Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy

Mom Can’t Move Kids Away Without Court Consent.

A mother who wanted to move her kids 90 minutes from their father, who shared joint custody, couldn’t do so without the court reviewing the children’s best interests, a South Carolina appeals court recently ruled.

The couple divorced in June 2014 and had joint legal custody and joint week-to-week physical custody of their two children. Neither parent paid child support, although the mother, who apparently earned more money, provided medical insurance and childcare costs. The order also barred either parent from having their children overnight in the presence of members of the opposite sex. 

A year after the divorce the mother moved to Columbia, S.C., with the children and got a temporary court order granting her physical custody, finding that the move was for legitimate purposes and that she would be able to make more money in a new job there.

But the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the move constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” that required the court to first determine if the move was in the children’s best interests.

As the court pointed out, both parents had loving relationships with the children and while the move was supposed to financially benefit the children, this ultimately didn’t occur when the mother  didn’t return to her new job after a medical leave. Additionally, a court-appointed representative noted out that the mother had overnight visits with her boyfriend in the kids’ presence, counter to the initial order, which called into question whether the move was actually in their best interests. Further, relocation made compliance with the original order impossible, the court said.

The law may differ from state to state. If relocation is an issue between you and your ex-spouse, talk to an attorney near you.

Broken parental relationships and the importance of the GAL!

This case comes from the Circuit Court in Amherst County. 

 Appellant Christopher Hill disputes both of the Amherst County Circuit Court's decisions to grant custody to the mother and finding there was no good reason to remove and replace the GAL. In Christopher Hill v. Shanita Hill, the father was mostly absent from his twin girl's lives. When he did see them, it was volatile, with him calling them "bullies" and ultimately causing them to be afraid of him. He did however move from Florida to Virginia to try to build a relationship with them, but it just didn't happen. Mr. Hill has PTSD and was on medication and believed that to be the reason he was so easily agitated. He also claimed that because the GAL in their case knew the judge's wife, that she should be removed. 

  "In these two appeals Christopher O. Hill (father) challenges the circuit court’s custody and visitation order, as well as its denial of father’s motion to remove the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL). Father argues that the judge in the Amherst County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) was biased. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties on appeal, we conclude that the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment." After hearing the evidence and arguments, the circuit court found that, notwithstanding father’s “sweeping allegations,” there was no basis for father’s claim that the GAL was not qualified. The circuit court further found that “knowing someone doesn’t create a conflict of interest.” The circuit court accepted the GAL’s proffers that she had not discussed employment with the judge’s wife until after the JDR court hearing. The circuit court found that there was no conflict of interest. The circuit court further explained that “this is an appeal de novo as if no hearing had occurred in [d]istrict [c]ourt,” and there was “no legal basis” to remove the GAL. Mother presented evidence that father had had very limited visitation with the children between December 2019 and May 2021. At father’s last visitation in May 2021, mother felt uncomfortable and asked her brother to come by. When mother’s brother arrived, father chased his car and told him to “get out [of] the car and fight him like a man.” Father also yelled towards the children, frightening them enough that one child grabbed a baseball bat. The police were called to help diffuse the situation. Mother suggested to father that he schedule a visit with the children at the YWCA, but father was reluctant to do so because he did “not feel comfortable or safe in Amherst County” after the previous visitation incident. Mother also testified that the weekly telephone calls between father and the children were “Not good.” She had to be the one to call father, because the children did not want to do so. Mother testified that the children frequently cried and were “frustrated” after speaking with father, who told them they were “mean” and called them bullies. Father had a “live-in care giver” who slept in his room which left his second bedroom available for his children. He participated in counseling, through “Telehealth,” to address his “chronic PTSD, depression, anxiety, [and] insomnia” and was compliant with his medications. Father claimed he was stable and not a risk to the children. The circuit court found that father’s relationship with the children was “broken.” Although the circuit court recognized that father had “come a long way,” the circuit court found that “the father’s got issues he’s dealing with, he needs to get his situation completely stabilized.” The circuit court granted sole custody to mother. The circuit court awarded visitation to father through the YWCA’s supervised visitation program and “additional contact with the children in the therapeutic counseling session.” The circuit court maintained father’s weekly telephone visitation with the children for thirty minutes.

In these appeals the Court affirmed the Circuit Court's rulings awarding custody to the mom and finding no fault with the GAL. The facts spoke for themselves in these appeals. 

