# Legal Separation Required Before Divorce -- Bad or Good?



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

One of our current threads raises a good question. In the U.S., many states require a legal separation prior to granting divorce. What do you think are the pros and cons of that? 

One con I can think of is it may impose a financial burden. 
One big pro is it gets you out of the house so that if things turn ugly and violent and gives both spouses and children a break from the fighting. 

I know separations cause some chaos for third parties. I've dated a couple of separated guys. So from my perspective, separation for a guy is a time they go out and get sex and usually also emotional support from a woman, who gets the worst of the situation because there are always ups and downs between the spouses. 

I think separation may be positive in that it kind of forces the couple to move on, no matter what the dynamic is there or who is willing or not willing. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

IMO, it's the state interfering in relationships. At most, if a legal separation is required, then it should only need to exist for about 3 months. It does create a milestone and establish clear intent to divorce, and it should probably stipulate that the couple live apart during that time.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Bad. 

Want to marry someone you met 10 minutes ago? Congratulations!

Want to divorce someone you've lived with for years? Who the hell do you think you are?


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

I do think that shorter term would be better. Stringing it out can be really hard on both people.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I can understand the government wanting you to take a short amount of time to cool off.

But a year or two is ridiculous. And I agree about dating while separated.....I wouldn't go near a "separated" guy. He's still married.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Yeah, it's not the best idea. But both of them did divorce. Why it's not a good idea is too many ups and downs and then too, once they really feel single, they are not limiting themselves to one woman but are playing the field, and in my case, I was the first after separation but the last to know when they were seeing other people. I resisted dating the second one, a friend, and he was a mistake just going from friends to lovers just because he suddently wanted to. The other one was more painful but pretty predictable to anyone experienced with it.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

A relative got divorced in a state that had a "waiting period" to get divorced. In order to satisfy the waiting period, he could not sleep under the same roof as his spouse, nor have sex with her, which isn't what most of us had in mind when we got married. 

Ironically, if there had been domestic violence the waiting period could have been waived. Likewise, if there was documented infidelity, but documenting infidelity is problematic if you don't work in the porn industry. Infidelity is illegal, and was punishable by a 15$(fifteen dollar) fine, which he was willing to risk. AFAIK he never got caught, see previous mention of documentation.

He waited until he was sure the marriage was dead, and then flouted the system. How would one work with the system? Separate at the first sign of trouble, to start the clock? That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. I think the system is no good, and really ought to go.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

The only pro thing imho is that it may, just conjecture here, keep too many couples from divorcing Monday and remarrying Friday.

Or marrying/divorcing for tax purposes perhaps.

I personally think I'm against requiring a period of separation before D. Seems like it would cause financial and emotional stress in a multitude of ways.

I've not gone through it so won't say others who have certainly have a more experienced view so who knows.

But if I was done, I'd be done on day one. Dating on day two if I chose to. Separation required or not.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

It does pose a financial problem for one or both people. and having to hire an attorney just doubles down on the financial burden. to complicate matters if there are children involved you can't just either one of you run off with them and move someplace else without making that legal.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

It does, doesn't it? I do wonder what the original intent. The problem is it does leave people in financial limbo when they need to just go ahead and sell their house so they can each get some place to live. I guess places like Nevada have a quickie divorce but I don't know how that affects you if you live in another state.

I also think there ought to be away for one spouse to file for and get the divorce over with quick regardless if the other one doesn't want them to leave. I think it would save a lot of fighting and danger. As is I believe most places require a big waiting period for that after someone will not sign off on the divorce decree. I think if one person wants a divorce, they should just be able to go file something and it's done. But there has to be financial limitations in place to keep someone from just making off with everything.

Like Mr nail said, anyone can just go get married pretty quick. They should probably make the divorces easy but then have some law that you can't just turn right back around and marry that person for a certain waiting period.


----------



## Al_Bundy (Mar 14, 2021)

I don't think the govt should be involved in marriage at all. If there's kids and there needs to be child support, ok. But since men and women are equal, two adults right? When it's over, I'll take my stuff and go and you take yours. If you happen to have less because you were lazy, that's your fault not mine.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

DownByTheRiver said:


> It does, doesn't it? I do wonder what the original intent.


