# Is no-fault divorce gender neutral with regards to adultery?



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

During human history adultery was punished harshly and still is in countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Today adultery is not a crime or even a civil infraction. Does this favor male or female adultery?


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Infidelity isn't gender specific so I'd say that it favours neither.


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

Well...

The civil law states its not gender specific, but ask a family lawyer on his take....


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Current divorce laws nominally favor mothers over fathers. Probably pretty neutral if no kids involved.


----------



## Juicer (May 2, 2012)

The problem with this question is that the question is far too broad for it to be answered effectively. 

For example, my XW cheated on me. Now, I barely got out of paying alimony, mostly because I had a prenup. 
But if she had wanted to, she could have fought it. And if the judge had thrown it out, I would have been forced to sell a lot of things. I would probably have lost my house, even though I owned it before the marriage!
And no, this isn't me thinking outside the box. I went to several lawyers and asked them to give me the possible worst-case scenario. And all of them mentioned that. 

I also know my dad cheated my mom out of a lot of money in their divorce. I know a guy at another company that had an affair with his secretary, and he is divorcing his wife. He is wanting to just kick her out of his life, and move his secretary in. Forget the fact they have been married for over 20 years, he just wants to replace her with some random woman. 

Dividing up the marital property, I don't really know. 
Personally, I think there should be a law on the books that can punish adultery. Like no alimony payments if you were dependent and cheated on your spouse, or forced payments if you earned the money and cheated. 

But that will likely never get passed. 

I do know family court is not for fathers or men. 
Women generally get custody, which means they also get child support. Men just get trampled in these courts. 
I had a client I took out last week, telling me how he never gets to see his kids. I don't know why the marriage broke down, but his XW took the kids, and skipped state. He is trying to find her, but is having trouble paying for both child support and a PI to find her. And the courts won't help him out to much. 
And then there is the issue of paternity fraud, which is 100% legal. I mean, sure, fathers can divorce, kick the woman out, but we can't put you in jail/prison or fine you. Hell, we can still be forced to pay for the kid. 

I also remember my lawyers told me to be prepared for a nasty family court case should my wife decide to fight something, like my prenup and try to get something like the house. They also told me to install small cameras in my house, and have a VAR on my person at all times. 
I thought this was a little extreme, but they told me it wasn't extreme enough. My size, the fact my wife cheated on me, and my 'talking' with the OM, meant that any case brought against me would be my word against their's. And I would lose. So unless I had hard evidence to prove myself, I would be in jail. Again. 
And at first, I thought "Oh, she wouldn't be that nasty and try to take me to the cleaners."
Then I remembered she had cheated on me. So I always had to be wired up when I was with her like some undercover cop. 

In divorce, the only people that win 100% of the time are lawyers. For everyone else, it is a crap shoot. 
In family courts, guys lose 9/10 times.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

No-fault divorce has nothing to do with gender


----------



## F-102 (Sep 15, 2010)

The judge doesn't give a flying f*ck about who cheated who. All they see is just another case to get through.


----------



## Pepper123 (Nov 27, 2012)

I live in CA -- very liberal in regards to cheating. I have sat in court and watched other couples argue over he/she cheated. The judge really doesn't care. There have been so many budgetary cutbacks in CA, that they honestly don't have the time to sort out your personal issues, sad and unfair as that may seem.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Jellybeans said:


> No-fault divorce has nothing to do with gender


No fault divorce gives the leverage in a marriage/divorce to the spouse who is willing to file for divorce. The spouse who files is usually the spouse who gets custody of the children. Women file for divorce in around two thirds of cases. Women are the custodial parents in over 80% of cases.

Just because the law doesn't explicitly state that women should be advantaged over men doesn't mean the law doesn't have that effect.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Ok. But the actual grounds of it has nothing to do with gender. 

Whoever files first, male or female, voila.

And not everyone who divorces has children so custody isn't even on the table. There are many variables.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

disagree, read the post above about family courts. Very much favor mothers over fathers. There is no denying that.


----------



## WasDecimated (Mar 23, 2011)

The courts don't care what happened during the marriage or who caused the breakup...thus, No Fault. 
Monetarily, No Fault Divorce favors the higher income spouse. In my case, lazy XWW made out like a bandit. In regard to Child custody, the courts (here anyway) try to split time evenly.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

How about with regards to the time in life that divorce takes place? Is it harder for men or women to adjust to divorce?

