Do we want to talk about no-fault divorce?

Uncle Albert really hates it. But what is it, and why is it bad? CNN has an explainer:

Following what some conservatives view as legal victories on the battlegrounds of abortion rights and affirmative action, a number of politicians and influencers are turning their attention to another long-held construct: No-fault divorce.

Right-wing commentators like Steven Crowder and Matt Walsh have ramped up complaints in recent months that it is too easy for people — specifically women — to get divorces. All states currently have some version of a no-fault divorce law, but Republicans in Texas and Nebraska list the dissolution or restriction of no-fault divorce in their state party political platforms.

In Louisiana earlier this year, state GOP members debated officially backing the dissolution of no-fault divorce, but no decision was made. A lack of full-on legislative attempts to curb the practice hasn’t stopped an abundance of conservative anti-divorce rhetoric, or an answering wave of fear from progressives.

Newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson has been a vocal opponent of no-fault divorce,which allows couples to obtain a divorce without proving fault — and without both parties agreeing to the split. In a 2016 sermon he claimed it turned the United States into a “completely amoral society.”

Though no-fault divorce was first legalized more than 50 years ago, it has long been sneered at in conservative circles, who see it as a danger to the sanctity of marriage and the concept of the American family.

For feminists, human rights advocates and others, no-fault divorce is an important buttress for gender equality and directly addresses issues like marital abuse. Many legal minds also see no-fault divorce as a common-sense legal path that reduces unnecessary burdens on courts and couples alike.

It may not seem political on its surface, but the history of no-fault divorce in the US reveals a clear connection to these social issues and outlines why some feel so strongly about protecting it while others seek to tear it down.

What is no-fault divorce?
No-fault divorce is, as it sounds, a divorce that can be obtained without anyone having to allege or prove that one party’s behavior is to blame. A majority of states also allow fault divorce, where one party can claim reasons like adultery, abandonment, long-term incarceration or cruelty.

“Cruelty – and more specifically, causing a spouse unneeded pain, whether emotional or physical — is typically the most common grounds for a fault divorce.,” says Thomas A. Ramuda Jr., a divorce attorney based in Colorado. “Many no-fault divorces are obtained on the grounds of “irreconcilable differences.”

From a legal standpoint, no-fault divorce cases tend to be less complex. “When one party alleges another is at fault, they have to prove it in court. Proving fault can also affect the outcome of a divorce in terms of custody or visitation arrangements,” Ramuda said.

What is the history of no-fault divorce in the US?
No-fault divorce was first legalized in California in 1969 by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, who would eventually become the first US president who had been divorced (Former President Donald Trump was the second.) By 2010, every state had legalized a no-fault divorce option.

Before this option, an at-fault divorce was the only recourse for a broken union. This led to complications for couples whose situation, for one reason or another, didn’t fit the required legal procedure.

Couples who wanted a divorce were all but forced by the law to create some sort of fault-based scenario. It wasn’t uncommon for couples to concoct scenarios together that would feign adultery, or for one party tomove across state lines to fulfill legal requirements for fault claims like abandonment. Migratory divorce, where a couple would move together to a state with no-fault divorce laws, was common.

In fact, these methods were so widespread that, to a lot of legal experts, a solution like no-fault divorce was necessary to make the system work again. The National Association of Women Lawyers championed no-fault divorce solutions throughout the first half of the 20th century.

In 1961, prominent NAWL member Matilda Fenberg explained the reasoning behind the group’s own proposed no-fault divorce bill and called current divorce laws “impractical and unsound.”

“The purpose of our Bill is not to make divorce easier or more difficult,” Fenberg wrote in the group’s proposal for a Uniform Divorce Bill. “It is simply to substitute truth for deception, common sense for technicalities, and to give the Courts real opportunity to prevent marriage failures by means of conciliation and treatment, rather than to punish failures in marriages.”

Though the NAWL’s no-fault divorce efforts did not directly bear fruit, their activism also underscored the particular interest women had in divorce law reformation.

While no-fault divorce is common now, it’s most visible among high-profile couples when a go-to no-fault phrase like “irreconcilable differences” hits the headlines. When Bill and Melinda Gates divorced in 2021, legal documents stated the marriage was “irretrievably broken;” a variation on the no-fault theme.

Some of the shortest celebrity marriages, like the 72-day union of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries in 2011, ended with “irreconcilable differences” (though, in this case, Humphries claimed the marriage was fraudulent, and the divorce dragged out for nearly two years.)

Gwyneth Paltrow and husband Chris Martin put a famous spin on no-fault language with their 2014 divorce announcement, saying they intended to “consciously uncouple.” (Legal documents filed by Paltrow did, indeed, name “irreconcilable differences.)

What benefits do people claim no-fault divorce provides?
In the simplest terms, no-fault divorce provides an easier path to ending a marriage. Depending on their situation, couples can avoid expensive and protracted litigation, as well as the damaging effects of having to cast, prove or defend from blame.