It is always the hope of the courts to see co-parenting work and benefit all parties and for relationships with children restored however that isn't always the case, at least not immediately. Ultimately, finding for the best interests of the children is the outcome the courts and the GAL's seek. 

Proving Harm to a Child Must Be More Substantial than an Assumption of Harm!

A party petitioning the court without evidence other than their own strong emotions does not mean they are entitled to the decision they believe is right. In this case, the circuit court's decision stood because the parties were unable to prove any harm to the involved child. 

In this January 24, 2023, published opinion regarding the case of Regginald Moore and Valerie Moore v. Dominique Joe, the Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court returned the child to the custody of her biological mother, Ms. Joe. The J&DR court heard and denied the custody and visitation actions brought by the child's former foster care custodians, Regginald and Valerie Moore.

Unsatisfied with the child's return, the Moore's appealed. On motion to strike, the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk found the Moore's failed to present evidence of actual harm to the minor child. The court dismissed the cases. The Moore's then appealed the dismissal of their petitions for custody and visitation of their former foster daughter as they assumed the court erred by excluding Dr. Tirrell’s de bene esse deposition. However, the court ruled the doctor's deposition did not show any harm to the child and would have not changed the outcome. So, the return of the child to the biological parents was affirmed. 

All too often, parties are convinced they are right merely because that is how they feel. Rather than file petitions based on emotion it is far better to consult with a family law attorney who can properly advise parties of the law. If you are in the Charlottesville area and have questions, please see us for a consultation. 

 

Court Voids Romantic Restrictions in Divorce Agreement.

Many divorcing parents are concerned about new romantic interests in the lives of their soon-to-be-ex-spouses and the potential introduction of these strangers to their children. Some may even want to incorporate language into their divorce agreements restricting the ability of an ex-spouse to introduce a new boyfriend or girlfriend to their children. A recent decision out of Virginia, however, suggests that such provisions may not be enforceable.

In that case, Melanie Knoepfler-Powell and Michael Powell incorporated a provision into their property settlement agreement requiring them both to exercise “great care prior to introducing” new “boyfriends or girlfriends with whom they may have a romantic relationship” to their child. The clause also barred them from having overnight guests of the opposite sex when the child was present in the home. In the context of a dispute over Michael’s request for a child support modification, Melanie expressed a willingness to void the provisions in question when it came to either of their relationships, Michael had recently married a woman he was living with and agreed to eliminate the restriction on overnight guests, but not the restriction on introducing the child to romantic partners.

A Virginia trial judge, however, ruled that the provisions were not enforceable. Specifically, the judge pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in the past that the fundamental right to privacy guarantees the freedom to associate in various types of intimate relationships. While the potential relationships here might not rise to that level, the judge said courts need to be careful about restraining the associations of a parent who has showed no signs of acting in a way that might harm the child. Additionally, the judge said the provision itself was unreasonably vague, since it wasn’t clear what it actually means to exercise “great care” before introducing romantic partners to the child. This decision does not mean that any provision in a divorce agreement that restricts a partner’s romantic activity will be voided. After all, this is just one case from one state involving very specific facts.

But if you are considering imposing restrictions on your spouse’s relationships following a divorce, it is important to discuss whether a court would actually honor such a provision.

‘Virtual’ trial without proper safeguards violates parent’s rights!

‘Virtual’ trial without proper safeguards violates parent’s rights

Since the start of the pandemic, family and juvenile courts everywhere have scrambled to find ways to carry out their proceedings. In many cases, this has meant “virtual” hearings and trials over videoconferencing applications like Zoom. Despite some hiccups, this generally hasn’t prevented courts from performing their functions while protecting the rights of the parties. But as a case from Massachusetts shows, technological problems can sometimes impact the fairness of a proceeding to the point where the result has to be thrown out.

The case was a proceeding in which the state sought to terminate a mother’s and father’s parental rights. The child had been in the custody of the department of children and families since 2014, when she was four. The goal at that time was to reunite her with her parents, but by 2016 the goal changed to adoption and the child was placed with a preadoptive family.

In September 2020, several months into the pandemic, a trial was held in juvenile court to determine whether it was in the child’s best interests for her parents’ rights to be terminated, freeing her up for adoption.

The first day of trial, held over Zoom, was plagued with technical glitches, making it impossible for the mother to participate by phone or video and interrupting the testimony of the state’s witnesses. As a result, the mother, who was not represented by an attorney, missed almost all the state’s evidence against her.

