# No Fault Divorce: Good or Bad?



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

I live in Kansas, where there is a move to abolish no fault divorce. 

I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I see wisdom in letting people make their choices and not interfering, while on the other hand, I think this could motivate some couples to work harder to mend incompatibility and find the path to marital success. Your thoughts? 

Kansas bill would abolish no-fault divorce - KCTV5


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I think it's a bad idea. If people want to try to fix their marriage, they will. Forcing them to do so isn't good policy. I think that it would increase cheating, so otherwise ineligible people will have grounds - and if that isn't enough, maybe even abusive behavior.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

I think if you've been wronged you'll find no fault divorce to be lacking justice. 

Personally I'm fine with no fault divorce. I feel like no fault might cut down on time spent in court and money spent on lawyers.


----------



## john1068 (Nov 12, 2013)

No Fault is bad, bad, bad.

One of the principal protections afforded in the U.S. Constitution is the right to Due Process. Due Process encompasses the rules and principles for our legal system for the enforcement and protection of private rights. It gives the right to be heard regarding issues of life, liberty, or property. This means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless the matter involved is first adjudicated or ruled against him at trial. 

No-fault divorce completely usurps the defendant's right to Due Process. An example of a wife of twenty years had an adulterous affair, formed a relationship with the other man and decided that she no longer wanted to be married. Under the No-fault procedure she is able to file for divorce claiming that their marriage was "irretrievably broken." The husband would contest this claim hoping to preserve his marriage, however the No-fault procedure ultimately would give her and the Court the right to deny him his Due Process. He is in essence charged with a crime, found guilty and sentenced without ever being heard. The marriage contract will be unilaterally dissolved.

He will lose his home, his children, his retirement savings, his assets, and his wife, he will be left nearly destitute from legal expenses and utterly without recourse - an act which is legally impossible related to every other contractual obligation in the US. 

And yet the most important contractual obligation in society the plaintiff, under no-fault divorce, is able to break his or her contractual obligation without the right of Due Process being given to the other party in the contract. The defendant's life can be ruined, their liberty restrained in countless ways and their property taken away by the Court.

No Fault is a travesty of justice. No-fault divorce is both a social and legal atrocity that needs to be abolished for the sake of families and children that have, for too long, been subjected to the tyrannical actions of family courts and has encouraged, through law, radical selfishness on the part of narcissistic spouses and parents. 

Yeah, I feel pretty strongly about this subject. I hope Kansas is successful in bringing this back...


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

It is a toughy. Infedility or abuse doesn't face any tangible consequences. I think that is morally wrong. don't have an answer though.


----------



## ClimbingTheWalls (Feb 16, 2013)

I wish we had no fault divorce over here. They were going to introduce it and then it failed at the last hurdle.

Grounds for divorce here are:

Separation for 5+ years 
Desertion for 2+ years
Separation for 2+ years - spouses must both agree
Adultery
Unreasonable behaviour

If you want to get a marriage over with quickly so you can lick your wounds and move on, your only choices are the last 2. If Adultery is not an issue you are left with unreasonable behaviour.

Even if both spouses agree they want to part, one of them has to allege unreasonable behaviour on the part of the other and specify what that behaviour is. The courts are very lenient about what is regarded as unreasonable, but the requirement to list bad behaviour is a recipe for discord. What started out as a very amicable divorce can spiral into a litigious disaster.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Married but Happy said:


> I think it's a bad idea. If people want to try to fix their marriage, they will. Forcing them to do so isn't good policy. I think that it would increase cheating, so otherwise ineligible people will have grounds - and if that isn't enough, maybe even abusive behavior.


letting the divorce without taking responcibility for their actions is also a bad idea.

cheating,abuse,drug/alchol dependant,financial recklessness.

In my mind if the person you married has put their family in jepordy with the above mentioned actions then they should get a smaller peice of the divorce settelment.


----------



## harrybrown (May 22, 2013)

I do not think it is a great idea. 

But that is where the world is going. I do not like that it makes things better for anyone. 

My Dad still lives in the KC metro area. Married to my mom for over 60 years until she passed. She would not have liked the change.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*The Texas Family Code, stemming from the Texas Community Property Laws, dictates that all divorce cases will be tried under "at-fault" divorce rules ~ with one very broad exception: and that is if there is the presence of an executed and valid prenuptial agreement ~ then it falls under "no-fault" divorce rules.

I'm experienced in that here. In a "no-fault" hearing, any evidence of adultery cannot be used in making a judicial settlement or decision by the Court, whereas in either an "at-fault" hearing or a child-custody hearing, it can.

IMHO, I really don't think that either "no-fault" or "at-fault" in Texas has any discernible bearing on whether or not that a given spouse will cheat! But personally, I do not like "no-fault" divorce rules!
*


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

I think I like that idea - that "no fault" is reasonable if there is a prenup.... hm... 

It seems to me that most people feel like they've been wronged when they are undergoing divorce, but in most cases, it's a matter of incompatibility. It's a tough call, but I can't help but wonder if those states where no fault divorces are not allowed have any difference in divorce rates, abuse rates, etc.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

KathyBatesel said:


> I live in Kansas, where there is a move to abolish no fault divorce.
> 
> I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I see wisdom in letting people make their choices and not interfering, while on the other hand, I think this could motivate some couples to work harder to mend incompatibility and find the path to marital success. Your thoughts?
> 
> Kansas bill would abolish no-fault divorce - KCTV5


No fault divorce does not let people make their choices without interference. It does the opposite. One person can unilaterally _impose _their choice on another and their innocent children (usually the woman). Then the state steps in and violently enforces that choice. Said another way, the state kidnaps innocent children, unlawfully evicts the victim of the contractual offense, steals the money of the victim of the contractual offense, and then steals a large percentage of the future earnings of the victim of the contractual offense. No fault divorce is a despicable crime against humanity.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

chillymorn said:


> letting the divorce without taking responcibility for their actions is also a bad idea.
> 
> cheating,abuse,drug/alchol dependant,financial recklessness.
> 
> In my mind if the person you married has put their family in jepordy with the above mentioned actions then they should get a smaller peice of the divorce settelment.


That sounds good, but then there's the matter of sufficient proof, the time and expense of proving your case when your spouse is blocking and countering, and any benefit you may think you'd get from not being at fault has evaporated so you may end up with far less than you would have in a no fault state.

The desire for "at fault" divorce has more to do with retribution and punishment, IMO.

I could go for something in between no fault and at fault, perhaps. If infidelity or abuse can be proven, perhaps there could be an uneven distribution of assets, such as 60-40.

While we're at it, why not adjust the asset split and any alimony based on earnings and/or contributions. Should a SAHM get half when her contributions (if the work were done for other families) are rated as minimum-wage worthy?


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Some states have adopted the ability to file "fault" or "no fault" Maryland is one of them and they were in the bottom 10 states for divorce rates.Virginia a fault state and they were also in the bottom ten but had higher rates than Maryland.
ETA: no fault can only be obtained after living apart for 1 yr. if you're looking for an at fault divorce you have to provide information about your grounds: adultery, desertion, conviction of certain crimes, insanity, cruelty, and excessively vicious conduct


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Married but Happy said:


> That sounds good, but then there's the matter of sufficient proof, the time and expense of proving your case when your spouse is blocking and countering, and any benefit you may think you'd get from not being at fault has evaporated so you may end up with far less than you would have in a no fault state.
> 
> The desire for "at fault" divorce has more to do with retribution and punishment, IMO.
> 
> I could go for something in between no fault and at fault, perhaps. If infidelity or abuse can be proven, perhaps there could be an uneven distribution of assets, such as 60-40.


while I agree I would like to decide for myself the best plan of action and in the case of no fault that is not possible.


----------



## Acorn (Dec 16, 2010)

Married but Happy said:


> The desire for "at fault" divorce has more to do with retribution and punishment, IMO.


I have to agree with this.

The at-fault requirements seem like a lot of arbitrary (and expensive) hurdles that just lead to the same place no-fault leads to at the end of the day.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm fine with no-fault divorce, even though my ex-husband was clearly at fault and it would have been a simple matter to prove as much should it have been necessary. The only thing I can imagine being more of a PITA than my quick, amicable, no-fault divorce is if it had been a long, drawn-out, litigious, at-fault headache. 

I didn't want to make him pay. I didn't care about taking him for all he was worth. I wasn't interested in cutting him out of our son's life or making custody arrangements difficult. I wanted to not be married to him any more. And I wanted me having to deal with him every day to stop. No-fault divorce was a blessedly quick and relatively painless way to end what had become an agonizing marriage. 

My ex-husband would have loved to remain happily married and cheating until death did us part. That marriage worked for him and he wasn't interested in changing it. I'm the one who needed out. Forcing me to sue him in court for an at-fault divorce would only have created drama and financial hardship for me while adding months or years to the process of leaving his cheating @ss.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Georgia and I think 33 other states allow you to choose fault or no fault for divorce. You'd have to google for the stats,I just skimmed over them.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

^ That's interesting. I did not know that.