Women file much more than men. Two thirds of the time women file. What percentage of divorces are because infidelity, probably no one knows.


----------



## standinginthegap (Jan 16, 2014)

LongWalk said:


> During human history adultery was punished harshly and still is in countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Today adultery is not a crime or even a civil infraction. Does this favor male or female adultery?


In the military it still is and people are court martial for it.


----------



## Fenix (Jul 2, 2013)

It also depends on the state. In a state with fault divorce, it very much matters. In some states, you can also sue the affair partner.


----------



## Thorburn (Nov 23, 2011)

standinginthegap said:


> In the military it still is and people are court martial for it.


When I was in Iraq a few officers in my unit (mainly women) were disciplined for adultery.

Prior to my youngest sister's death (she had cancer), she filed for D from her husband. There were no children. He got the new truck and alimony (my sister had to pay over $15,000 to pay off the truck loan). Her ex was a good guy till he started using steroids. He was a body builder, got nasty and started fooling around. My sister did not listen to me about getting another attorney and her attorney gave her ex everything he wanted. My sister was dying and thought everything would go in her favor. She asked me for advice and I told her don't do what her attorney is telling her and get another attorney. It was just messed up and my sister ended up paying for everything. She was shocked when it was ruled that she would have to give him the truck, pay off the loan and pay him alimoney. She called me later that day and said, "I should have listened to you about changing attorneys". 

In my state (PA) typically you get an attorney and go before a "Master". He or she is an attorney who will decide on various issues pertaining to the D. If you don't agree with the Master you can then go before a judge. When I was going through the D process, my attorney told me that our county's "Master" is a female who has a tendancy to ignore the law if a woman starts crying and saying how mean, unfair, etc things are. He stated that she is fair until a woman starts crying and then she just ignores the law and gives the woman a lot more leniency in the D.

My oldest brother was living in Seattle during his D from his second wife. He is a very rich guy and his first wife got several million from him. His second wife was shown to be using herion and hanging out with bikers and my brother got 100% custody of their son and did not have to pay much. My nephew started college last year, his mother became a Christian, got her life straightened out, remarried, but my nephew has almost nothing to do with her. They all live around Richmond now and even with his mother living close he still has little contact with her. So in my brother's case in his second D, the courts favored him in everything.

I do believe every case is different. No-fault D has made it easier to D and cheaper. Fault D in my state is very rare and very costly. In most cases the courts just want it done and over with as quickly as possible.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Wow, Thorburn. Every case is different.

Really tough on your exSIL no 2


----------



## MovingAhead (Dec 27, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> No-fault divorce has nothing to do with gender


I disagree on this. In theory you are correct. In practical matters that is absolute malarky.


----------



## MovingAhead (Dec 27, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I agree with this so much I can't even express my emotions. I feel like we are from the same area or county. I could almost tell you the name of this woman, or her clone.
> 
> I've written about this on here and others tell me, in so many words, I'm full of sh**. I've been crapped on by a similar attitude that doesn't look at the issues objectively. I used to wonder if all the women there were jilted and bitter. Some of the men were the same. Not all of the women were this way, but I'd swear the majority were. After I asked around enough, I found out who was objective, but she did not decide anything for me. She was just my caseworker for domestic relations. What a sad commentary on no-fault for anything. Few parents don't want to see their children. Few parents want their children to grow up in a broken home.


This is the truth of things.... In theory a master is supposed to be fair. In the real world that is hardly the case. I'm just being honest.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> If time is split evenly between the parents and divorce is considered no one's fault, why is it there is a custodial parent who collects child support? I don't understand that part, when I place it in context with the idea that we all have freedom to choose our paths.
> 
> Oh, and I know we just want what's best for the child/ren. It just doesn't make sense somehow. I know I'm missing something, but what?


Child custody isn't equal. Often one spouse is working full time and can't have even 50% custody. Even with a 9 to 5er (are there any such jobs left?) and the kids in school, somebody has to pick them up in the afternoon and care for them. I've heard of a divorced parent finding a house a block from the other parent so that the kids can stay at the same school -- another factor that often influences folks.

Similarly for children being nursed. And it matters if one spouse has moved out of state. They can end up with very restricted custody arrangements. Older kids are often asked about their preferences.

