The legal basis for extending a Civil Protection Order is set forth in D.C. Code § 16-1005(d-1), which authorizes a judicial officer to extend an order upon motion of any party for good cause shown. A finding that the respondent violated the CPO is not required. Good cause exists where the petitioner demonstrates a cognizable danger that the respondent will commit or threaten to commit a criminal offense against the petitioner in the coming year if the order is not extended. In assessing good cause, the court must consider the entire mosaic of the case, including evidence of what occurred
Read More

Prenuptial agreements in the District of Columbia are governed by the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, codified at D.C. Code §§ 46-501 to 46-510. These contracts allow parties to define rights in property, spousal support, and other matters, provided they are in writing, voluntarily executed, and accompanied by fair and reasonable disclosure of assets. Courts treat them as contracts but apply heightened scrutiny because of the confidential relationship between prospective spouses. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Simon v. Smith, decided April 21, 2022, addressed unconscionability in the context of marital agreements. Although the case involved postnuptial contracts, its
Read More

The Wall Street Journal’s recent “The Cost of Divorce” series sheds critical light on the profound financial upheaval that accompanies the end of a marriage. Drawing from personal accounts, economic research, and expert perspectives, the articles reveal that divorce often dismantles the economies of scale inherent in shared households. Household income typically drops by about half upon separation and recovers only partially over the next decade, according to National Bureau of Economic Research findings. Individuals frequently find themselves working more yet feeling poorer, as duplicated expenses for housing, insurance, and daily living erode financial stability. Financial infidelity emerges as a
Read More

In Hershey v. Hershey, decided on August 7, 2025, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals addressed core interpretive questions under the District’s child-support statute, D.C. Code § 16-916.01, in the context of a post-divorce modification proceeding involving three minor children residing primarily with their mother. The parties, Dr. Christopher Hershey and Ms. Rebecca Hershey, had incorporated a child-support agreement into their final divorce order, pegging monthly payments at $3817.28 using the so-called “Holland formula” for cases where combined adjusted gross income exceeds two-hundred-forty-thousand dollars. Post-divorce, Dr. Hershey sought reduction based on alleged income shifts, while Ms. Hershey pursued discovery
Read More

In jurisdictions following equitable distribution principles—such as District of Columbia, New York, California, and Texas—no court delegates final authority over property division to artificial intelligence. The determination of what constitutes an equitable allocation remains exclusively within the province of the judiciary, guided by statutory factors including each spouse’s contributions, economic circumstances, and future needs. Artificial intelligence serves solely as an ancillary resource, not a substitute for judicial discretion. Certain family courts have begun piloting AI-assisted analytical tools to support preliminary evaluations. For instance, in select California and New York proceedings, judges may reference AI-generated reports that model asset valuations, tax
Read More

The Court of Appeals in MACKLIN v. JOHNSON, remarkably addressed whether significant homemaker services by one spouse can be considered as a legal contribution in the equitable distribution of property calculation. In short, the Court concluded that substantial homemaker services are a permissible basis for granting a spouse an equitable interest in the other’s separately-held real property. Factually, husband purchased his home approximately two years before marriage and kept the title under his own name and after a ten year marriage.  Parties had four children during the marriage and wife’s contribution during that period was essentially homemaker services, maintaining the
Read More

The DC Court of Appeals in Mazza v. Hollis, analyzed and addressed implications of a divorce settlement agreement with a child support clause merged but not incorporated into the final decree of divorce. Factually, Mazza and Hollis were divorced in Georgia via a settlement agreement.  Thereafter, Hollis moved to Washington, D.C. with the child and registered the divorce decree in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Mazza later filed a Motion to Modify Custody and Child Support seeking a reduction in the amount of his monthly support obligation because of a substantial and material change in circumstances. The
Read More

How are the divorce hearings handled post pandemic? Generally if the case is filed uncontested, then the matter is docketed with a Magistrate Judge (MJ) and an initial hearing is set within 4-6 weeks.  If  contested filing, then the matter is docketed with a DRB Judge who will schedule hearings either via video or audio participation or in person depending on the complexity of the cases and parties’ preference. How long after separation a divorce action can be filed? Within six months if the separation is mutual and voluntary or one year if NOT mutual or voluntary.   Action may be
Read More

The Court of Appeals in Gore v. Gore, imposed a constructive trust in order to protect the equitable property distribution of the spouse with no title to the marital property. At the time the Gores had purchased the marital home, the wife’s unfavorable financial condition precluding her from qualifying as a borrower, the husband’s mother subsequently cosigned the loan and became a half title holder. The husband later filed for divorce, seeking, inter alia, permanent possession of the marital home and equitable distribution of marital property, including any part of the marital home which the court determined to be marital property. The
Read More

The DC Court of Appeals in Bernard v. Bernard, particularly addressed whether an existing tax liability is a factor for the Court to weigh and consider in dispensing marital property in a divorce action. Generally, in order to distribute marital property in the manner that is equitable, just and reasonable, the trial judge must consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to those enumerated in section 16-910, but also the court must conduct conscientious weighing of all relevant factors, statutory or otherwise, before reaching a conclusion about the proper distribution of property. Here, Mr. Bernard argued that the trial
Read More