Thanks for such great replies, everyone. This is really making me think. I may write an article about it.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

KathyBatesel said:


> ^ That's interesting. I did not know that.
> 
> Thanks for such great replies, everyone. This is really making me think. I may write an article about it.


me neither until this topic came up and I got curious :smthumbup:

It's nice to know you can hold an abusive spouse responsible even in a no fault state. I think people technically have more of an issue with property division in divorces and not so much whether it labels fault or not. I think the laws on property division,alimony,and child support need to be seriously revised and updated.


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Acorn said:


> I have to agree with this.
> 
> The at-fault requirements seem like a lot of arbitrary (and expensive) hurdles that just lead to the same place no-fault leads to at the end of the day.


Arbitrary is the very definition of how the system presently works. At temporary hearings, in most states evidence and witnesses are not permitted. That's right, _*evidence and witnesses*_ are not permitted. Since temporary orders almost always become permanent, the practical application is that a judge decides such weighty issues as custody and who gets to stay in the marital home based on 30 second elevator pitches (read: gender). Almost too unbelievable to be true. Yet it is.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

KathyBatesel said:


> I think I like that idea - that "no fault" is reasonable if there is a prenup.... hm...
> 
> It seems to me that most people feel like they've been wronged when they are undergoing divorce, but in most cases, it's a matter of incompatibility. It's a tough call, but I can't help but wonder if those states where no fault divorces are not allowed have any difference in divorce rates, abuse rates, etc.


But would you see anything different that we've seen with the divorce rate through the recent recession? People not filing because they couldn't afford to separate, not staying together for any noble cause. In an at-fault only state I would imagine the only thing you would see would be more marriages on paper with people just choosing not to pay the legal circus to file. How does that improve the state of marriage?


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

I think to improve the state of marriage it should be way more difficult to get married in the first place. It's easier to get married than it is to get a driver's license. Something is wrong with that picture.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of statistics showing how many people that don't feel they've been screwed by a divorce support at fault. People who feel they've been screwed (sometimes they really have been screwed and sometimes they imagine they're huge victims) are naturally biased. While there can clearly be fault in some cases I see a lot of potential for abuse in at fault. To me the real answer isn't to fight over whose fault it is but to make asset distribution fair; no alimony, reasonable child support if applicable, and fair asset distribution. You can't force people to stay married. My ex would've cause a huge scene claiming I broke the contract because I wanted out, but in my view he broke it long before by treating me like sh!t. Who would decide? He thought that since I wanted out I.should get nothing, except that I.contributed to the marriage too. The idiot even accused me of stealing his tax return; hello, it was a joint return that went into our joint account to pay joint bills. You're going to argue fault with someone like this? It's a very dangerous box to open, and the only thing you'd accomplish is to make those who think they've been victimized feel better.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think to improve the state of marriage it should be way more difficult to get married in the first place. It's easier to get married than it is to get a driver's license. Something is wrong with that picture.



Maybe the answer is to require some kind of prenup before issuing a marriage license?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Maybe the answer is to require some kind of prenup before issuing a marriage license?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Possibly.At least until the lawyers figure out a way to poke holes in every prenup they come across


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

I think it would an interesting experiment to try making marriage licenses something that must be renewed. Like your car registration or driver's license 

Just to see what would happen. It could fail miserably bc some people would choose to let their marriage expire but then others would happily renew thus reconfirming their commitment and bringing their focus back to making their marriage the best they can make it.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

KathyBatesel said:


> *I think I like that idea - that "no fault" is reasonable if there is a prenup.... hm...
> *
> 
> It seems to me that most people feel like they've been wronged when they are undergoing divorce, but in most cases, it's a matter of incompatibility. It's a tough call, but I can't help but wonder if those states where no fault divorces are not allowed have any difference in divorce rates, abuse rates, etc.


*Under the Texas Prenup "no-fault rules," the spouse who has the upper hand in the prenup ~ the wealthy one, if you will ~ is basically given carte blanche, just like my skanky XW, to go out and literally lay the male population of Texas, with or without a red light bulb, and other than maybe being able to establish that fact in Court, greatly provided that her lawyer screws up in the presentation of her case by asking her for her opinion of the cause of marital discord leading to the ultimate divorce.

But even if she were to willingly admit to screwing half of Harris County out in the middle of IH-45 at rush hour, the Court cannot, in any way, use that admission to divide the property under the precepts of a prenup, while without one, they certainly can! Under those Court rules, in essence it's little more than a license to cheat!

You've heard of legalized prostitution? Get a valid Texas prenup, and have massive wealth, then you can attain more fame and fortune as a brothel madam than Miss Mona did at the infamous Texas Chicken Ranch!

I will never ever sign a prenuptial agreement again ~ in this lifetime or any other, unless of course, there's a legal clause inserted to the effect that if the original partner requesting such a prenup commits any form of infidelity in the course of that marriage, albeit it either emotional or physical, then the prenup is effectively dissolved, and any such resulting divorce hearing would then be adjudicated under "at-fault" divorce rules!*


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

COGypsy said:


> But would you see anything different that we've seen with the divorce rate through the recent recession? People not filing because they couldn't afford to separate, not staying together for any noble cause. In an at-fault only state I would imagine the only thing you would see would be more marriages on paper with people just choosing not to pay the legal circus to file. How does that improve the state of marriage?


I can't say whether or not a marriage would be improved by staying just to avoid the difficulties. What I *can* say, is that my own experience was to stay longer than I would have and to try harder because I wanted to avoid the legal circus. I can also say that I have known couples married for 40 or 50 years who considered divorce, and for whatever reason, stayed and felt glad of it. I've read a study last year that showed that couples considering divorce but stayed reported higher level of life satisfaction five years later than those who divorced.

I suppose if I HAD to take a firm position, I'd opt for something in the middle, but I really have never formed an opinion on this topic before now.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> *!*


Wow, you still sound angry! How long ago did you go through this?


----------



## Acorn (Dec 16, 2010)

wilderness said:


> Arbitrary is the very definition of how the system presently works. At temporary hearings, in most states evidence and witnesses are not permitted. That's right, _*evidence and witnesses*_ are not permitted. Since temporary orders almost always become permanent, the practical application is that a judge decides such weighty issues as custody and who gets to stay in the marital home based on 30 second elevator pitches (read: gender). Almost too unbelievable to be true. Yet it is.


I was contrasting no-fault and at-fault divorce.

If I'm miserable in my marriage, I can file a no fault divorce and be done with it.

If I'm miserable in my marriage, an at-fault divorce will require hearings, waiting periods, cooling off periods, testimony, and if I'm lucky the court will realize I have good reason to be miserable in my marriage. Then I can file and be done with it. (And, in the meantime, I'm stuck dealing with my spouse's miserable behavior for many more months/years/etc. while I wait.)

Which is more important, a person's right to remove themselves from a miserable situation, or a person's right to force another to stay in a miserable situation for a few years?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

KathyBatesel said:


> I live in Kansas, where there is a move to abolish no fault divorce.
> 
> I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I see wisdom in letting people make their choices and not interfering, while on the other hand, I think this could motivate some couples to work harder to mend incompatibility and find the path to marital success. Your thoughts?
> 
> Kansas bill would abolish no-fault divorce - KCTV5


At the risk of offending, let's just say that it's one more thing to add to my list of reasons I'm glad I don't live in Kansas.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Having no fault as the only option is a poor choice. Even in at-fault states most go thru the system as “irreconcilable differences”. The notion that it saves money and speeds the process along is nonsense. The business of divorce is a money making operation for lawyers. It holds no one truly accountable for actions or decisions. It’s the easy catch-all and often times the lower wager earner has nothing to loose and everything to gain. 

The person can have affairs, they can be horrible people yet they aren’t risking anything because financially they come out. A higher wage earner often will be more inclined to put up with much more “drama” because the person will get punished dollar and sense wise and unfortunately the longer you stayed married the more you have to loose and the more the other party has to gain. 

The entire system is built on such antiquated laws and no true willingness to hold anyone responsible. I have written it before but if a stay at home spouse decides they are “unhappy” suddenly, has an affair, moves in with the new love of there life and files for divorce and 2 or 3 months later the relationship falls apart and that person now has to fend for themselves. Why is the primary wage earner now responsible to reward that person for betraying them? 

The entire system is flawed from the start, the laws are obsolete, the judicial system which is overwhelmed and bogged down by its own bureaucratic rhetoric. Ive been involved in multi million dollar business buyouts that have been done in under a month yet is takes over a year to decide who gets the house and who gets the dog. Really? 

Usually by the time a divorce is done no one cares who is at fault anymore you are just relieved its done. Most divorces are pretty cut and dry, by the time its done at least two peoples lives are forever changed, usually based solely on the decision of one. Maybe if we held people accountable for decisions they wouldn’t be so quick to make the wrong decision to start with….


----------



## Blonde (Jan 7, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> While we're at it, why not adjust the asset split and any alimony based on earnings and/or contributions. Should a SAHM get half when her contributions (if the work were done for other families) are rated as minimum-wage worthy?




She sacrificed her earning potential to be there to nurture your children.