Paulette Rigo, a mediator and certified divorce coach who started The Better Divorce Academy after her own difficult split, says couples sometimes don’t realize there are options for divorce outside of ugly legal battles.

“The legal process is adversarial,” she told CNN. “You have a plaintiff, a defendant. You have to spend hundreds of dollars an hour on an attorney. And that seems silly if both people in the relationship want the same thing. Of course, there are cases that require litigation, but the idea that it has to be that way can be even more destructive for families during a difficult time.”

Rigo also said no-fault divorces can also be easier on children, who are affected by financial decisions and family environment provided by their parents.

Women’s rights groups count no-fault divorce law as a way to make marriage — an institution that has long provided the most material benefit for the husband — more equitable for women.

Before no-fault divorce, a woman in the US who was in an abusive or exploitative marriage didn’t have many options. Husbands typically controlled a family’s finances, and the social stigma for seeking divorce — not to mention the difficult process of having to prove “fault” — was a major deterrent. These problems got more complicated if a husband didn’t want a divorce.

“Under US laws, every person has a right to divorce, even if your spouse says no,” said Rigo.

Since 1969, studies have shown no-fault divorce correlates with a reduction in female suicides and a reduction in intimate partner violence. A 2004 paper by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolvers found an 8 to 16% decrease in female suicides after states enacted no-fault divorce laws. They also noted a roughly 30% decrease in intimate partner violence among both women and men, and a 10% drop in women murdered by their partners.

“Unilateral divorce both potentially increases the likelihood that a domestic violence relationship ends and acts to transfer bargaining power toward the abused,” the study states.

Why do some people want to get rid of no-fault divorce?
Conservative politicians and commentators, along with some religious and social groups, say unilateral divorce degrades the American family unit and adversely affects men, children, and the economy.

“Unilateral no-fault divorce clearly violates the 14th Amendment,” Beverly Willet, co-chair of the Coalition For Divorce Reform claimed earlier this year in the Washington Examiner. “Too often in family court, defendants are deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.”

Some conservative Christians in particular have fought against no-fault divorce because they believe that divorce is unbiblical and marriage ordained by God.

Speaker Johnson, who has voiced opposition to no-fault divorce, has also extolled the virtues of what is called a “covenant marriage,” a religiously influenced marriage option in some states which makes divorce extremely difficult.

Covenant marriages are only legally recognized as an option in Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana, where Johnson and his wife entered their own covenant marriage. Such unions, modeled after the covenants of religious covenants, can only be broken for specific reasons like adultery or physical abuse, not unlike the contours of at-fault divorces.

CNN has reached out to Johnson’s office via phone and email for comment.

Statistics show no-fault divorce does indeed correlate with an initial spike in divorce rates, but the numbers even out or even drop below previous rates over time. Census data from 2020 revealed the US divorce rate hit a 50-year low in 2019.

Research does not strongly support the popular conservative claim that separation adversely affects children in a way that staying in a bad marriage would not.

A 2019 study published in World Psychology found that while children of divorced couples may struggle with some negative repercussions, “most children whose parents divorce are resilient and exhibit no obvious psychological problems.”

The study adds that there are innumerable other factors that could affect a child of divorce’s wellbeing that have nothing to do with the divorce itself.

“Marital instability presents not a single risk factor, but a cascade of sequelae for children,” the study reads.

This conclusion hints at the shape of another quandary at the center of the no-fault divorce debate, and public feelings on divorce in general: Whether divorce itself is a problem, orif it’s a symptom of larger issues within the institution of American marriage.

A history of no-fault divorce in the US | CNN

Ronald Reagan? What a commie.

Presumably conservatives think that if no-fault divorce doesn't exist, they'll be able to unleash their toxic personalities and be as shitty to their wives as they want and still get to stay married.

(As Alex DeLarge's buddies after they turn into cops)
Weelll, weeell, weeelll!!
Weelll, weeell, weeelll!!
Weelll, weeell, weeelll!!

I can see a couple of reasons in the explainer that might be relevant to Aunt Alice's hatred of it.

Hmmmm. So basically if you’re for no fault divorce you’re a huge fucking loser that has self esteem issues and are threatened by women

Also there’s a good chance you’ve hit a woman before

Yeah, do go after no fault divorce next. That should make divorce a lot easier in the end, and drive marriage rates down.

Especially when the people arguing for the bondage of matrimony are such toxic religious assholes. Fuck women over for the patriarchy some more because some of them bitches have not woken the fuck up yet. You are already using trans women to force them to be feminine when going into a rest room or else they might have to show everyone their pussy to prove it.

It is the american Taliban. Ending no fault divorce is going to cause women on the right to stealth vote for dems or moderates. They have got to label the right with this like crazy if they want to win.

Think you fumbled the first sentence a bit.

Too late to edit it?

