More than a year after the saga began, the scrapping over the future of Rock Hill Schools' Superintendent Lloyd Evans continues on like an ugly divorce case that just won't go away.

In the latest skirmish, Evans was asked to vacant the position he held for more than a quarter of a century. This comes after a judge recently ruled that the school board was not required to allow Evans to remain in the post while waiting for an appeals court ruling on a related matter.

The dispute between Evans and the three-person majority of the school board seems locked in disagreement - each side confident that their position is both correct and righteous.

Ultimately, most divorces that wind up in a stalemate prior to trial rarely have a "winner."

In many of those cases, each side loses in the court system. The only thing in question is how much each side loses.

At present, the school board has spent a considerable amount of money attempting to oust Evans. All of that money may be lost if he's ultimately proven the victor in court.

For Evans, he's lost considerable time, money and credibility with some who have changed their position on his employment after the county school board has gotten credit for some seemingly basic things as updating grossly outdated books.

As in a nasty divorce case, many folks who "know" both sides are stuck trying to pick sides and carefully skirt around allegiances.

At some point, one has to wonder whether or not continuing to pursue a solution to their issues legally is the best avenue.

Continuing to depend upon the legal system to sort out the issue may not be the best use of the taxpayers' money and it is certainly not getting the issue resolved quickly.

And, like in many, many divorce cases, the children are caught in the middle. Anyone who thinks they've totally insulated the children of the district from the ill will and poor behavior often shown from one side toward the other is fooling himself or herself.

The children know more than we wish they did about the matter.

And the taxpayers? Well, the taxpayers are footing the bill for this very public, very drawn out "divorce" case.