Can't speak for other SAHM's but my husband would not HAVE the assets he has if he were married to a spender. At an average annual income of <50K for 30 years to support a family of 10 (we have 8 children) our net worth is close to 1M

You better believe I'm getting half if the M ends!!! Anything less would be utter injustice!!!

I'll vote no-fault even though I might be able to get a bigger payday for his cheating in an "at fault" state. I assume no fault is quicker, less traumatic, lower legal fees.


----------



## Sanity (Mar 7, 2011)

1. Earn some decent wealth.
2. Marry a closet NPDer that shows fangs after a few kids.
3. Profit!

I think I would rather default on a Russian Mafia loan than to get married again LOL.


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

This topic can illicit emotional responses, which is evident here.

Let me start by saying this: The courts are overloaded. I was in superior court for this county last week, and the calendar for the day was up on the electronic boards. Loaded.

My issue with fault divorce is the cost. Heck, people don't have money to eat out that much, let alone drag a contentious divorce through our court system. If a couple wants to slug it out in court, and have the money to spend on attorney fees, I say let them have at it. 

Here is one of my problems with fault divorce. In Maryland you have the ground of "constructive desertion" for an absolute or limited divorce (think of limited divorce as similar to legal separation). One of the components of constructive desertion is one spouse refusing the other sexual relations. Uh, yeah ... try to prove that in court.

OTOH, Arizona is a strict no-fault state. If I come home and find my husband in flagrante delicto, tough. In plain English, that means I walk in on my husband having sex with my best friend. He is cheating. Tough. I have no grounds because grounds have no standing.

If a state wants to instigate law(s) that provide grounds, fine. However, I don't think grounds should be THE requirement for divorce. So, if Kansas wants grounds for divorce, I don't see any reason for it if one party MUST have grounds. As in Maryland, a couple can live separate and apart for one year, with no chance for reconciliation, for a divorce petition to be filed by one of the parties. 

So why require strict grounds? 

JMO.


----------



## Refuse to be played (Jun 7, 2013)

I would support a hybrid system. You won't have to have a reason to divorce but if you been wronged by say abandonment, abuse, or infidelity you can file under that.


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

As much as I enjoy living in KS, we do a lot of things backwards. The same could be said of Republicans...they don't want the government to interfere in people's lives...UNTIL they want to exert their own morals on other people that don't agree with them. Then it is just dandy to have government interfere with personal issues. 

As for no-fault divorce, and adding some clauses for fault, that is a great idea. I would love to see it happen. I would love to see guys that cheat on their wives with their secretary taken to the cleaners by their XW for their adultery. I would also like to see SAHM who cheat thrown out on the curb with no where to go, no car to drive, and no money in their wallet. I think that would greatly cure America's growing lack of ethics. 

But that is all ideal. 
Throwing out the no-fault will just make things harder for people to divorce, and make the whole process worse while making lawyers more money. 
Because if someone wants to prove that their spouse cheated on them, that will take what? 3 months in court? Because they'll have to gather evidence, and then the lawyers will have to argue about it for 20 days, then the judge will have to question the validity of it, and make sure whatever evidence is gathered wasn't thrown together by teenagers on the internet. 
And that is just for marriages dealing with infidelity. Other problems like a spouse that works 90 hour weeks to come home to a spouse that doesn't work/cook/clean will want a divorce. But it will be harder to get one. 

It is a great idea in its roots, and would help a lot of people, and likely be better for society. 
But once the American Justice system (or lack of justice) gets a hold of it, and lawyers interpret it, and whack-o judges interpret it, it will make the already painful divorce climate 10x worse.


----------



## LaQueso (Dec 30, 2012)

I'm going through a divorce in a no fault state and it isn't great. I am the SAHM military spouse. My husband had an affair and walked out on me and the kids and has stepped right into his new life with the POSOW and her kids and no fault has made it so easy for him. I have had to fight for every little thing that should be his responsibility. Most people just want a quickie divorce to go with the quickie marriage but I have five kids I have to take care of far from family (he refuses to let the kids go back to our home state) and thanks to no fault I have to just let them divvy things up and assume that I am making money even though I haven't in years and put strings on the amount of alimony I should recieve.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

Broken at 20 said:


> The same could be said of Republicans...they don't want the government to interfere in people's lives...UNTIL they want to exert their own morals on other people that don't agree with them. Then it is just dandy to have government interfere with personal issues.


Interesting. I didn't realize the Repubs had a monopoly on allowing government interference into peoples' lives. This is not a debate about which political party is responsible for personal intrusion. It IS about fault versus no-fault divorce. 



Broken at 20 said:


> I would also like to see SAHM who cheat thrown out on the curb with no where to go, no car to drive, and no money in their wallet. I think that would greatly cure America's growing lack of ethics.


I assume you don't want the children thrown to the curb as well. The courts decide, as a rule, on joint custody. It wouldn't behoove them to relinquish a SAHM's right to transportation in order to transport children or drive to a job. Oh, yes, I forgot ... this is "all ideal."



Broken at 20 said:


> ... then the judge will have to question the validity of it, and make sure whatever evidence is gathered wasn't thrown together by teenagers on the internet.


There are rules of evidence and procedure. No, the judge doesn't have to question validity of something "thrown together by teenagers on the internet." Hearsay, as it is called, is questioned if it pertains to something that happened years ago. Fault grounds can provoke this type of evidence; thus, the reason for no-fault.

Opinions are great and I think they are relevant on a forum like TAM. Excuse me for pouncing on you, but I have a diploma on my wall that indicates I studied this discipline.

Sign me one of the "wackos" who is a registered INDEPENDENT.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Part of what always seems to get lost in the mix is divorce and division of assets almost should be two different things. Most of the time people do agree the marriage isn’t salvageable. It’s the greed factor that takes over or a persons interest more in “justice” or penalizing the other. Divorce is a civil action, not a criminal charge. 

Whether its and at fault state or not an at fault state “irreconcilable differences” works in every single state. No idea that proving fault will make the divorce cost more and drag it out I don’t agree with and even if it does, if I have the financial means to pursue it I should have the right to do so. Really if I got a picture of my spouse in bed with another or a video how much more would that cost me to prove my case. 

We seem to forget the embarrassment factor in all this. If I can prove my case in an at fault state how much easier and faster of a deal would be worked out to save the embarrassment and go with irreconcilable differences. My state is strictly no-fault, my empire that will get divided consists of 3 assets, house, retirement, the junk in the house. I will have to pay her alimony I know that, don’t like it but understand it. Yet two lawyers have worked over a year now, we have had 5 court hearings for delays and my best shot to have this end is May….maybe. Then after that I am still technically married for 6 months after. She cheated, she wanted the divorce and I am not fighting. House is easy either she pays me equity or I pay her equity, easy. Retirement 50/50 split, easy, junk in house, she can have it all, easy. Yet a year later and we are in the exact position we were when she filed and that’s nowhere. 

So how did no-fault save me money and make the process faster and easier? While the idea and concept has merits, as with everything related to government it doesn’t work.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think to improve the state of marriage it should be way more difficult to get married in the first place. It's easier to get married than it is to get a driver's license. Something is wrong with that picture.


That may well be the answer. Here in KY, both getting married and getting a divorce is about as easy as going through a drive-through.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

The move into no fault divorce is an experiment. For, as several posters have noted, the over-worked court system hearings to find fault are too time consuming. Moreover, the courts lose respect, getting involved in discussions about people screwing, lying, boozing, etc. No fault relieved pressure. Having a serious fault based system would mean higher taxes. Who wants that?

The problem with no fault is that all the wedding vows now have no meaning. This discredits the idea of monogamous marriage.

But people have fewer children so divorce is easier to manage than if couples split with 8 to 13 children.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

I hesitate to call no fault divorce an experiment... it has existed in Arizona since my parents divorced oh, almost 40 years ago!

Honcho hits on something I'm noticing while reading everyone's replies - the tendency to equate fault with financial punishment. My perception is that fault only opens the door for a court to grant divorce, but assets would be split according to either community property laws (50/50) or equitable distribution (a share according to each person based on their contributions to the couple's overall wealth.) I have never thought of it as a means to punish bad behavior, but I suppose it could make a person feel justified in prolonging things and making it difficult to settle.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

* In Texas, you can have a prenup that will legally necessitate a "no-fault" hearing, unless one party can sufficiently prove to the satisfaction of the court that the prenup itself was say, signed either under a state of duress, anguish, or deception.

Now if this same couple has children together, then the subsequent child custody hearing would be played out under "at-fault" rules.*


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

I am totally for no fault divorce, it has been that way in Aussie for decades and TBH our system seems much fairer that what I read about the US system.

We do not have alimony.
The childrens best interest are taken into account.
Stay at home parenting has a financial value to the family.
The spouse (generally the woman) that gave up paid work and/or career is given full dues for their unpaid but very valuable contribution to the family.
Previous assets are generally not included in settlement.