One note on no fault divorces. Good old Sidney remembers the days before no fault. Divorce cases took months of hearings and trial days before a settlement could be reached -- and the settlements were often regarded as unfair. The expense was simply enormous. No fault has generally changed that for the better, but each state is different. In some, if you've been married for a certain number of years (I believe 10 or more is common) all things with a value are split 50-50. Before 10 years one gets to keep things that were brought to the marriage and only the "fruits of the marriage" are split.

And as you know, child custody arrangements are quite different.

One thing that bothers me. The divorce rules in each state in the US are available on line. And yet it is common here to find folks who've not bothered to even look at them.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

2ntnuf,

You couldn't request an adjustment?


----------



## The Cro-Magnon (Sep 30, 2012)

LongWalk said:


> During human history adultery was punished harshly and still is in countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Today adultery is not a crime or even a civil infraction. Does this favor male or female adultery?


Is this a rhetorical question?

Who instigates divorce more? And why would they do that if it were not to their advantage.

Cui Bono.

Marriage & divorce are a very profitable enterprise. To some.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

2nt's case is still very common and divorce is still profitable to many women. What should happen is they should take the OM income into play, but they don't.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

sidney2718 said:


> One note on no fault divorces. Good old Sidney remembers the days before no fault. Divorce cases took months of hearings and trial days before a settlement could be reached -- and the settlements were often regarded as unfair. The expense was simply enormous. No fault has generally changed that for the better, but each state is different.


Everyone will agree that the no fault laws have made divorces cheaper and easier to obtain. As for whether that is "better" is another question, entirely. Personally, I would say that more marriages ending in divorce, and more children coming from broken homes, is not an improvement for society.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

> Edit: And the kicker? I really don't think my daughter is mine. I really, really don't. And, they don't speak to me any more. Nice, huh? Parental alienation much? You have no idea


Get a DNA test

The lawn mowing kept you in shape


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

LongWalk said:


> Get a DNA test
> 
> The lawn mowing kept you in shape


I disagree. At this point, what does it matter? He raised the girl. He can't get a refund from his ex.


----------



## Fenix (Jul 2, 2013)

For every one of your sob stories, I have a matching one from women. Divorce is the #1 wealth killer. Period. 

If you have been in a LT marriage and one of you is a SAHP, then the working parent needs to pay. And pay a lot. I don't care the gender. Divorce laws are shifting and they are shafting those who stayed at home and supported the careers of the other.

Now, I have no problem with factoring adultery in and moderating the payment, either way. Let's just say that I am not a fan of no fault when there is significant fault. Balance is needed, for sure.


----------



## Yankee99 (Nov 4, 2013)

standinginthegap said:


> In the military it still is and people are court martial for it.


Imagine, actually holding people accountable for their actions, can't have that! No fault divorce is a f***ing crock, but something we just have to deal with. Complaining about it isn't going to change it.

I don't know about being gender neutral, but one lawyer told me that in my state the fact that my wife was in a homosexual affair would actually be to HER benefit in court.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Fenix - I think they shifted that way 20 years ago. The problem is the non-SAHP is typically the one who doesn't initiate and is a man. THe ex-P then has no income, but virtually immediately marries or moves in with OM, so she gets half of OM + half of X + child support. Of course, this can have all 4 variations, but the most common, by far, is high earning husband is left by SAHM or low income wife.

I agree, D is the biggest destroer of wealth and it is way too easy to get M and to get D, off my soap box now.


----------



## Fenix (Jul 2, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> Fenix - I think they shifted that way 20 years ago. The problem is the non-SAHP is typically the one who doesn't initiate and is a man. THe ex-P then has no income, but virtually immediately marries or moves in with OM, so she gets half of OM + half of X + child support. Of course, this can have all 4 variations, but the most common, by far, is high earning husband is left by SAHM or low income wife.


So? It doesn't matter. Let's put it this way. Marriage is a partnership. If I gave up my career to support my husband's and support our family, that is an investment. Why should my investment be endangered if my husband created an intolerable situation ie broke the marriage contract? Even if I am the one to file? It really shouldn't matter if I enter into another arrangement. It is like I bought stock in Mr. Fenix, Inc. I deserve a return on that investment, esp if Mr. Fenix broke the contract by screwing around (or abandonment or abuse etc). My ROI should be linked to my time invested.

AFAIK, most courts will cut alimony off on a remarriage. Child support disappears at 18.

As far as your soapbox goes, I am not sure I agree. I do think that our society does not support the family unit enough. Perhaps making M and D more difficult would do that?