When the trial resumed two days later, the mother had to try and cross-examine witnesses whose testimony she had missed. The judge ended up ordering the termination of rights and denied the mother’s request for a new trial.

But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision, ruling that the trial as conducted was unfair and in violation of the mother’s right to due process of law, and ordered a new trial.

The court made clear that a virtual trial is not, in and of itself, unfair and can be considered perfectly acceptable as long as all the parties’ rights are safeguarded. But the case does highlight the challenges of doing justice online.

Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy-Divorce Did You Know Number 11-Can A Child Testify By Closed Circuit Television?

Yes. Under certain circumstances set forth in this statute, a child can testify by two-way closed-circuit television.

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer. If you have a case where a child's testimony about abuse may be required, please contact me at (434) 293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.

Mother Agrees to Temporary Paternal Custody for Reunification then Court Awards Father Primary Custody

In the March 8, 2022 case of Cathryn Rose Rainey v. Chad Christopher Rainey, a published opinion, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err in awarding sole legal and physical custody of the children to father but did err in giving father the power and sole discretion regarding mother’s visitation with the children. 

On appeal, mother contended that the trial court failed to identify the basis of its ruling orally or in writing as required under Code § 20-124.3. Additionally, she claimed the trial court erred by abdicating its authority to decide visitation and by granting father, in consultation with counselors, the power to decide when and whether to expand her visitation and lastly, she appeals the court's decision awarding custody to the father.

This case stemmed from a marriage where father traveled often, and children had a close relationship with grandmother, who was a caretaker as well to father admitting to an affair in 2016 and wife filing for divorce. In 2017 father abuses mother while wrestling for the phone in front of children and children become hesitant about seeing father.  

Initial ruling was primary custody to mother and visitation with father with intention of rebuilding relationship. Reunification went so poorly that father ended attempts at visitation in 2019 until relationships could be restored. Mother continued to take children to therapy. Father then filed motions with the JDR court to either transfer physical custody to him or increase his visitation. He alleged that mother had failed to facilitate visitation and had not supported the relationship between father and the children. Mother agreed. Mother testified that she agreed to switch custody to father to encourage the children’s relationship with father, and father did not dispute that mother agreed to the temporary custody arrangement for this purpose.

The court continues: 
"The temporary order explained it was the parties’ intention to work toward shared physical custody. The testimony and evidence at trial showed that mother believed this arrangement would be temporary".

Instead, since consenting to this arrangement, mother had not seen her children since July 3, 2019. The children have also not seen grandmother, a daily presence in their lives, since July 2019, though father has allowed daughter to exchange occasional letters with grandmother.

"D. Father and the Counselors Strictly Limit the Children’s Contact with Mother. The reunification program to get father back in the children’s lives was premised on immersing the children in contact with father. It is apparent that mother struggled with the
relinquishment of her children, and her loss of contact with them, shortly following the July 3, 2019 transfer of custody to father. Dr. Nelson referred to this as “buyer’s remorse.”

Dr. Nelson prepared reports in connection with the custody and visitation proceedings; in the July 31, 2019 report Dr. Nelson explained daughter had written mother that she wanted to come home because she was unhappy, mistreated, and no one was listening to her. Following this communication, mother wrote a letter to daughter and tried to deliver it through one of the therapists involved in the case. In the offending letter—in addition to urging daughter to give father a chance—mother wrote: “I know you are scared, sad, confused [sic] and angry right now. You are feeling like you are being punished and you are, but not for anything you did." You don’t deserve this.” Dr. Nelson was concerned that this type of language was counter-productive to reunification and, in conjunction with mother’s difficulty with therapy, Dr. Nelson concluded that mother should not have any unsupervised contact with the children. Mother and daughter were also caught passing notes clandestinely—without counselor permission—through an intermediary at daughter’s gymnastics class. This raised concerns for the counselors about mother’s boundaries and ability to follow rules.

On October 9, 2019, following a hearing, the JDR court found a material change in circumstances had occurred since December 22, 2017 and entered an order in both children’s cases explaining its reasoning. It found that father made efforts to improve his relationship with his children, including therapy. Based on the September 2019 report from Dr. Nelson, which it incorporated into the order, the JDR court found that mother had undermined father’s reunification with the children by sending letters with alienating language to daughter. Mother was ordered not to have any contact with the children other than through therapeutic letter writing. The JDR court order gave father discretion as to when to increase mother’s visitation beyond counselor-assisted letter writing and required mother to solely bear the cost of a paid supervisor if one was chosen. Father has had the authority to permit visitation since that time.
Dr. Nelson completed yet another report dated July 17, 2020. She continued to show concern over mother’s disengagement with reunification letter writing and found that the children were having issues with mother’s lack of communication. She opined that, if mother refused any sort of supervised or therapeutic visitation, mother should have no contact. Mother did not agree that visitation should be supervised, but her non-compliance with the prescribed counselor-assisted letter writing remained an obstacle to further contact.