Settlement is based on past input, current needs and future potential.
Many families do shared care and very few divorcing couple actually end up going through the court system.
Many are sorted out at mediation stage or then court appointed mediation. A tiny percentage go through court and the ones that do generally follow the same formula that those that go through mediation end up agreeing to.

Vary rarely would a settlement be much different to 50/50 or 60/40 for stock standard situation.

BOTH parents have equal rights and responsibilities for the children as long as they are fit to parent.

I think it is inhumane to force people to stay married or to make them prove fault.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

The court system is overworked because it is so flawed, finding fault would take too much time that is an excuse. Divorce court doesn’t have any respect, people perjure themselves every day in divorce court because they can. They have no true penalty system in place to preclude it. They have rules in place yet they rarely follow them. The judges don’t want to make judgements so they allow ridiculous delays and set dates many months out so they hope the people will come to some sort of agreement so they wont have to actually rule on anything. 

The judges are usually elected and they usually become judges because they aren’t any good at the legal profession to start with and make the big bucks. Temporary orders are put in place yet those very orders are abused and not followed and to even begin to get enforcement takes months to get back into a court room and even then there is no real penalty in place for abusing them. It creates more hearings, its creates more wasted time, it creates more legal fees.

The entire system has so many inefficiencies it’s a monster that by design is built to be overworked and abused. They consistently try to apply rules and laws that just aren’t designed for todays day and age. It’s a dinosaur and its too profitable for lawyers to ever make any real reforms in it. The other great angle in no fault is a lawyer just doesn’t have much work now does he? He really doesn’t to present any real case in many divorces. He submits a balance sheet which for the great amount of divorces takes about an hour to make. Are some divorces complicated yes, the vast majority aren’t. 

No fault has been around for a long time, it was designed to expedite the divorce process, take the human element out of it save the humiliation and embarrasement of two people separating lives for whatever reason. It looks good on paper but it doesn’t work in real life and like all government once the system is in place it doesn’t change or reform. No fault and community property while wonderful notions its just too easy to abuse the system, makes it easy for one party to do whatever they want without consequence, one party usually in a position of financial ruin so even if they want to end a marriage its not feasible. It takes the human element out and creates a business of marriage. Well if the states want it a business then force each and every couple to have a prenup and formal contracts. They do for everything else.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

In the context of human history, civilization and society, no fault divorce is recent. In that sense is is absolutely an unknown. At first people wondered what it would do to the rate of marital disintegration. The answer was that divorce rates would rise. There was some alarm for a period and then a new stability emerged.

However, our way of life is not stable. We do not know what effect the Internet and smart phones will have on marriage. Everyone knows Facebook puts people in contact with romantic partners of the past whom we otherwise would not have met so easily. A man or woman goes to a class reunion or simply discovers an school related site, e.g., those who were in X dorm in 1987 at university of many-were-horny-and-shy-back-then. Suddenly, the person with who you once shared an attraction is there wanting to meet you naked.

Our behavior is shaped by fear or risk and punishment. HIV led to AIDS and death. People were more motivated to use condoms. Now young gay men bareback and accept HIV as a life of treatment. Indeed, maybe they can even marry, have their semen cleaned and get surrogate mother in India to give them the child that completes the dream.

It is thought that once a lubricant that protects against veneral diseases comes on the market, infidelity will sky rocket because one of the inhibitions to cheating, the fear of discovery due to disease is gone we will reason with our gonads. Everyone knows that protection really reduce pleasure and cheating sex is usually condomless.

No fault is of course about punishment. Stoning and the scarlet letter are gone. Now there is no punishment for adultery or any other failure. Alimony is the remaining punishment. Given that formulas for asset division have become more the norm, men who earn more than women who have been out of the work place to have children take the hit.

But we are having fewer children. As men believe they are burned, they will spread a negative picture of marriage. Already, educated women who were picky are discovering that waiting for the attractive man, the the top 20% minus the beta dullness, becomes difficult when you are 32.

Black American women have very poor marital prospects. Would fault divorce improve black family stability? This will not come into family reform discussions, even thought the crime committed by the children of fatherless families is a blight. 

What do well educated feminist women with high earning power want in the law? That will go on to the agenda in coming decades. 

Men and women want different things from marriage (no fault divorce). Men want to sleep with many women but perhaps be publicly and socially attached to one. Women want a new sex partner once they are emotionally disappointed with the old one. Two thirds of divorces are initiated by women. This has everything to do with fault, the man's fault for not being good enough.

Modern marriage may not be sustainable if it does not produce enough children because the society's that cannot replace themselves will be overwhelmed by more fecund neighbors.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

Longwalk, I'm having a lot of trouble accepting some of the points you make. I certainly have not seen where "no fault is about punishment" or "Black American women have very poor marital prospects." Do you have sources that support these statements, by any chance?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> Georgia and I think 33 other states allow you to choose fault or no fault for divorce. You'd have to google for the stats,I just skimmed over them.


FWIW, all 50 states have had the option of no-fault divorce since the mid 1980s. 

Vega


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

The premise of no fault means no blame, no punishment however is real world application since no party can be held accountable for actions often the hurt party in divorce cant get any “justice”. They in essence are just as guilty as to reason why the divorce is happening as a say a person who commited adultery or a person who beat the spouse. 

So the only justice so to speak that they can get comes in the form of money, settlements. The system get abused, mostly by lawyers who tell clients all sorts of grand ideas in the beginning and feed the greed or punishment factor. How many times have you heard, they cheated, take them to the cleaners…..yet in a no fault state you cant factor that in. So states come up with magic formulas yet leave just enough loopholes in them and the lawyer have field days. 

If your spouse cheated, ran off with another as an example you should be afforded the luxury to vindicate your claim instead of hearing that doesn’t matter. Again each and every state has a no fault irreconcilable differences as an option if the parties choose that. Why force people into that’s the only option.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Washington Post article "Marriage is for White People":



> The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States. In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3 percent of black men and 41.9 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent. Such statistics have caused Howard University relationship therapist Audrey Chapman to point out that African Americans are the most uncoupled people in the country.


No fault is about punishment – the complete absence of it as a factor. Marriage is contract for which there is no punishment for failure to deliver obligations. Indeed, there few obligations. Sex in marriage. There is not obligation. Cherish until death? It is optional. Fidelity? Optional. For better or worse? Optional.

The wedding vows have zero legal significance. The laws about marriage mostly concern divorce. Yes, you cannot be kicked out of the marital abode without a court order. All that has to be done is complain to the authorities that your spouse is violent and threatening.

In some case, the violence and threats are real. The abuser may even go on to murder. In others, the violence and threats were fabricated. The authorities are slow to punish abusers when there is no physical evidence. When a spouse makes false accusations there is seldom prosecution.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

As to the original question, I would say it depends on your preferred outcome for Western marriages. If you prefer that married couples divorce, and their children come from broken homes, then no fault divorce is great because it accomplishes that. If you prefer that married couples remain together, and raise their children in two-parent households, then no fault divorce is bad because it makes that harder.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. Since the advent of no fault divorce in the US, American divorce rates have climbed significantly.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Ever since the advent of "no-fault" divorce law, it has been a literal boon to the family law attorney's business interests/lobby. And since it, in and of itself, creates "outs" for many WS's, the sheer number of divorces resulting from it have increased exponentially.

And since it is the lawyers that primarily comprise the membership of the vast majority of our 50 state legislatures, I'd venture that it will be "a cold day in hell" before you see "no-fault" summarily abolished and done away in any of our states.

It would take just way too much potential revenue out of the lawyers kitty!*


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Vega said:


> FWIW, all 50 states have had the option of no-fault divorce since the mid 1980s.
> 
> Vega


Well,there ya go then  So obviously it's not a new thing.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

What are three decades in the course of human history?


----------



## justforfun1222 (Feb 6, 2013)

If you don't have any Children or any Marital property to disburse between the two of you, then why not be able to file for a no fault divorce? Most of the time the 2 year waiting period does nothing but draw out the inevitable and makes it more miserable on the people that want to move on with their lives. Alabama does not have a no fault divorce in the traditional sense, but after a 2 year wait you can file without fault. Personally I think it is just more money for the lawyers if you can't work it out yourselves, and personally I don't understand why the state has a right to tell you how to run your marriage, that is between you, your spouse and God. The courts only got involved originally because they saw it as a way of making money off of hurting people, and back when that started the woman got nothing not even the children! As for due process, and the man losing everything because his wife wanted to move on, she is her own person, but in all fairness the courts should take the adultery into consideration and she should not get the bigger portion of the marriage settlement. With Pre-nups it is stated in these legal papers what the wife or husband gets upon divorce so that makes things a little easier and can be called no fault.. but make sure you know what you are signing, because what you signed 20 years before might not hold water anymore if there is a clause in it that it has to be updated and has not, a person will be able to get more out of the marital funds. But like Acorn said it all leads to the same place at the end of the day!


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> As to the original question, I would say it depends on your preferred outcome for Western marriages. If you prefer that married couples divorce, and their children come from broken homes, then no fault divorce is great because it accomplishes that. If you prefer that married couples remain together, and raise their children in two-parent households, then no fault divorce is bad because it makes that harder.
> 
> Personally, I'm in the latter camp. Since the advent of no fault divorce in the US, American divorce rates have climbed significantly.