No-fault divorce is the reason men no longer die from "accidental" rat poison consumption, so many Albert wants to keep that in mind for the future.

If I were @Jenee I would be careful with that sort of thing. If anything got through into their scat play it might be a problem for her.

It's laughable to claim no-fault reduced fraudulent claims in divorce court. False accusations of abuse are rampant, and almost always go in one direction. Right out of the divorce lawyers playbook.

I don't have a problem with divorce being easy, and religion is irrelevant. I have a problem with the egregious financial awards resulting from divorce. Yes, everyone should support their children, but outside of that, if you part with a person, you part with their wallet, and your "accustomed lifestyle" be damned.

As for the kids, note the careful wording that vaguely refernces psychological problems. This accounts for those who seek and receive no diagnosis. It doesn't account for what goes undiagnosed or unattributed to childhood, and fails utterly to acknowledge the percentage of the prison population comes from broken homes.

Also note the lack of mention for the negative outcomes for the divorced males. Somehow the crusaders for the homeless, addicted and/or suicidal seem to overlook this correlation, too. Almost as if there was some sort of bias at work.

Call it what it is. No-fault divorce is now just a way for women to cheat and leave, but still take the kids, cash and prizes.

Cite your sources, UA. Those are some pretty wild claims.

Maybe some day when I am at home on a PC, I will Google that for you and post links to common fucking knowledge.

Accepting for discussion's sake that there are rampant false accusations of abuse in divorce these days, it does not make the notion that there are fewer such false accusations now that no-fault divorce is prevalent "laughable." Surely you know this.

There are many potential reasons still to make potentially false claims of abuse, ranging from better custody terms, more alimony or just wanting to go scorched earth on someone.

But common sense should suggest that there would be fewer false claims of abuse when there is no requirement to prove there should be a divorce in the first place. Back in the some-fault divorce days, people would had to demonstrate a reason why the divorce should be granted, and the generic sort of "it's not working out" presumably wouldn't be accepted. Claiming even wrongly "he's abusing me" is about the easiest to do, harder to disprove than "he's cheating" and the most accepted.

Disagree. Removing the financial and custody incentive for making false claims would kill that shit overnight. Hell, even requiring a police report and physical evidence would pump the brakes on it. But there will never be stats to compare on that one because false claims are rarely investigated, let alone punished.

https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/

A few highlights:
"Forty-three percent of children in the United States are being raised without their fathers.

95. When the parents are happily married, the risk of divorce of their children decreases by 14 percent.

96. 90% of divorced mothers have custody of their children.

97. Over 79 percent of custodial mothers receive a child support award, while just under 30 percent of custodial fathers receive one.

98. 65% of divorced mothers receive no child support.

99. Over 46 percent of non-custodial mothers completely default on child support, compared to only 27 percent of non-custodial fathers."

Bonus alimony calculator.
https://www.maritallaws.com/alimony-calculator

Single parent stats.

https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

A few highlights:

• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

Father Factor in Education – Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.

• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

• 43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]

• 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]

• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978]

• 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]

• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]

• 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]

• 90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]

• 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

• 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children]

• 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]

• 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]

• Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]

That was a pain in the ass on this phone. You people are not worthy of my efforts.

I am so over you, UA.

I divorce you
I divorce you
I divorce you

Now. Begone.

So , either...

A. UA regrets his no-fault divorce, and wants his ex back, and is saying so right in front of poor Jenee. Gross.
B. He punched his ex to make it kosher in the eyes of old-timey-divorce-God. Scum. Filth.
C. Some other thing that probably makes him a hypocrite.

Insightful as always.

C. No-fault divorce for me, and not for thee.
Drink poison.

Accepting for argument's sake that removing the financial and custody incentives for false claims would diminish the number of false abuse claims even more, that is irrelevant to whether no-fault divorce has already reduced the number of false abuse claims.

And by logical terms of your own statement that "there will never be stats to compare," it cannot reasonably be considered laughable that no-fault divorce has caused a decline in false claims because there are not stats to compare whether the statement is true.

I think you are wrong about the existence of stats or the ability to derive stats. Presumably if someone wanted to, one could study divorce filings, see how many had abuse claims, see how many of those were determined to be false. Googling "false abuse claims in divorce statistics" comes up with various listings, and I'm sure if someone wanted to wade through them, they'd find various academic studies.

You can't determine if they are false if they are never investigated. Best you could come up with is claims that are withdrawn or not found to be credible.

If a person doesn't want to be married to another person, why get in the way of that? Why should a court get bogged down by a "he said/she said" argument?

Says the man of secrets.
Lest he be revealed as a fraud or a monster.
Even though deduction wise, there's no real wiggle room there.

-If a woman is divorcing her husband and making false claims of abuse or whatever to scam money out of him, no-fault divorce shouldn't be a factor, should it? That should be a fault divorce, shouldn't it?

I believe I've made it clear it's about assets and custody. If course nobody would care if it was just about parting ways.