Following the award of custody to the father, mother appealed. 

Haupt, the reunification counselor, testified that the reunification with the father had been successfully resolved. The children were quick to embrace reunification and testimony established there were marked improvements in the children’s relationship with
father within one week, to the point that they had resumed calling him “dad” and were laughing and engaging with him.
The evidence presented at trial was consistent with Dr. Nelson’s opinion that mother had been a loving, fit parent to the children prior to the custody and visitation issues with father. Dr. Nelson found mother to continue to have significant anger towards father. Dr. Nelson and Kniffen were concerned about the damage mother would do to the children’s relationship with father if given unsupervised visits. At trial, mother continued to deny any role in the children’s prior distress at visiting father. Mother’s only treating physician, expert psychiatrist Dr. Paul Spector, testified at trial. He saw mother six times, and he found no issues with mother other than Adjustment Disorder due to estrangement from her children. Dr. Spector stated that mother was fully capable of handling visitation and functioning well. He “ran her through the mill” and found no mental disease or reason for medication. He noted that the children had superb grades while in her care and that is usually a sign that home life is stable. He explained that when he saw her, she no
longer had custody of her children and she was “understandably, extremely distressed, at not being able to even see her children.” The other counselors and therapists involved did not speak with Dr. Spector.

Both parties submitted written findings of fact prior to their closing arguments at trial. The trial court found on behalf of father, and asked father to draft the order after consultation with mother. The parties were unable to agree on the language of the order—father submitted a letter to the judge explaining that the parties could not come to an agreement and were not able to schedule a hearing before the judge to resolve the disagreement about the order. The trial court wrote a letter to the parties indicating that it reviewed the parties’ findings of fact and proposed final orders and found father’s proposed final order was consistent with its ruling and
intent. Father’s proposed final order largely mirrored his previously submitted findings of fact. The trial court instructed mother to endorse father’s draft order and note her objections. The final order awarded father sole legal and physical custody. The visitation instructions crafted in the JDR court were essentially reimposed. Mother’s contact with the children was limited to letter writing; her therapist would provide approved letters to Kniffen, the children’s therapist, and the letters would then be provided to the children who would receive them with Kniffen. Mother would be required to review letters from the children with a therapist. Father was instructed to consult with the children’s therapists and expand (or rather, initiate) mother’s visitation to therapeutic visits when “Mother is appropriate and will not cause harm to the children.” Father was given sole discretion to decide when to progress beyond therapeutic visits
to supervised visitation with a supervisor of his choosing, though mother was ordered to pay the costs for father’s chosen supervisor.
Mother timely appealed to this Court.

ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
We review the trial court’s decisions on custody and visitation for an abuse of discretion.
Wynnycky v. Kozel, 71 Va. App. 177, 193 (2019) (“[A] trial court’s determination with regard to
[custody and] visitation is reversible only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion.”
(quoting Bedell v. Price, 70 Va. App. 497, 504 (2019))). “A trial court ‘by definition abuses its
discretion when it makes an error of law.’” Chaney v. Karabaic-Chaney, 71 Va. App. 431, 434
(2020) (quoting Shooltz v. Shooltz, 27 Va. App. 264, 271 (1998)).

Mother’s position that the trial court failed to comply with the governing statute is grounded in its instructions to endorse father’s draft
order, which reflected father’s proposed findings of fact, along with her objections to it. The actions taken by the trial court in this regard are not prohibited by law and occur with some frequency.

This case aptly illustrates the complications that can arise when one parent is given power over visitation for the non-custodial parent. From the time the JDR court delegated its power to determine visitation to father, giving him sole control over visitation since July 3, 2019, the children have not been permitted to see mother—not even in a therapists’ office, let alone in a non-therapeutic setting.

CONCLUSION
The trial court erred in giving father the power to determine mother’s visitation. We reverse the trial court’s ruling on visitation and remand the case for full review of that issue. We otherwise affirm the final custody and visitation order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. 