This simplifies things far too much. It assumes, among other things, that married couples can raise their children in a loving environment. If they hate each other, but are prevented from divorcing, I don't see that as being a good outcome.

One of the biggest problem with fault divorce is the definition of being at fault. Physical cheating is easy, but I suspect that some would not consider an emotional affair to be at the same level. What about a spouse withholding sex, or being an addict, or emotionally abusive? What if a spouse quits their job and does nothing all day? Are you stuck with them because they are otherwise very nice? It is easy to say in the abstract, but when you are deep in it, what do you do?

As a kid, we had a family friend that took advantage of the then new no-fault divorce. No adulatory or physical abuse (that I know of), but even I could see he was a jerk of the largest proportions. He routinely put her and his kids down in front everyone, though always as a "joke." Nasty comments when she spoke up about something and he did not like it. I remember realizing at one point that once their dad got home, we would go play somewhere else, because they did not want to be around him. So what is the alternative there? Under fault, it would be very tough to get divorced and get her and those kids into a safe and healthy environment.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Tall Average Guy said:


> This simplifies things far too much. It assumes, among other things, that married couples can raise their children in a loving environment. If they hate each other, but are prevented from divorcing, I don't see that as being a good outcome.
> 
> One of the biggest problem with fault divorce is the definition of being at fault. Physical cheating is easy, but I suspect that some would not consider an emotional affair to be at the same level. What about a spouse withholding sex, or being an addict, or emotionally abusive? What if a spouse quits their job and does nothing all day? Are you stuck with them because they are otherwise very nice? It is easy to say in the abstract, but when you are deep in it, what do you do?
> 
> As a kid, we had a family friend that took advantage of the then new no-fault divorce. No adulatory or physical abuse (that I know of), but even I could see he was a jerk of the largest proportions. He routinely put her and his kids down in front everyone, though always as a "joke." Nasty comments when she spoke up about something and he did not like it. I remember realizing at one point that once their dad got home, we would go play somewhere else, because they did not want to be around him. So what is the alternative there? Under fault, it would be very tough to get divorced and get her and those kids into a safe and healthy environment.



I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, some people seem to have this notion that you must stay married at all costs. I see it all the time here: "I've treated her like sh!t, but I've never cheated!!!!!" because somehow cheating is the only thing you can do that's worthy of divorce.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, some people seem to have this notion that you must stay married at all costs. I see it all the time here: "I've treated her like sh!t, but I've never cheated!!!!!" because somehow cheating is the only thing you can do that's worthy of divorce.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I do have some sympathy to the idea that divorce may be too easy to get. And I certainly support the idea of certain behaviors (such as cheating) being factored into loosing some support and the like. 

But I have seen enough divorces to know it is never simple. That some pretty awful behavior goes on that could not be proven and even if it was, could be down played. I am also bother by the idea that the minute divorce comes into play, it is all "his" money and assets that she is taking, as if she contributed nothing to the marriage. This approach, as best exemplified by Galt, bugs me more than a little, as I see how much the support I get from my SAH wife has allowed me to advance in my career.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> This simplifies things far too much. It assumes, among other things, that married couples can raise their children in a loving environment. If they hate each other, but are prevented from divorcing, I don't see that as being a good outcome.


Exceptions always exist. But I haven't seen any evidence that two people who are bad parents when living together become good parents when living apart. I have seen a ton of evidence that children who are raised in two-parent households are better off than children who are raised by single parents, or shuttled back and forth between parents on alternate weekends.

If people who hate each other want to get divorced, a little thing like filing an affidavit of fault is not going to stop them. People who hate each other will find a way to get divorced. The people that at-fault divorce will hang up are the people who want to frivorce their spouses. If one spouse hits a mid-life crisis and decides that a frivorce is just the kind of thing that would make life better, a requirement for fault, along with a spouse who wants to stay together, can stop that person from making a mistake.



> One of the biggest problem with fault divorce is the definition of being at fault. Physical cheating is easy, but I suspect that some would not consider an emotional affair to be at the same level. What about a spouse withholding sex, or being an addict, or emotionally abusive? What if a spouse quits their job and does nothing all day? Are you stuck with them because they are otherwise very nice? It is easy to say in the abstract, but when you are deep in it, what do you do?


In the law, the reasons for fault are spelled out. I think that most of the softer reasons for fault, like not being nice, are simply emotional rationalizations. The law is easy to change to state that one spouse doesn't need a reason to divorce the other. But human hearts are harder to change. People, deep down, feel badly for divorcing a spouse with no reason. So they have to come up with something.



> As a kid, we had a family friend that took advantage of the then new no-fault divorce. No adulatory or physical abuse (that I know of), but even I could see he was a jerk of the largest proportions. He routinely put her and his kids down in front everyone, though always as a "joke." Nasty comments when she spoke up about something and he did not like it. I remember realizing at one point that once their dad got home, we would go play somewhere else, because they did not want to be around him. So what is the alternative there? Under fault, it would be very tough to get divorced and get her and those kids into a safe and healthy environment.


Protecting people from the consequences of their decisions simply encourages them to take more risks. If you marry a jerk, don't worry because you can easily kick him to the curb and collect cash and prizes. We'll simply redefine an unsafe and unhealthy environment to mean a household where the father is passive-aggressive. You're morally free and clear. No fault marriage has an unlimited reset button.

On the other hand, the best solution to being married to a passive-aggressive jerk is to not marry a passive-aggressive jerk. A little due diligence up front can save one a lot of headache later on.

FWIW, I think the optimum solution is for government to get out of the marriage and divorce business altogether. Return marriage to the province of religious ceremony and private contract. Each religious denomination could have a marriage contract that would hold the same force as any other contract. If a person isn't religious, he could draw up his own marriage contract. And each contract could spell out the means of dissolution.

If one person wants half your assets if he decides, for no particular reason other than that he's sick of you, it's best to hash that kind of thing out directly before any union takes place, rather than indirectly vote on legislators and judges who will dictate exactly what you get if that ever comes to pass.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Exceptions always exist. But I haven't seen any evidence that two people who are bad parents when living together become good parents when living apart. I have seen a ton of evidence that children who are raised in two-parent households are better off than children who are raised by single parents, or shuttled back and forth between parents on alternate weekends.
> 
> If people who hate each other want to get divorced, a little thing like filing an affidavit of fault is not going to stop them. People who hate each other will find a way to get divorced. The people that at-fault divorce will hang up are the people who want to frivorce their spouses. If one spouse hits a mid-life crisis and decides that a frivorce is just the kind of thing that would make life better, a requirement for fault, along with a spouse who wants to stay together, can stop that person from making a mistake.


There is no evidence that forcing them to stay together makes them better parents either. 




> In the law, the reasons for fault are spelled out. I think that most of the softer reasons for fault, like not being nice, are simply emotional rationalizations. The law is easy to change to state that one spouse doesn't need a reason to divorce the other. But human hearts are harder to change. People, deep down, feel badly for divorcing a spouse with no reason. So they have to come up with something.


They are rarely spelled out with the specificity that you seem to think, and for good reason. 



> Protecting people from the consequences of their decisions simply encourages them to take more risks. If you marry a jerk, don't worry because you can easily kick him to the curb and collect cash and prizes. We'll simply redefine an unsafe and unhealthy environment to mean a household where the father is passive-aggressive. You're morally free and clear. No fault marriage has an unlimited reset button.
> 
> On the other hand, the best solution to being married to a passive-aggressive jerk is to not marry a passive-aggressive jerk. A little due diligence up front can save one a lot of headache later on.


Like due diligence in marrying a cheater or getting pre-nup after researching marriage laws? 



> FWIW, I think the optimum solution is for government to get out of the marriage and divorce business altogether. Return marriage to the province of religious ceremony and private contract. Each religious denomination could have a marriage contract that would hold the same force as any other contract. If a person isn't religious, he could draw up his own marriage contract. And each contract could spell out the means of dissolution.


Not sure that would simplify things. As it is, marriage provides a default contract for folks. If they don't like, nothing stops them from not getting married by the state and setting up their own system (like most same-sex couples used to half to do).



> If one person wants half your assets if he decides, for no particular reason other than that he's sick of you, it's best to hash that kind of thing out directly before any union takes place, rather than indirectly vote on legislators and judges who will dictate exactly what you get if that ever comes to pass.


So now it is all you assets? As opposed to owned by you and your spouse? Why is that? Why don't they own it all? 

Again, nothing stops a person from hashing it out before hand. The legislatures just tell you what will happen if you don't. If you choose not to have that conversation with your soon-to-be spouse, then you make that decision.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> There is no evidence that forcing them to stay together makes them better parents either.


Of course there is. All of the relevant studies conclude that children raised in two-parent households are better off than children from broken homes. Those two-parent households include unhappily married couples.



> They are rarely spelled out with the specificity that you seem to think, and for good reason.