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

basically, what has happened in cases I am aware of, the exW and OM shack up and don't marry or the "friend fo the court" doesn't take the M into consideration or won't reconsider, as far as alimony goes.

I agree that assets should be split, to some extent.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Fenix said:


> For every one of your sob stories, I have a matching one from women. Divorce is the #1 wealth killer. Period.
> 
> If you have been in a LT marriage and one of you is a SAHP, then the working parent needs to pay. And pay a lot. I don't care the gender. Divorce laws are shifting and they are shafting those who stayed at home and supported the careers of the other.
> 
> Now, I have no problem with factoring adultery in and moderating the payment, either way. Let's just say that I am not a fan of no fault when there is significant fault. Balance is needed, for sure.


The only thing I would take issue with is the SAHP getting shafted. If that is the person who cheated or for no good reason decides to leave the marriage, the working person ends up supported them via alimony for life. It is harsh that the betrayed has to end up paying a lot of alimony to the cheater!

I know one woman who has a live in boyfriend in the house she got in the divorce, while the bf keeps a super cheap apartment so that on paper it appears he is not co-habitating. They do this so that she continues to get alimony from her ex-h! If she marries, she loses alimony.

Alimony can cut both ways, so there really needs to be fault factored into it.


----------



## Fenix (Jul 2, 2013)

Thor said:


> The only thing I would take issue with is the SAHP getting shafted. If that is the person who cheated or for no good reason decides to leave the marriage, the working person ends up supported them via alimony for life. It is harsh that the betrayed has to end up paying a lot of alimony to the cheater!
> 
> I know one woman who has a live in boyfriend in the house she got in the divorce, while the bf keeps a super cheap apartment so that on paper it appears he is not co-habitating. They do this so that she continues to get alimony from her ex-h! If she marries, she loses alimony.
> 
> Alimony can cut both ways, so there really needs to be fault factored into it.



I agree...which is what I said first! :smthumbup: Fault needs to be factored into alimony.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Fenix said:


> So? It doesn't matter. Let's put it this way. Marriage is a partnership. If I gave up my career to support my husband's and support our family, that is an investment. Why should my investment be endangered if my husband created an intolerable situation ie broke the marriage contract? Even if I am the one to file? It really shouldn't matter if I enter into another arrangement. It is like I bought stock in Mr. Fenix, Inc. I deserve a return on that investment, esp if Mr. Fenix broke the contract by screwing around (or abandonment or abuse etc). My ROI should be linked to my time invested.


I don't know that I would call NOT working an investment.

I do think that it can matter, but it might not. For example, I have a female friend. She married a very wealthy man. Estate in Europe and parties with rock stars kind of wealthy. For 20 years, she was a kept woman. She had kids, but never did anything.

She had nannies, personal chefs, a chauffeur, the works. For 20 years, she never pushed a vacuum or filed her own nails.

Now, after 20 years, her husband became intolerable. He really was a jerk. So, she filed for divorce and took half his wealth in the settlement. Now, he was very wealthy before they married and he was even more wealthy when they divorced. And I would estimate the portion of the wealth that she helped accumulate at 0%. For 20 years, she was a drag on his wealth.

If I were trying to be fair, I would give her little or nothing. For 20 years, she partied like a rock star and spent more money than most people could spend in several lifetimes. But now, she has millions more that the court awarded her.

Now, admittedly, this is an extreme example. Most couples who divorce are middle class. And I do think that a homemaker's contribution can be recognized in a divorce settlement. But, the rules tend to disregard everything and just rubber stamp out a settlement.

I agree that fault should be considered and divorce should be discouraged, rather than encouraged. Bring back at fault divorce and let spouses who cheat, or who want to frivorce their partners, start seeing the consequences of their actions.


----------



## Fenix (Jul 2, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> I don't know that I would call NOT working an investment.


 So, being a SAHP is not working for the better of the family? Really? What if the working parent's job makes them move every two years? That isn't making an investment for the family? Ever heard of something called opportunity cost?


> I do think that it can matter, but it might not. For example, I have a female friend. She married a very wealthy man. Estate in Europe and parties with rock stars kind of wealthy. For 20 years, she was a kept woman. She had kids, but never did anything.
> 
> She had nannies, personal chefs, a chauffeur, the works. For 20 years, she never pushed a vacuum or filed her own nails.
> 
> Now, after 20 years, her husband became intolerable. He really was a jerk. So, she filed for divorce and took half his wealth in the settlement. Now, he was very wealthy before they married and he was even more wealthy when they divorced. And I would estimate the portion of the wealth that she helped accumulate at 0%. For 20 years, she was a drag on his wealth.