 

 

Pets and Divorces: Do You Need A ‘Petnup’?

Pet custody can become as contentious in a divorce as the custody of children. That’s why in some states, like Alaska, California and Illinois, courts consider the pet’s best interests, similar to how they resolve child custody issues. In most states, however, pets are considered property, which means a divorce judge may well decide who gets the family dog the same way he or she decides who gets the house, the car, the living room sofa, the wedding china or any other asset that’s part of the marital estate.

But a dog or cat has physical and emotional needs that a pool table or patio set doesn’t have, so you may not want to risk your pet being equitably distributed like an inanimate object. To address this concern, “petnup” agreements between partners or spouses that lay out what happens if the couple breaks up have become increasingly popular.

The key consideration in a petnup is custody. Joint custody seems like it would make sense if both spouses are equally close to the pet. But many pet experts say this isn’t a great idea since the instability of shuttling between homes can cause behavioral issues in animals. Instead, primary custody with one spouse with visitation rights for the other might be a better option.

Another consideration in creating a petnup is whether you have kids and if they’re attached to the pet. If so, it may be in the kids’ own best interest for the pet to reside in the place of primary physical custody.

Either way, you shouldn’t draft a petnup on your own. If the pet truly matters, you should make sure the agreement is written in a way that will carry out your wishes and hold up in court. A family law attorney can help you with that.

Mother Could Not Overturn Adoption Where She Knew The Nature and Legal Consequences of Her Consent to Adoption.

On October 20, 2020, in the case of Shannon Kathleen Smith Hurt Lively v. Paulette Holland Smith and Link Monroe Smith, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in a published decision, upheld a trial court's finding that Code § 63.2-1216 is not unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case where appellant did not lack understanding of the nature and legal consequences of her consent to the adoption of her child by appellees.

Mother and father had a child. The father was abusive and he and mother divorced.  Mother was sentenced to four years incarceration and asked her parents to assume custody of the child. Approximately 2 years later and while the mother was still incarcerated, the maternal grandparents petitioned the court to adopt the child. The adoption was initiated to prevent the abusive father from getting custody of the child. Mother executed a consent to adoption form and shortly thereafter a final order of adoption was entered. Mother was subsequently released from prison, petitioned for custody and that petition was denied due to the adoption order. Mother then sought to set aside the adoption. Maternal grandmother demurred stating that Code Section 63.2-1216 foreclosed mother’s challenge to the adoption.

The trial court agreed with mother that, since she was incarcerated, she should have had a guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to Code Section 8.01-9 and that her rights to due process and equal protection had been violated by the failure to appoint a guardian. However, the trial court ruled that Code Section 63.2-1216 was not unconstitutional as applied to her case. Mother appealed.

The question is whether, assuming arguendo that the circuit court was correct with respect to the issue of mother’s entitlement to a guardian ad litem and the violation of mother’s rights, the facts of this case support mother’s argument that she did not understand the nature and consequences of her consent and the adoption and thus was denied due process.

The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that there was no misunderstanding of the nature of the adoption"

-Mother signed the consent to adoption.

-Mother corresponded with the adoption attorney about the adoption.

-The adoption attorney spoke with the maternal grandparents about the finality of the adoption and neither of them indicated that they did not understand that the adoption would be anything else other than final.

-The maternal grandfather had several phone conversations with mother where the words adoption were used.

-The maternal grandmother talked to the mother over the phone about the adoption and never told mother that the adoption would be temporary.

-Mother knew the objectives of the adoption were to protect the child from the abusive father.

-There had been a previous custody proceeding involving the parties so evidence supports a reasonable inference that mother knew the adoption was a new legal arrangement that went beyond what mere custody provided.

-Since mother was in favor of the adoption to prevent child from going to abusive father, it was difficult to conclude that mother didn’t know the permenancy of the adoption wouldn’t apply to her as well.

-Mother saw the adoption order entered in 2011 when she returned from prison, but she waited until 2015 when the maternal grandparents went through a divorce to file for custody and then another three years to file the petition to set aside the adoption.

Therefore “it is clear from the totality of the facts supports a finding that mother did not lack understanding of the nature and legal consequences of her consent and the adoption. The statute at issue here, Code Section 63.2-1216, provides that six months after the date of entry of an order of adoption that has not been appealed, that order becomes ‘final for all purpose’ and ‘shall not be subject to attack…for any reason,’ including those alleged here.’”