It varies by state. In my state, there are 12 grounds for divorce that constitute fault. There doesn't seem to be much ambiguity in the grounds, either. Adultery is a fault. Abandonment for one year is a fault. Impotency at the time of marriage is a fault.

I think specificity in the marriage contract is a good thing. I don't understand how a contract in which one party can arbitrarily end it for a frivolous reason, without suffering any penalty, is a good thing. Especially when people's well being hangs in the balance.



> Like due diligence in marrying a cheater or getting pre-nup after researching marriage laws?


Not really. Cheating occurs after marriage. And it's universally seen as legitimate grounds for divorce. Under our old, at fault system of divorce, adultery was negatively considered when dividing marital assets and deciding child custody.

I doubt that a person develops a passive aggressive personality only after marriage. And few people would consider a passive aggressive man to be unsafe and unhealthy to be around. As such, the fact that one's husband was passive aggressive shouldn't really constitute legitimate grounds for divorce.



> Not sure that would simplify things. As it is, marriage provides a default contract for folks. If they don't like, nothing stops them from not getting married by the state and setting up their own system (like most same-sex couples used to half to do).


It wouldn't be uniform, granted. But people would be forced to do more due diligence. Many people experiencing divorce for the first time are utterly shocked at how the system works. They're shocked that one spouse's bad behavior won't be considered. They just assume, wrongly, that the system was set up to be fair, or promote marriage. But it's the only system we have. The government sanctions marriage. If you want to be "married," you have to get a government license and abide by marriage, and divorce, law.

If there were 20 different common contracts, as well as the ability to craft a completely custom contract, then people would discuss issues before marriage, rather than making some unenforceable vows and hoping their spouses, and the system, don't screw them over. If a Catholic wanted to marry a Jew, they would discuss which contract to use. And the contracts would be enforceable. The contracts wouldn't change after being enacted.



> So now it is all you assets? As opposed to owned by you and your spouse? Why is that? Why don't they own it all?


My example was a person coming into the marriage with assets. I don't see anything magical about the words, "I do," that are worth claiming ownership to things one had nothing to do with accumulating.

However, some people obviously feel differently. If one person signed a contract giving away half his wealth, in return for another person marrying him, that would be his decision. I mainly sympathize with people who try to avoid that fate, only to have the decision taken away from them.



> Again, nothing stops a person from hashing it out before hand. The legislatures just tell you what will happen if you don't. If you choose not to have that conversation with your soon-to-be spouse, then you make that decision.


Yes and no. Prenups are available. But, divorce judges frequently throw them out. The default state of affairs is getting married with no prenup and relying on the state to decide who gets what if and when divorce occurs.

Hopefully, if divorce court simply operated like any other civil court, then the marriage contract would be given more credence. And, if it were drafted by people more interested in preserving marriage than the government is, it might serve as a vehicle for doing exactly that.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, some people seem to have this notion that you must stay married at all costs. I see it all the time here: "I've treated her like sh!t, but I've never cheated!!!!!" because somehow cheating is the only thing you can do that's worthy of divorce.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Eh... in countries where arranged marriage is the norm, couples *do* learn how to be compatible. It's part of the expectation when they marry, and many of them achieve it. Couples from arranged marriages often report higher marital happiness and have a much lower divorce rate. 

I think that social expectations play a HUGE role, which is why this potential change to the law is of interest to me.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Of course there is. All of the relevant studies conclude that children raised in two-parent households are better off than children from broken homes. Those two-parent households include unhappily married couples.


But that is in the current, no fault divorce situation. You would need to force people to stay married and then measure what happens. Without that, you are guessing.



> It varies by state. In my state, there are 12 grounds for divorce that constitute fault. There doesn't seem to be much ambiguity in the grounds, either. Adultery is a fault. Abandonment for one year is a fault. Impotency at the time of marriage is a fault.
> 
> I think specificity in the marriage contract is a good thing. I don't understand how a contract in which one party can arbitrarily end it for a frivolous reason, without suffering any penalty, is a good thing. Especially when people's well being hangs in the balance.


The reason it is not is that the facts very in so many situations. You say adultery is one fault. Is that just physical cheating, or does emotional count? If it does, what defines an EA? Is abuse fault? If so, what is it? What defines abuse? If a husband refuses to work and just sits around, is a woman stuck with him? If a woman refuses to have sex more than once a month, is he stuck with her?



> Not really. Cheating occurs after marriage. And it's universally seen as legitimate grounds for divorce. Under our old, at fault system of divorce, adultery was negatively considered when dividing marital assets and deciding child custody.
> 
> I doubt that a person develops a passive aggressive personality only after marriage. And few people would consider a passive aggressive man to be unsafe and unhealthy to be around. As such, the fact that one's husband was passive aggressive shouldn't really constitute legitimate grounds for divorce.


But some hide it, just as cheaters hide it. Or a woman who claims to love sex, but then stops the moment the ceremony is over. 



> It wouldn't be uniform, granted. But people would be forced to do more due diligence. Many people experiencing divorce for the first time are utterly shocked at how the system works. They're shocked that one spouse's bad behavior won't be considered. They just assume, wrongly, that the system was set up to be fair, or promote marriage. But it's the only system we have. The government sanctions marriage. If you want to be "married," you have to get a government license and abide by marriage, and divorce, law.


Wait a minute. This sounds suspiciously like an early comment you were critical of. specifically:



> Protecting people from the consequences of their decisions simply encourages them to take more risks.


These folks decided not to look up the marriage laws. They took a risk and now you want to protect them from it?



> If there were 20 different common contracts, as well as the ability to craft a completely custom contract, then people would discuss issues before marriage, rather than making some unenforceable vows and hoping their spouses, and the system, don't screw them over. If a Catholic wanted to marry a Jew, they would discuss which contract to use. And the contracts would be enforceable. The contracts wouldn't change after being enacted.


Folks can do that right now. Nothing stopping them.




> My example was a person coming into the marriage with assets. I don't see anything magical about the words, "I do," that are worth claiming ownership to things one had nothing to do with accumulating.


Then get a pre-nup to cover it.



> However, some people obviously feel differently. If one person signed a contract giving away half his wealth, in return for another person marrying him, that would be his decision. I mainly sympathize with people who try to avoid that fate, only to have the decision taken away from them.


You did not differentiate between what was brought in before marriage and what was brought in after. Many of these threads complain about the SAHM divorcing and taking half of his assets, as if because she did not work it was all his. 



> Yes and no. Prenups are available. But, divorce judges frequently throw them out. The default state of affairs is getting married with no prenup and relying on the state to decide who gets what if and when divorce occurs.


A default that people choose. And if you want it enforced, go to a jurisdiction that upholds them.



> Hopefully, if divorce court simply operated like any other civil court, then the marriage contract would be given more credence. And, if it were drafted by people more interested in preserving marriage than the government is, it might serve as a vehicle for doing exactly that.


But think about what you want. One spouse wants out, and you propose forcing them to stay married. How is that a good result. And if the only reason they stay is because of the money support, where is the good in that? great, she did not leave me because of my paycheck. Now that is a marriage.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> But that is in the current, no fault divorce situation. You would need to force people to stay married and then measure what happens. Without that, you are guessing.
> 
> *It's not entirely guesswork. Prior to the 1970s, only "at fault" divorces were permitted. I was a young'un then, but I do vaguely remember my mother and friends griping about not being able to divorce - just not enough of draw conclusions. However, I am sure there are statistics that can provide some good basis for educated guesswork. *


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

KathyBatesel said:


> It's not entirely guesswork. Prior to the 1970s, only "at fault" divorces were permitted. I was a young'un then, but I do vaguely remember my mother and friends griping about not being able to divorce - just not enough of draw conclusions. However, I am sure there are statistics that can provide some good basis for educated guesswork.


That is a good point and I would love to see that data. The studies I have seen are much more recent that that. I also wonder how the passage of time and change in culture (beyond divorce) would alter the applicability. But I would assume those folks know how to account for stuff like that.


----------



## whattodoskidoo (Sep 13, 2013)

I never really understood exactly what "no-fault" divorce meant until I went through a divorce. I was a SAHM for 20 years. My H went completely off the deep end. Left us, became an abusive alcoholic and I filed for divorce. I was scared to death of what I would get in the courts because of "no-fault". Sure I could've stayed but I was more scared of his abuse and alcoholism and the example it was for my kids. 

Thankfully, in a soft moment of remorse from him, he agreed to a good settlement. In my opinion. when there is clear evidence of "fault" something else needs to be done. (In my case there was, several DUIs and an incident with a firearm) I'm not saying people should be made to stay together if they don't want to, but something should be done when there are true victims involved.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

No-fault doesn’t have to be abolished, it’s when it’s forced on you as the one and only choice I just cannot understand. Everybody seems to believe that if you live in a “fault” state you can only get divorced for a fault. Your aren’t forced to stay in a marriage in a fault state just because you can’t prove cheating or abuse or whatever. You have the option to file no fault. Some states require waiting periods to file no fault which in the overall scheme is part of the problem. The laws vary so wildly from state to state. In my state no waiting period to file, yet another state requires living apart for a year, another two years. Why? You want the marriage done, not done in two years.