I think the intent is, some people object to others getting divorced and don't have enough political pull to outright forbid it, because that would take food out of the mouths of divorce lawyers.

So they settle for throwing sand in the face of divorcees, who tend not to have a lobby since no one plans to get divorced.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> IMO, it's the state interfering in relationships. At most, if a legal separation is required, then it should only need to exist for about 3 months. It does create a milestone and establish clear intent to divorce, and it should probably stipulate that the couple live apart during that time.


I only disagree on the couple having to live apart. If the couple can be roommates during the separation period that relieves them of unnecessary financial burden from having to maintain two separate homes.



SpinyNorman said:


> Ironically, if there had been domestic violence the waiting period could have been waived. Likewise, if there was documented infidelity, but documenting infidelity is problematic if you don't work in the porn industry. Infidelity is illegal, and was punishable by a 15$(fifteen dollar) fine, which he was willing to risk. AFAIK he never got caught, see previous mention of documentation.


Annnd that's a way to work they system.



SpinyNorman said:


> How would one work with the system?


Well, one way is to admit infidelity. My state requires separate residences and a separation of 1 year if their are children involved. Waived under the above mentioned conditions of your previous post. I had to live with my ex for a while after we separated. Long story, but I lost my apartment and had to move in with my MIL. Ex lost his GF's place when they broke up, so he also moved to his mothers. 

When I could finally afford to move out and file I found out we didn't qualify because we'd only lived separately for 4 months. So, a the 3 month mark we have a "case management conference scheduled. This is where you meet in the judges chambers and discuss any problems that need addressing while awaiting the divorce. 

In the chambers I tell the judge there is no possibility of the marriage being saved and ask he finalize the divorce now. I explain that my ex and I may have been forced to share living space, but we were not involved in any way and were separated the whole time, I then totally admitted to committing adultery and leaving for my AP. Judge granted the divorce and I left the courthouse about 40 minutes later with final divorce decree in hand.



Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I'd be done on day one. Dating on day two if I chose to. Separation required or not.


So many people agree with you that it's not considered adultery to date during separation in most states anymore.



DownByTheRiver said:


> I do wonder what the original intent.


Back when divorce could socially and professionally ruin your life I'm sure the intent was originally to give people a chance to change their mind. Now I think it's to give people a chance to change their mind or at least cool down enough to divide kids and assets fairly.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

I think the number of people that can live civilly when they should be separated prior to divorce is probably a pretty small percentage. I'm guessing you could probably go to a judge in many circumstances. for example what if you were rich and owned a huge mansion and could actually just not even see each other. But I kind of think it would help the most people to just go ahead and let the divorce go forward and let the selling of assets go forward as soon as possible so as not to leave people in limbo because limbo is often very expensive.


----------



## theloveofmylife (Jan 5, 2021)

DownByTheRiver said:


> But there has to be financial limitations in place to keep someone from just making off with everything.


Maybe it's this in part, but more importantly what happens to any children involved. The state doesn't want to pay for them. State probably hopes the cooling off period will keep the family intact. If not, it still gets the kids one year or whatever the time frame might be, closer to being adults. Another year or more without public assistance.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> I can understand the government wanting you to take a short amount of time to cool off.
> 
> But a year or two is ridiculous. And I agree about dating while separated.....I wouldn't go near a "separated" guy. He's still married.


I agree. If I’m on a dating site and their status is “separated,” I keep going.


----------



## Enigma32 (Jul 6, 2020)

When I got separated years ago, we stayed separated for one year and decided to start kinda dating again. We didn't cohabitate but we did spend the night here and there and spent holidays together like any couple would. That lasted almost a year. One day we just decided to get a divorce and we did our paperwork. 1 year separation is something they really just take you at your word. No one actually checks into it. With that said....I get it. The 1 year separation rule has probably kept a few marriages together. People fight, separate, go back out in the dating world and see how crappy it really is, then they wanna go back to their spouse. That's pretty much what happened with the ex wife.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

I believe there is usually at least one get back together time during separations and I think it sometimes is brought on by dividing assets and getting sentimental going through belongings.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

Legal??

