Maryland Considers Sexless Divorce Law
Some states require a legal separation before a couple files for divorce. This gives the couple time to think about the divorce and determine their ultimate goals and to do what is best for all parties involved.
However, living apart often means a couple’s expenses double. With the tough economy, some couples are unable to fill the separation requirement.
Now, some legislators are starting to take a different look at this required separation. They want to determine if there are less expensive ways to fulfill the current legislation without breaking the bank.
According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland legislator and attorney Luiz Simmons recently proposed a law that would allow couples seeking divorce to live in the same residence for a year.
That catch is that while the couple lives in the same home, they cannot engage in sexual relations with one another.
Current Maryland law states that any couple filing an uncontested divorce must go through a one year separation before the divorce can be finalized. During the separation, the couple must split and live in separate households.
Simmons said that when both members are forced to live a part for a year, they can become more financially stressed. And if children are involved, then the expenses could significantly increase.
But if the couple is allowed to remain in the same household and refrain from sex, then they will have the emotional separation without the added stress of making additional payments.
Skeptics of the proposed legislation raise the concern how the courts will determine that the couple abstained from sex for a full year.
But that would be an issue even if the couple lived apart for a whole year and some say that will be up to the courts to decide.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:06 pm
We have had this in Australia for quite a long time now. A couple only needs to live apart, whether in the same house or not, for one year to get a divorce. There is no blame and no need to prove anything nasty. It is an end that is more respectful.
Nicola
http://www.simpledivorceadvice.com
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:18 am
The state of MD does not require a couple to wait a year or two before getting married, nor does it impose certain requirements for granting a marriage certificate along with the waiting period. It should not, therefore, impose any requirements or waiting period before granting a divorce. This is especially applicable in the case of those parties who have mutually consented to a divorce and are able to come to an agreement without engaging the court’s time in a protracted battle (i.e., no-fault divorce). Furthermore, it is none of the court’s business of what goes on or does not go on in a couple’s bedroom (i.e., the sex issue), nor the state of their relationship. If the couple, as mature adults, have decided they no longer want to be together, then the court has no business in “playing big brother”, or marriage counselor, or advisor, in attempting to keep the couple together. Maryland is stomping on citizens private affairs and interferring with their “pursuit of happiness”.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Maryland law is a life sentance. It is real simple get off the puritan law. Divorce is not a crime in Maryland. When the parties that are married say they want a divorce grant the divorce, divide the stuff that matters and each go on their own way. The state is in it for the money and so are the attorneys so this change will be fought with vigor from many law groups. Maryland divorce laws are a joke compared to other states such as Texas and Florida. Child support and the wellbeing of the child if any children are involved is the MAIN issue. Maryland court can’t even get that right! The proof of what I am saying is in reading the newspaper in Montgomery County fathers have gone so far as to kill their kids to keep them from the other spouse in 2006 and 2008. One spouse or the other may use the child to get Use and Possession for three years and then further run up huge legal bills debating visitation that is granted or not and exactly when to pick up or drop of the children…..etc. I can fill this blog from the faults of Maryland courts and the “system” they use. It only benefits the attorneys because a married couple with assets will be giving a large percentage of them over in legal fees one way or another cause that is how Maryland likes it. I personnally would advise anyone who wants a divorce to move out of the state of Maryland become a resident of Texas, ca, or Fl and then file from that state keeping the case out of Maryland forever. Until some major shake up of the family law division of each county is conducted from a federal or other agency the bs and wrongs in Maryland will continue to mount along with the cost of divorce from that state. It is a not a reasonable expectation that you will be treated fair in a divorce in Maryland even with “the best” attorney on your side. YOU need to do your own homework and make sure that what is being don for you is RIGHT and correctly worded at all times. Take no unclear written documents as the law. MAKE an appeal immediately if you see an error allowed by a judge on a form or order. The judge in Maryland is not up for prosecution by you remember that. Your attorney may be though for not correcting it only if you point it out immediately; not weeks or months later.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
hmmm…. i think its already exist in some states… check here: http://www.groundsfordivorce.org
February 18th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Yah indeed they must be reason in filling a divorce. Maryland is one of the state that implent this I hope some estate to the same as maryland.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:03 am
This seems like a good law. It’s a good way to get both parties to contemplate whether or not they want a divorce. Like Nicola said in her comment, “There is no blame and no need to prove anything nasty. It is an end that is more respectful.”
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:42 am
I think this is a great law. I live in Colorado and wish this state would start some thing like this. One change that I would make, we are in our late 60s and have a clause if over 65 live together as long as we would like. Because niether one of us can survive money wise. We get by now on S.S. & small pensions
June 29th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
How nice for you Ronald. I don’t see what your point about being over 65 has to do with anything !!!! I hate to break it to you buddy, but people who aren’t over 65 are having a hard time getting by in this economy too. I am 48. Are you saying I should wait for 17 more miserable years before I can get a divorce from this loser? Give me a break!!!!!!
I live in MD and cannot at this time afford to leave my home and support myself for an entire year before I can file (and likely another year while we go through the process in the courts). My husband cannot afford to pay the mortgage without my help. If I left, the house would end up in foreclosure. I would much rather sell it and split the profits but he wants to fight for more than his fair share. A divorce hearing would help us split the profits more equitably (hopefully). Unfortunately, we can’t get to that point until one of us moves out for a year. It’s an endless circle with no good exit ramp. Even if I could afford to go rent someplace – and he could afford the mortgage, he would hold that against me in court after a year – claiming to deserve more because he paid more of the house costs during the separation – and claiming that I deserted him. I can’t win whether I stay or go
I live in a totally SEPARATE basement apartment in our home. It has its own utility service and everything – but it’s not considered to be living under different roofs. We have not had sexual relations in over 5 years (out of only a six year marriage) – and yet the government of Maryland claims that I do not have grounds for a divorce.
Maryland should start requiring couples to have a two year waiting period BEFORE they marry – not when they want to move on. If this were the case, there would be less marriages mistakes and we wouldn’t worry about divorce as much. I know that if I had waited longer, I never would have made this horrible mistake that has ruined my life. I was 42 when I married this phony idiot. I am 48 now. Even if I could move out today, I’ll be almost 50 (if not already 50) before I can disentangle myself from this nightmare. My 40’s have been wasted and I just want to move on before I waste my 50’s !!!
As for the poster that said, “… good law. It’s a good way to get both parties to contemplate whether or not they want a divorce.” Trust me – I’ve done more than enough contemplating in the last few years. Way more.