The wonderful court system goes with the party line that the waiting period gives you time to try and save the marriage, yet in real world all it does is create hard feelings and resentment because you are still tied to an old life yet you want to start a new one. It prolongs everyones agony legally forcing the parties into the limboland. 

From a legal and financial standpoint the longer it goes on the more problems arise. If the states truly wanted to expedite the process do just the opposite, give an option of filing no fault and if you cant get a deal done in say 120 days then it goes to a fault divorce or goes directly for a judge to decide, give people a real incentive to finalize things. It just does not take months or years to decide or negotiate who will keep the house or who gets the wedding photos….the lawyers make it a game of attrition hoping someone will just “give up” to get it done. The divorce ends up becoming a way of life rather than and end to one life and the start of another. Even the mere premise is a contradiction, if no one is at fault, what problems can be in the marriage to start with? I realize that is a very simplistic look and doesn’t fit real life. 

Marriage is one of the most “human” things we ever do; it’s based on emotions and connections a willingness to share a life with someone. Yet the moment a divorce starts it all becomes about the asset division, the business, yet we have built a system to keep you in emotional turmoil. In longer marriages a prenup does become a problem because so much can change over the years but reviewing it every few years, making changes, adapting it is perfectly legal and fine. It would also remind everyone every few years just whats at stake and many times the ultimate problem in long marriages is you get too comfortable and we get lazy. We forget to work on the marriage. People are more worried about paying too much for car insurance yet the largest financial risks we take is being married and we don’t worry about that till its too late.


----------



## CaptainLOTO (Nov 6, 2013)

I agree with the general concept of no-fault. If someone doesn't wish to be married any longer either party should be able to dissolve the union/partnership.

However, I believe that the notion of an equitable split needs to take into account the notion of cause. So, if one party is abusive, cheats or otherwise fails to meet marital obligations, I think this should be grounds to have the partnership dissolved in a manner that favors the innocent (if there is an innocent party). Partnership agreements in business can be dissolved and if one party fails to perform under the terms of the partnership the court can provide relief to the other partner(s). Marriage should be the same but unfortunately, Marriage seems to be the only legally binding agreement where the justice system allows fraud & deception to be rewarded.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

The law change being considered in my state would make it the ONLY state in the nation that would require fault (and reject incompatibility or irreconcilable differences) for divorce. 

The shift TO no-fault took place between the 1970s and 1995, with New York being the last state to add/incorporate some degree of no fault. Some states are sort of a hybrid of the two. 

I did go ahead and write an article on it, though from a neutral position: Getting a Divorce | The Difference Between At Fault and No Fault Divorces


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> But that is in the current, no fault divorce situation. You would need to force people to stay married and then measure what happens. Without that, you are guessing.


No fault has only been around since the seventies. There are records dating back to before that time.



> The reason it is not is that the facts very in so many situations. You say adultery is one fault. Is that just physical cheating, or does emotional count? If it does, what defines an EA? Is abuse fault? If so, what is it? What defines abuse? If a husband refuses to work and just sits around, is a woman stuck with him? If a woman refuses to have sex more than once a month, is he stuck with her?


Yes, facts vary. But legitimate grounds for divorce shouldn't. There are enumerated reasons in the statutes for most at-fault states. And they aren't as squishy as you might think. You're using a no fault perspective. See, since no fault made frivorce legal, people have been doing it. But, they know that frivorces sound unsavory. So, they have to shoehorn frivolous reasons into the old, standard grounds for divorce. Adultery means having sex with someone outside the marriage. If that didn't happen, no problem, just redefine the word. Now, adultery means watching porn, or flirting with the bank teller. Problem solved. Divorce warranted.

Now, if you want a million different justifications for divorce, no fault is a pretty good solution. But, the more justifications for divorce, the more divorces that occur. It's simple cause and effect. Personally, I don't like the effect.



> But some hide it, just as cheaters hide it. Or a woman who claims to love sex, but then stops the moment the ceremony is over.


Yes. Due diligence is important. The more due diligence is done, the less likely it is that one's betrothed is hiding a major personality flaw. I think due diligence trumps divorce every time.



> Wait a minute. This sounds suspiciously like an early comment you were critical of.


I can see your confusion. I encourage due diligence of prospective spouses. I don't approve of a legal system that stacks the deck against marriage. Regardless of one's choice of spouse, the only game in town (for now) is our current legal system. Whether one wants to marry person A, or person B, one will be doing it under the current legal system.



> These folks decided not to look up the marriage laws. They took a risk and now you want to protect them from it?


I want a system that supports marriage and families. I honestly didn't think that would be a controversial position. :scratchhead:



> Folks can do that right now. Nothing stopping them.


Wrong. If you want to be legally married, you need a government-issued marriage license. If you want the legal protections that married couples have, you need that license. A contract, under the current system, means much less than a license.



> You did not differentiate between what was brought in before marriage and what was brought in after. Many of these threads complain about the SAHM divorcing and taking half of his assets, as if because she did not work it was all his.


In my response, I clarified my statement. I do recognize that some homemakers contribute greatly to family wealth. I also recognize that some homemakers contribute very little, or even negatively, to family wealth.



> A default that people choose. And if you want it enforced, go to a jurisdiction that upholds them.


A little flippant for my tastes. Take it or leave it. Stay or go. You seriously believe there must be a one-size fits all solution to apply to every marriage? Why the hostility to people choosing their own paths?



> But think about what you want. One spouse wants out, and you propose forcing them to stay married. How is that a good result. And if the only reason they stay is because of the money support, where is the good in that? great, she did not leave me because of my paycheck. Now that is a marriage.


I think that people honoring their commitments is a good thing. I think that encouraging people to work through the tough times that come in most marriages is a good thing. I think that children being raised in a two-parent household is a good thing. If you disagree, that's fine.

Personally, my view of marriage is pretty traditional. For better, or worse. In sickness, and in health. For richer, or poorer. That is a marriage. And I think that most people would agree with me. So, where is the harm in reforming the legal system so that those vows have a little more tooth to them? If two people commit to sticking things out for life, why insist on leaving frivorce as an option?


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

I have never met or heard of anyone that got divorced without good cause. The term frivorce is just plain condescending and IMHO ridiculous.

Sexual incompatibility is a big cause of divorce, are you suggesting that people that are incompatible be bound together forever? 
My ex is the end result of parents that stayed together for the sake of the kids and it ruined him emotionally.

And the term broken home is very outdated, these days people use the term two household family. There are plenty of families that are one household and the children suffer living with parents that in reality should get divorced. Forcing people to remain married is not a healthy thing to do.

An amicable divorce is far better for children than a life of misery with two parents that hate each other but remain under the one roof.


----------



## KathyBatesel (Apr 26, 2012)

Holland said:


> I have never met or heard of anyone that got divorced without good cause. The term frivorce is just plain condescending and IMHO ridiculous.
> 
> Sexual incompatibility is a big cause of divorce, are you suggesting that people that are incompatible be bound together forever?
> My ex is the end result of parents that stayed together for the sake of the kids and it ruined him emotionally.
> ...


I see this almost from an exact opposite perspective. I think most divorces happen without good reason... unless you count "they married without directly evaluating compatibility, values, and goals" as a good reason.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Yes. Due diligence is important. The more due diligence is done, the less likely it is that one's betrothed is hiding a major personality flaw. I think due diligence trumps divorce every time.
> 
> I can see your confusion. I encourage due diligence of prospective spouses. I don't approve of a legal system that stacks the deck against marriage. Regardless of one's choice of spouse, the only game in town (for now) is our current legal system. Whether one wants to marry person A, or person B, one will be doing it under the current legal system.


But you complained that people were surprised that it was the only game in town. So explain the reason why you want to protect some people from their poor decision but not others? 



> I want a system that supports marriage and families. I honestly didn't think that would be a controversial position. :scratchhead:


But in doing so, you want a system that requires people who no long like each other to remain married. My friend and his ex-wife made a big mistake when they got married and realized it within a year.  They could not stand each other. They had a very amicable divorce, no children no issues. Yet you would require them to stay married because, in your theory, they are stuck with their screw up. 




> Wrong. If you want to be legally married, you need a government-issued marriage license. If you want the legal protections that married couples have, you need that license. A contract, under the current system, means much less than a license.


Not completely true. You can go to a lawyer and enter into a contract to get most of that stuff. And if you don't like the marriage laws, get a pre-nup or move some where that has laws you like better.



> A little flippant for my tastes. Take it or leave it. Stay or go. You seriously believe there must be a one-size fits all solution to apply to every marriage? Why the hostility to people choosing their own paths?


As oppose to your flippant response that folks should do proper due diligence with a spouse? My hostility is your arguments cut against you. You say marriage is critically important and that one should deeply examine their spouse, yet turn around and say those same folks should be protected from their decision not look into the marriage laws. You ignore the possibility that your solution may create more problems.



> I think that people honoring their commitments is a good thing. I think that encouraging people to work through the tough times that come in most marriages is a good thing. I think that children being raised in a two-parent household is a good thing. If you disagree, that's fine.


