A Philadelphia woman is asking an appeals court to allow the dissolution of her civil union to proceed — more than a decade after the relationship ended.
Freyda Neyman and her former partner, Florence Buckley, have essentially been “wedlocked” since they parted 14 years ago. The two were joined in a civil union in Vermont in 2002 but ended their relationship later that year.
At that time, in order for the union to be dissolved by a Vermont court, one of the parties would have needed to move their legal residence to the state for six months. The Civil Division of Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas had dissolved a few civil unions, but that practice ceased in 2012, after a Commonwealth Court ruling that civil unions should be treated equal to marriage — the dissolution of which is handled by Family Court.
However, last summer a Family Court judge said a civil union is not equal to marriage and, thus, the case was out of that court’s jurisdiction.
“It’s just this circular scenario, a merry-go-round,” said attorney Tiffany L. Palmer of Jerner & Palmer, P.C., who is handling Neyman’s case with Thomas W. Ude, Jr. of Mazzoni Center Legal Services. “This is a big problem for quite a few people in Pennsylvania. Their relationships aren’t considered a marriage but they’re not considered not a marriage.”
Because they are still tied to one another, neither Neyman nor Buckley can marry or add a partner to their health-insurance plans.
Now, Neyman, 54, is asking the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to find that the Philadelphia Family Court has jurisdiction over her request for a dissolution of the civil union and that it be allowed to proceed the same as a divorce would.
In their April 5 brief, Neyman’s attorneys argued that Common Pleas Judge Margaret Theresa Murphy erred last year in focusing on the difference in title between a civil union and marriage but not giving “consideration of the rights, benefits, burdens and responsibilities taken on by the parties when they entered into that status under Vermont law and comparing those with the rights, benefits and responsibilities taken on by spouses under Pennsylvania law.”
In 2002, same-sex marriage was not legal anywhere in the country, and Vermont was the only state granting civil unions. Lambda Legal filed an amicus curiae brief with Neyman’s filing that noted that 181 couples from Pennsylvania were joined in Vermont civil unions in 2002.
Neyman and Buckley worked out a custody agreement for their twin sons, who are now 19. However, because of the civil union, Neyman can’t establish a legal connection to her current partner and her child.
“I’ve been with my current partner for almost 13 years. She’s raised the kids with me and I have a stepchild. But we can’t have any kind of legal ties that have to do with the children because of this,” Neyman said.
Apart from the logistical impact, Neyman said the emotional impact of the ongoing case has been trying.
“Emotionally, that almost supersedes everything else,” she said. “What people say about closure and finality, that’s not to be dismissed. I just want this to be done with. My ex and I will always have a linkage because of the children but I want there to be a finality.”
Attorneys will next present oral arguments before the Superior Court. Palmer noted the divorce filing is not contested by Buckley; both are asking for the same resolution.
“If the court rules that civil unions can be treated as equivalent to marriage, that opens the door for other people to file these cases; if they don’t, it’s back to staying in legal limbo until another case comes up and challenges this in a different way,” Palmer said.
Apart from finally ending her own civil union, Neyman is eager for a precedent.
“I’d like to see this go to Family Court and finally get dissolved in the same fashion a divorce would be carried out. Yes, hopefully this will help me but we want to make law; we want to make sure that this is fixed for everybody.”