When Should I Modify My Custody Order?

Custody agreements consider factors such as vacation schedules, holidays, monthly or weekly visitation schedules, as well as details related to children’s education, religious activities, extracurricular activities and even sports, based on everybody’s needs at the time of the divorce.

However, needs can change, so you might consider modifying your custody order. In most states, custody orders can be modified if there’s been a significant “change in circumstances” and if the current arrangement is no longer in the children’s best interests.

If a parent gets a new job that requires relocating, or if a parent has a new work schedule that makes the current arrangement very difficult, that might justify a modification. A significant change in a child’s schedule, whether for school, important after school activities, religious school or any number of things that are critical to the child’s development could necessitate a modification.

A modification might also be in order for other reasons, such as the other parent’s home being unstable or unsafe due to drugs, alcohol or violence, or a because of a parent’s incarceration.

If you plan to seek a modification, it’s generally up to you to prove a change in circumstances and to explain why a modification is in the child’s best interests. You will be expected to document all of this. If you think a modification may be in your child’s best interests (and not just in your own best interests), you should contact a family law attorney who is well-versed in custody issues right away.

Should I Stay Or Should I Go?-More Spouses Are Living Together While They Are Divorcing — But Is This Wise?

It's an age old question, well it's been a question that's been asked since at least 1982 when the Clash's hit album Combat Rock with the rock anthem "Should I Stay or Should I Go" was released. :)

The first step in a divorce is usually for one member of the couple to “walk out.” But increasingly, divorcing spouses aren’t walking out at all – they’re staying put. In fact, it’s been estimated that as many as one-half of all separating couples today live together in the midst of their divorce proceedings. And some couples even live together temporarily after they’re officially divorced.

Here’s a look at some of the reasons for this trend, as well as the potential drawbacks.

The biggest reason for living together during divorce is economic – these are tough times for many people, and it can be difficult to suddenly have to afford two separate households, with separate payments for rent, mortgage, utilities, groceries, and other household expenses. Many couples decide to keep living together for a while so they’ll have time to save up for when they have to start financially separate lives.

This is especially true in areas where the housing market isn’t strong. For many couples, the best way to afford to live apart is to sell their house. But if the housing market is weak, a couple might decide to continue living in their home for a while in hopes that its value will go back up.

Some couples who are planning to get divorced continue living together for a time because of the children. In many cases, the spouse who “walks out” may be the spouse who sees less of the kids, at least for a while, so some spouses refuse to leave for this reason. And some couples want to soften the blow for their children, and provide them with a more gradual transition while maintaining their home routines.

Some spouses might have a strategic reason for staying put. They might want to get the house in the divorce, and believe that they’re more likely to be awarded the property if they’re currently living in it. And they might think that by refusing to leave, they can put pressure on the other spouse to settle the divorce quickly or on more favorable terms, so the other spouse can get on with his or her life.

Of course, whether all this will work depends on the couple and how bad their relationship has become. In many cases, trying to live together can backfire dramatically.

For instance, if a divorcing couple’s finances are difficult, chances are they fought a lot about money during the marriage. They might end up fighting even more if they’re separating but living together.

Instead of just fighting over whether to make a home repair, for example, they might now also fight over who should pay how much toward the cost, with the spouse who doesn’t want the repair refusing to contribute his or her portion. There could be other disputes over all sorts of shared household expenses, especially if one spouse earns significantly more than the other. In the end, the problems caused by these arguments could be more costly than simply living separately.

As for the children, divorce is likely to be distressing for them no matter what. Living together for a while may soften the blow, but it could also make it worse, by creating confusion and delaying their ability to fully adjust to a new family situation. This is especially true if you’re likely to fight with your spouse while you’re living together.

Staying put for strategic reasons can backfire, too. While a spouse might cave in to the other spouse’s demands in order to get him or her to leave, a spouse might also dig in and fight harder, making the divorce process longer and more expensive.

Living together also creates a number of logistical complexities. For instance, will the couple physically divide up the living space? Will each spouse have particular rooms as their own space, that the other person can’t access? And what if one spouse decides to date someone else? Can he or she bring a date to the home?

Finally, you should know that if you’re still living together, even if you’re planning to divorce, you might not be considered “separated” in the eyes of the law – which could affect how a court ultimately divides up your property.

So if you’re wondering, “Should I stay or should I go,” the best bet is to talk to a family lawyer who will help you carefully consider all your options.