 Not really. Who knows what part she played. He obviously enjoyed her contribution to his life. You don't have to agree with it or understand it to make that so.


> If I were trying to be fair, I would give her little or nothing. For 20 years, she partied like a rock star and spent more money than most people could spend in several lifetimes. But now, she has millions more that the court awarded her.


And how is that not fair? Yes, she had a nice lifestyle while with him but again, opportunity cost. Who knows what price she paid. Again, their arrangement is not your business.

Now, admittedly, this is an extreme example. Most couples who divorce are middle class. And I do think that a homemaker's contribution can be recognized in a divorce settlement. But, the rules tend to disregard everything and just rubber stamp out a settlement.


> Riiiiight. That is why women who get a divorce have a much higher drop in the standard of living than men. They are are significantly worse off financially, while men suffer more healthwise. Much of that is due to children and the reduced earning capability than may come with that, esp as the primary caretaker. Why is it that married couples do far better financially than single people? It isn't just the double income. It is much more than that...I chalk it up to the stability and support network that comes with a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Fenix said:


> So, being a SAHP is not working for the better of the family?


It can be. But it isn't automatically. It just has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.



> Ever heard of something called opportunity cost?


Sure. But opportunity cost is a nebulous thing. If a couple is extremely invested in education, and wouldn't consider putting their kids in public schools, then a homemaker homeschooling five children might be the equivalent of avoiding paying a private school $75k/year. So that's a valuable contribution.

On the other hand, if a homemaker throws the kids on the bus in the morning, settles down to watch the soaps and cruise Facebook, and manages to do a load of laundry during the day, then I would say that spouse is on vacation. Why should he, or she, be compensated for taking it easy for several years?



> Who knows what part she played.


I know. And it was jack squat.



> He obviously enjoyed her contribution to his life. You don't have to agree with it or understand it to make that so.


I understand that he enjoyed her company as his spouse. My point is that she was extremely well compensated for her troubles. Even if she got nothing more than the clothes on her back in the divorce settlement, she lived a better life than she ever could have provided for herself.



> And how is that not fair? Yes, she had a nice lifestyle while with him but again, opportunity cost. Who knows what price she paid. Again, their arrangement is not your business.


I know the price she paid. She gave up a potential career as a waitress to be the wife of a millionaire. And after spending her husband's money for 20 years, she was awarded half of what he had left.

If her husband had hired a $1,000/night hooker every single night, for 20 years, it would have been cheaper than marrying his wife.

And it's my business because we all live under the system that decided their divorce. The facts and circumstances were irrelevant. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees duking it out. And, in the end, the old 50/50 judgment is what they ended up with.



> Riiiiight. That is why women who get a divorce have a much higher drop in the standard of living than men. They are are significantly worse off financially, while men suffer more healthwise.


I don't know if that's true. Most of the post-divorce financial calculations I've seen disregard child support. If the husband pays the wife $3k/month in child support, the studies usually assign that $3k/month to the husband, instead of the wife.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Well, what bugged me was, I gave her the house we had. There was some work that needed done, but quite a bit of it was already completed. I think there was only fifteen hundred left on the mortgage. Now, it was a bit of an old house and in bad shape, but, I gave it to her knowing she was going to live with her AP, at his nice home with a pool and yada, yada. So, I thought she could use the house for a rental. She did and just sold it after about twenty years of collecting rent and being able to buy more houses to rent out. Now, that' fine, and what I wanted, but all the rental money and her job which she worked forty hours a week were written off and the master told me she didn't have any money, technically. So, the master started to make out a child support bill, like as if she had zero income. Finally, she imputed(?) her minimum wage and took normal tax deductions for that. I was murdered. Child support for two kids and I was living on anywhere from a thousand to twelve hundred a month, net, after child support. When it got that high, they brought me back to lower it, or should I say, raise the child support. It killed me. I worked constantly to barely make it.


The theoretical guarantee of equal justice under law is just that, theoretical. I really feel for you. I really do.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> Everyone will agree that the no fault laws have made divorces cheaper and easier to obtain. As for whether that is "better" is another question, entirely. Personally, I would say that more marriages ending in divorce, and more children coming from broken homes, is not an improvement for society.


