IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF THE 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA

BONNIE J. ADAMS,                                                 :  COLUMBIA COUNTY BRANCH
                     PLAINTIFF

VS					                        : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
                       
KENNETH J. ADAMS,                                             :  NO. 1999-CV-1177
                   DEFENDANT                                         :  

Cleveland C. Hummel, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff
Deanna R. Pealer, Esq., Attorney for Defendant

OPINION
March 14, 2001, Naus, P.J.
	After conference held this date, a review of the pleadings and a careful analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of bifurcation, this court finds: that the parties have lived separate and apart since August 31, 1999; that the parties admit that the marriage is irretrievably broken; both parties have signed Consents for divorce; Counseling has been waived; no spousal support or alimony has been requested or is being paid; that wife is desirous of divorcing and remarrying because she is pregnant, which is a valid consideration for bifurcation (Savage v Savage, 736 A2d 633, (Pa. Super., 1999); husband is covered by wife’s health insurance but has COBRA available or will obtain health insurance through his own employment which is expected shortly; both parties have filed exceptions to the Recommendation of the Special Master and anticipate that the resolution of those exceptions should be forthcoming in the near future; that the advantages listed above outweigh any disadvantages which amount only to a limited amount of time for husband to obtain his own health insurance and the fact that the marital real estate will become tenants by entirety at the entry of a divorce decree; that the Special Master has already determined a percentage division of the real estate which may be amended by the court on reconsideration as filed by the parties in their joint exceptions; and that by bifurcating the termination of the marriage from the determination of the economic issues, the parties’ personal lives will no longer be held hostage to their economic demands.
ORDER
AND NOW, this March 14, 2001, upon Praecipe and Motion of the Plaintiff, the parties shall be divorced from the bonds of matrimony. At that time the Court shall retain jurisdiction of any claims raised by the parties to this action for which a final order has not yet been entered.  
					BY THE COURT:

					___________________________________P.J.
					Honorable Scott W. Naus