In the wake of the murder of Cerina Fairfax, I’ve been talking a lot about the state of Virginia law – including the new updates on July 1, 2026 that allow separating couples to immediately get a “divorce” from bed and board – including separation under the same roof.
There have been a number of recent news articles about separation and Virginia divorce laws, which has been a little strange to witness. Something that I am in the habit of talking about every day coming up in regular conversation is both a little gratifying – I DO want people to understand this better – and terrifying – what they don’t know can and does hurt them – but I’m embracing the conversation all the same.
It’s important, not just because people who are unhappy deserve the opportunity to end relationships that aren’t serving them, but also because it touches on public safety and welfare in such a real way. Cerina Fairfax is not an anomaly; there is so, so, so much more domestic violence, post separation abuse, and coercive control than most people seem to realize. The only way forward, at this point, is to address some of these problems at their root – recognizing these kinds of behavior for what it is and creating actual legal pathways to protect would-be victims, like Cerina and her children, before it turns tragic.
During their period of separation, Cerina and her husband were living separately under the same roof. There were all sorts of issues – sexual abuse allegations, substance abuse issues, and prolonged unemployment, among other things. Also, notably, Cerina had just been awarded custody of the kids.
I didn’t know either of them. I don’t think there’s any question that, for many couples, the period of living separately under the same roof is a very, very difficult one. Even in cases where there hasn’t been abuse before, abusive and toxic behaviors are very common in this period. People struggle to navigate separation and divorce; it’s even worse when those same people are forced to live together, day in and day out, while they’re going through it all in real time.
For the Fairfaxes, this was obviously – we know now, though people involved in the case likely should have realized earlier – a powder keg about to explode.
Should we get rid of separation under the same roof?
But is separation under the same roof to blame? To me, I think not. Though it’s an awful period of time for most people – anecdotally, this is something I hear almost across the board from my own clients – it’s necessary. Few people can afford to maintain two residences during their divorce, especially if other issues, like support and equitable distribution, have not yet been addressed. It’s difficult to get a new lease; it’s difficult to even determine whether you’d qualify for a mortgage or a refinance. There are too many variables. There are too many unknowns. Too few people know what they can actually afford.
If separation under the same roof wasn’t allowed, fewer people would have access to divorce – especially people with more limited financial means. Instead of creating a legal pathway towards divorce, they’d be locked in toxic, unstable, unhappy, abusive, and unfulfilling relationships, without the ability to change their circumstances. Simply being unable to afford to rent or buy a new place to live would keep them locked in their marriages for longer. I hope I don’t need to tell you that, physically speaking, this is equally as dangerous, particularly for women and children.
Separation under the same roof is both a legal and practical necessity.
That doesn’t mean, though, that I don’t think changes need to be made. On the contrary, I don’t think there is any question at all that laws should be changed to prioritize safety for women and children through the divorce and custody process. Especially in a case like the Fairfaxes, the writing was on the wall. Why couldn’t judges, attorneys, Guardians ad litem, and other court professionals involved see it for what it was BEFORE it was too late?
Sure, the law is changing to allow “divorce” from bed and board to be granted more quickly, in part to address problems like this, but – though it remains to be seen what this will look like in practice – it seems to me that this is a clunky, inelegant solution that will create more problems than it solves.
For more information or to schedule a consultation, give our office a call at 757-425-5200.