Like who's going to jail over this? No one...And who's policing it? No one..

People will do whatever they want in most cases.....And the State has no business and certainly no resources to bother with it either...In just about all cases, when they are done, they are done...They'll date or screw whenever/whoever they want at that point, and if someone has a problem with it, well.... someone else won't and life will move on...

I've never known anyone that successfully reconciled after a "separation" be it legal or otherwise..


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

I haven't either. But the legal aspect of it is you can't get the divorce until you do the legal separation but the separation is not in any way monitored.


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

In my state, we had to live separately and be known to be separated for 1 year before divorce since we shared a child. All it accomplished was stringing the anxiety along. It didn't make a difference in my determination to divorce. It just delayed it which really did not increase our chances of getting back together (which I think it why they started the separation requirement). The most insulting I think was having to list someone who could testify that we had been separated for a year. 

I found the whole thing condescending.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

I am not a fan of it. As many have said, you are forcing odd financial situations, not allowing for clean breaks and delaying the reboot of people's lives.

I would guess it has it's roots in religion and patriarchy. It would, historically, be very difficult for a wife to be able to do this if the husband wanted to make it difficult. I am not aware of rules that require financial support or child support during the 'separation' period, but I could be wrong there as I have not looked into it.

I think that would also be in line with the historical data that as we remove barriers for women in divorce, more of them got them. It was not that all marriages were great before, just that women had few options.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

The times are quite long in my country. 2 years if you both agree and 5 years if the divorce is contested, which is far too long.

I can understand the rationale for legal separation in theory, but in practice much of what it is intended to allow has happened already before a formal separation and so it just prolongs the agony. Very few couples reconcile after a legal separation or so I'm told.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I haven't either. But the legal aspect of it is you can't get the divorce until you do the legal separation but the separation is not in any way monitored.


If you lied about this you might well get away with it, but OTOH if your ex subsequently gets mad at you he/she knows you falsely swore a legal oath in court that has large financial implications.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I haven't either. But the legal aspect of it is you can't get the divorce until you do the legal separation but the separation is not in any way monitored.


Depends on the state, but my state requires you to file for the clock to start. It's easy to see when a couple technically legally separated because the date filed is on the forms.


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

The judge at my hearing asked me what date we separated. I wasn’t aware separation is a requirement in my state (I still don’t think it is) but I wanted to be divorced more than I wanted to complain so I went with it.


----------



## Enigma32 (Jul 6, 2020)

SpinyNorman said:


> If you lied about this you might well get away with it, but OTOH if your ex subsequently gets mad at you he/she knows you falsely swore a legal oath in court that has large financial implications.


In my state, both parties in the divorce have to say they have been separated for a year, and both parties have to bring a witness to back up their statements. Easy enough to do.


----------



## theloveofmylife (Jan 5, 2021)

I've heard that spending the night together can be considered "cohabitation" in some places and start the separation clock over. IDK how they'd know, unless someone told them. 

Hmmm. It could be a trick used by spouse that doesn't really want the divorce.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

theloveofmylife said:


> I've heard that spending the night together can be considered "cohabitation" in some places and start the separation clock over. IDK how they'd know, unless someone told them.
> 
> Hmmm. It could be a trick used by spouse that doesn't really want the divorce.


Well a lot of times in divorces there is one spouse who doesn't want to divorce and might go out of their way to bed them just so they could tell the judge that. It is not at all uncommon for separated couples to still sleep together some. even while they're sleeping with other people.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Enigma32 said:


> In my state, both parties in the divorce have to say they have been separated for a year, and both parties have to bring a witness to back up their statements. Easy enough to do.


Easy to go through the motions, but I was replying to someone who suggested lying about it and I was pointing out the implications.

The idea that there is a third party who knows I didn't sleep w/ my ex is pretty funny, but I understand it is your state's idea and not yours.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well a lot of times in divorces there is one spouse who doesn't want to divorce and might go out of their way to bed them just so they could tell the judge that.


Agreed. And if their efforts to bed the spouse came up empty, they could lie about it and it is he said/she said.


----------