I don't disagree in theory. I just recognize and admit that there will be consequences to making people stick around. And that is what your proposal will do. You go beyond encouraging and would require people to stay married. They could not get divorced unless they could show abuse or infidelity. So again, I quit my job and do nothing, and my wife is stuck with me in your world. I no longer honor my commitment, no problem, but god forbid she now wants out.



> Personally, my view of marriage is pretty traditional. For better, or worse. In sickness, and in health. For richer, or poorer. That is a marriage. And I think that most people would agree with me. So, where is the harm in reforming the legal system so that those vows have a little more tooth to them? If two people commit to sticking things out for life, why insist on leaving frivorce as an option?


What are those teeth going to be. Here are the grounds for a fault divorce in one state:



> Where either party has been guilty of cruelty, caused reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, or willfully deserted or abandoned the other, such divorce may be decreed to the innocent party after a period of one year from the date of such act;


So help me define cruelty. What does it mean? If my wife refuses to have sex? Or is that abandonment? What if I quit my job and refuse to work? To you, we are both stuck. Neither of those qualifies as cruelty, abandonment, or desertion. That is my problem. You want to force me (and others) to stay married
even when one spouse is not holding up their commitment. a person can drop their part of the agreement without adultery, cruelty, abandonment, desertion of the other person.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

KathyBatesel said:


> I see this almost from an exact opposite perspective. I think most divorces happen without good reason... unless you count "they married without directly evaluating compatibility, values, and goals" as a good reason.


So in that scenario, what do you propose? Because it seems like you are implying that they should stay married. How is that a good result?


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

In posting all of this, it seems to me the better way to handle this is work with folks on the front end. Maybe step up the requirements to get a marriage license. Require some basic classes to discuss sex, finances, children, religion, and the like. Make couples talk about some of this stuff before they get married to help reduce the number of bad decisions. 

Because forcing folks to stay married because they made a bad decision sure does not seem helpful to me.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Holland said:


> I have never met or heard of anyone that got divorced without good cause. The term frivorce is just plain condescending and IMHO ridiculous.


You must not get out much. Elizabeth Gilbert made millions of dollars recounting the story of her frivorce in the Eat, Pray, Love franchise. The story resounded with millions of people who just loved the story of a woman bravely cheating on and ditching her Nice Guy husband who treated her well, made a good living, and never beat her, or abused her.

Also, I find it ironic for one to argue that frivorce doesn't exist, yet divorce law should allow for frivorce to protect the people that, supposedly, aren't interested in getting a frivorce.



> Sexual incompatibility is a big cause of divorce, are you suggesting that people that are incompatible be bound together forever?


I'm saying that most marital problems can be resolved if both parties remain committed to the marriage.



> And the term broken home is very outdated, these days people use the term two household family. There are plenty of families that are one household and the children suffer living with parents that in reality should get divorced. Forcing people to remain married is not a healthy thing to do.


I agree that broken home is an old-fashioned term. And I agree that there are many families where children deal with being raised by single parents, or in two-parent, two-household shuffles. The problem is, the actual harm to the children, which is what I care about more than assuaging people using PC language, is still being done.

Children of divorce are permanently harmed in innumerable ways. That's the fact. Would it be nice if every parent who wanted to blow up his family could absolve himself of any negative consequences to his children? Sure. But it's just not reality.

Sorry.



> An amicable divorce is far better for children than a life of misery with two parents that hate each other but remain under the one roof.


I frequently see this claimed as axiomatic. I have never seen a scientific study proving it. Do you have any links supporting your position?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> But you complained that people were surprised that it was the only game in town.


I never wrote that they were surprised the legal system was the only game in town. To the contrary. Everyone knows it's the only game in town. I wrote that many people are surprised when they find out that the family court system isn't fair, and isn't set up to preserve families.



> So explain the reason why you want to protect some people from their poor decision but not others?


There are two issues at work that you keep missing. First, there is the choice to marry, or not marry. That choice involves the legal system. Sure, investigation into the legal system would clarify some things. But, I can forgive someone for either not knowing that the system stacks the deck against marriage, or for hoping that it won't be a problem, because there is no alternative for getting married.

Second, there is the choice of spouse. That choice is wide ranging. There are millions of single people in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of single people in almost every state. There will be hundreds, or thousands in most local areas where a person may be hunting for a mate. So, this second choice is not a simple, binary, yes or no issue. The choice of mates range from good to bad. This is the choice that I would prefer to see more care exercised in. Instead, many discount the need for any investigation here and suggest simply relying on an easy no fault divorce to correct any mistakes done when choosing a spouse.



> But in doing so, you want a system that requires people who no long like each other to remain married. My friend and his ex-wife made a big mistake when they got married and realized it within a year. They could not stand each other. They had a very amicable divorce, no children no issues. Yet you would require them to stay married because, in your theory, they are stuck with their screw up.


A marriage without children is certainly less of an issue than a marriage with children. However, potential future children could also be at risk. If one of those people in your example get married again, and have children, those children are at a greater risk of growing up in a broken home because first marriages have the lowest risk of failure.

What I think is that, if your friend's marriage collapsed so quickly without cause, it is likely that your friend didn't really know the kind of person he was marrying. Or, his wife didn't. Either way, a little more time and care spent getting to know one's future spouse may have paid big dividends.



> Not completely true. You can go to a lawyer and enter into a contract to get most of that stuff.


Well, I will say that one can get somewhere between SOME of the benefits of marriage and MOST of the benefits of marriage with a civil contract. But we both will agree that one can't get ALL of the benefits of marriage with a civil contract. So people who want ALL of those benefits are still forced to marry.



> And if you don't like the marriage laws, get a pre-nup or move some where that has laws you like better.


Still too flippant for me. Either give up any financial, familial, and practical ties to an area, or just cross your fingers and hope for the best. And if you do decide to move, you had better hope that the laws there don't change.

I wonder if any of the California residents in the 1970s moved there years before because California was a state that supported family and marriage? If so, should they just keep moving state to state fleeing no fault divorce laws? Given that all 50 states now have no fault divorce laws, should pro-marriage families expatriate? What's the family court system like in Somalia?



> So help me define cruelty. What does it mean?


Traditionally, it means extreme behavior that makes it unsafe or unreasonable to remain married. In the West, in the 21st century, it means being disagreeable.



> That is my problem. You want to force me (and others) to stay married even when one spouse is not holding up their commitment. a person can drop their part of the agreement without adultery, cruelty, abandonment, desertion of the other person.


Ideally, I would prefer to scrap the government-issued license system and use a system of voluntary contracts. That way, if you want your marriage to be nothing more than glorified dating, able to be cancelled at any time for any reason, you are free to do so. And, if two people want to use a more traditional system of a life-long commitment where both people vow to work through problems and remain married for better or worse, those people can have their system as well.

Absent that, I think our one-size fits all system of government licenses should be biased toward keeping families together rather than stacking the deck against them. And yes, that does mean that some people who want divorces without cause won't get them. I just think that the consequences to families of allowing one person to blow up a family without cause is worse.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> Absent that, I think our one-size fits all system of government licenses should be biased toward keeping families together rather than stacking the deck against them. And yes, that does mean that some people who want divorces without cause won't get them. I just think that the consequences to families of allowing one person to blow up a family without cause is worse.


I think the consequences would be worse. My answers are no more flip than yours, as you would require a couple who made a mistake to stay married forever. You ignore the abandonment that would result, the attempts to demonize one spouse or the other in an effort to prove "unsafe or unreasonable" behavior, while refusing to address any of the examples I gave. You would stick a man with a wife that refuses to have sex or a woman with a man who refuses to work because you think it is better for some future kids because second marriages are more likely to end up in divorce.

Again, it seems to me that working on this at the front end is money better spent. But if you think forcing someone who can't stand you to stay married to you makes good public policy, I don't see that we have any common ground.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I think the consequences would be worse.


Agree to disagree. Basically, my governmental solution would be to return to the state of affairs before no fault divorce laws became common between 1970-1985. We know that the frequency of divorce significantly increased after no fault became the law of the land. And we know that divorce harms families, especially children. So, I don't know why you think more intact families is worse, other than an unfounded belief in the axiom that a permanently broken family is better than a temporarily unhappily married family.



> Again, it seems to me that working on this at the front end is money better spent.


I agree. But, I don't know how well it would be received. If you tell a couple that it's important that they carefully consider their choice of mate, because if they don't, they can easily get a divorce without grounds, I think many of those disinclined to do their due diligence will remain disinclined. However, if you tell them that they should consider their choice of mate, because if they make a mistake, they may be stuck with them until the catalyst of an affair, or abuse, or some other traditional grounds for divorce occurs, some of those who rely on frivorce to correct their mistakes may think twice.



> But if you think forcing someone who can't stand you to stay married to you makes good public policy, I don't see that we have any common ground.


I agree. If you think that a nation of children more at risk for incarceration, dropping out of school, teenage parenthood, early drug and alcohol abuse, and future divorce is wise public policy, I'll just say we should agree to disagree.


----------

