, there's no evidence to prove it. Was she previously married? Did she have a blood transfusion? Did she work in a laboratory of the hospital?

Sounds horrendous doesn't it? Like the kind of thing you'd expect to see in a soap opera. But under the circumstances, it is the right thing to do.

The man's wife has an incurable condition and will be in a coma for the rest of her life. He has agreed to arrange for her care. But he also has an ailing mother to take care of, so the court has permitted his divorce. There are no easy decisions here, for either the court or the man involved.

A story in the China Post briefly says that the comatose woman can't "fulfill her role as a wife." I was just about to suggest that rulings like this show that maybe Chinese authorities are beginning to demonstrate a more progressive approach. But this is still a very patriarchal society. I can't help but wonder what the court's ruling might have been if things were reversed, and it was the husband in the coma.

Click here to read more.

The story comes out of Madrid, and I saw it on the website of Pakistan's Daily Times. The gist of it is that a lot of professional athletes get divorced and abuse drugs during the first year after their playing days are over.

It doesn't take much thinking to figure it out. You spend all those years being cheered, making millions, having something all-encompassing around which your life revolves. And then it's all gone.

I'm not sure what happens abroad, but here in the U.S., a lot of former pro athletes and coaches end up taking jobs as sports analysts on TV. For some, it turns into a long-term second career, and I think a big part of the reason they do it is that it keeps them connected to the game. And if that keeps their marriages from falling apart, then it's a good thing.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the National Football League's poor record of taking care of its former players, many of whom suffer tremendous physical problems after retiring. But you have to wonder whether any of the pro leagues are seeing to the mental health of their former players. With all of the spouses and families that could be impacted when athletes have trouble adjusting to retirement, it seems like something the leagues should be doing.

Click here for more.

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.

Judges are obligated to notify parties of the termination of coverage when they issue a divorce settlement. They're authorized to grant a 30-day continuance in the divorce proceedings, so parties have an opportunity to obtain their own health policy.

But we shouldn't jump for joy at this development because it's civil and decent to notify your former spouse that he/she will no longer be insured. New York hasn't gone half as far as the New Hampshire requirement that employers must continue the coverage of the divorced spouse for up to three years unless they remarry.

New York is only preventing exes from being blindsided. My question is this: Is 30 days sufficient to shop around the maze of complicated health plans? Probably not. With 46 million Americans uninsured, we certainly don't want to add to that number. It may be difficult for divorced women to secure individual health insurance plans if they have pre-existing health conditions.

In New York, a spouse is eligible for COBRA if they become divorced but they will have to pick up the actual costs, plus a small additional percentage to obtain up to 36-months of coverage.

One day society will recognize that health care is a universal need and right. While the notice of loss of insurance is a benevolent idea, New York should go further and join New Hamphire in providing extended group insurance coverage under the employer's plan following a divorce.

More Lohan family news today: Actress Lindsay Lohan's father withdrew a request to have his estranged wife tested for drugs. Michael and Dina Lohan appeared in court yesterday to discuss custody and child support arrangements for their two minor kids Ali and Dakota. Michael has admitted to alcohol abuse; he alleges that Dina takes pills. Lindsay was arrested more than a week ago for cocaine possession and driving while under the influence--she was sprung from rehab three weeks ago.

Michael said that withdrawing the request might improve his chances of being granted visitation rights with his children. He was released from prison in March and currently only has telephone calls with his daughter Ali,13, and her brother, Dakota, 10. Lindsay, 21, and her brother Michael Lohan Jr., 19, aren't involved in the custody and visitation deal since they are no longer minors.

Family Court Judge Stacy D. Bennett is now waiting for the results of a review by a family therapist, which is due Sept. 6. The Lohans are due back in divorce court Aug. 10.

Click here for more.