Two things I recall from those days: Back then we lived in New York State where about the only grounds for divorce was "proven adultery". That meant that a third party had to catch the WS actually in the act with the OP.
In reality that was essentially impossible. But many got divorces on those grounds because people lied. My own parents were involved in the divorce of a friend. Both husband and wife wanted the (friendly) divorce. What they did was to find a friend who could pose as the OM and then arranged for my parents to find the OM in bed with the wife, naked. My folks so testified in court and came away horrified at the system.

The other thing I recall from that time in New York was the number of older relatives we had (two generations up from me) who either split and never divorced or who lived together in hate and tension because there was no other way out.

So in my opinion the present set-up is better, but way short of perfect.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

Fenix said:


> I agree...which is what I said first! :smthumbup: Fault needs to be factored into alimony.


In principle this is a good idea. Now figure out how one is going to prove fault in the face of the other side denying it and/or trying to prove you are at fault.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

> There was talk of paying for my youngest's education. My daughter got a bachelor's in psychology. I believe the money I gave went for her education. Remember, I'm not sure she was my biological daughter. The master wanted to somehow get me to pay for my son's education. I guess he felt slighted. I don't blame him, if that is what x1 did with the money. x1 probably told him she didn't have money for him, throughout his childhood because she was using the money from child support to pay for my daughter's education.


You have such a bad relationship with your daughter. All you need are a few strands of hair from the root... perhaps this piece of the puzzle will help gain you closure?


----------



## Fenix (Jul 2, 2013)

sidney2718 said:


> In principle this is a good idea. Now figure out how one is going to prove fault in the face of the other side denying it and/or trying to prove you are at fault.


There are plenty of ways to prove it, esp. if we are talking adultery, abandonment, addiction and/or abuse (physical, the others are harder).


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

If you ever go to the bathroom where she brushes her hair, you can get strands of hair.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

sidney2718 said:


> My own parents were involved in the divorce of a friend. Both husband and wife wanted the (friendly) divorce.


Yes, at-fault divorce would be inconvenient when both spouses want divorce and neither wants to assign fault. But, since the advent of no fault divorce, for every example of an amicable divorce where the system works, we have many examples of one spouse blindsiding the other with divorce, or where the spouse who is at fault is rewarded with cash and prizes for blowing up the family.



> The other thing I recall from that time in New York was the number of older relatives we had (two generations up from me) who either split and never divorced or who lived together in hate and tension because there was no other way out.


Yes, it's unfortunate that people who don't want to live together might be forced to live up to their original commitments. However, it doesn't follow that negating the original commitment is a superior alternative. Especially for children.

Every study on the topic shows that children of married, two-parent households are better off than children of divorce. Yet people still insist that the opposite is axiomatic.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

sidney2718 said:


> In principle this is a good idea. Now figure out how one is going to prove fault in the face of the other side denying it and/or trying to prove you are at fault.


I live in a no-fault state. However, if one party can prove adultery by the other, then the adulterous spouse cannot be awarded alimony. Child support must still comply with the state's formulas, and division of the other assets (of the marriage only) must still be "equitable" but there can be no alimony for a proven adulterer. And it's really not that hard to provide proof. It wasn't a factor in our case, but I would simply have had to provide text or email records (subpoenaed from the telecom provider), photographs, his letters/emails to me where we discussed his adultery (under certain conditions that establish provenance), or a written or oral confession witnessed by at least one officer of the court who was not his own attorney. Sure, it's a pain, but it's not impossible.


----------



## Fenix (Jul 2, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> She's 27, married and has two children. She doesn't speak to me. I've been to her house a few times before my second marriage fell apart. I haven't been there since. If I ever get a chance to see her again before I die, I may take a plastic sandwich bag and take a few hairs from her hairbrush.
> 
> If I get the proof she is not, I will be back to ask about suing. I know nothing about that.
> 
> Thank you, LongWalk.


I would suggest letting it go.

But, I am very sorry that that is something you have to deal with.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> If I ever get a chance to see her again before I die, I may take a plastic sandwich bag and take a few hairs from her hairbrush.
> 
> If I get the proof she is not, I will be back to ask about suing. I know nothing about that.


Before you pay for a DNA test on her hair, I suggest you talk to a lawyer. I can't say for sure, but I would think that the likelihood of a civil judgment against your ex-wife for paternity fraud is so remote that it's not worth even bothering with.


----------

