Should no-fault divorce be banned?

[msc545]

No-fault divorce assumes equal standing in court regardless of things like gender, relative age, etc.

Unfortunately, that assumption is not generally met in that men are seriously disadvantaged in family law courts (mostly in the US and UK) and women are heavily favored for the most part, to the extent that large numbers of men are now refusing to get married, and many that do are insisting on pre-nuptial agreements. Men routinely lose their homes, money, children, and property in no-fault divorce proceedings.

Banning no-fault divorce would serve to allow litigants to present evidence of the other partner's wrongdoing if any, and might serve to dispel the notion apparently held by many jurists that their job is to protect women at the expense of men.

[OlderAndWiser]

My wife and I met in 2008, dated for 2 years, got engaged, and married in 2011. Three years later, she decided that getting married was a mistake, because she wanted the freedom to do whatever she wanted without responsbilty to a partner. She was not being unfaithful to me, she did not abandon me, she was not an alcoholic or drug addict, and she was never physically violent towards me. And I was never unfaithful to her, I did not abandon her, I was not an alcoholic or drug addict, and I was never physically violent towards her.

In a fault-based system of divorce, infidelity, abandonment, addiction, and violence are the grounds for obtaining a divorce. If Florida still required a showing of fault to obtain a divorce, I would still be married to Lynn. She never hated me and I never hated her; I didn't want a divorce but I didn't want her to be miserable with me, and I wanted a partner who WANTS to be wth me, not one who is forced to remain with me because of the law.

So. . . if we could not get a divorce, our choices would be:

1. Remain together and try to be happy. . . but there is a very low possbility that we could have accomplished that.

2. Remain together in the same house, lead separate lives, but remain faithful. That sounds like it would have been a miserable way to live.

3. Remain together in the same house, lead separate lives, and we could agree that we could each date other people. Doesn't that make a mockery of the marriage? And I don't want to commit adultery; never have and never will.

It takes two people dedicated to a marriage to make it work. If one does not want to be married, then the marriage will fail despite the most diligent efforts of the other spouse. You could return to fault-based divorce and force people to remain married, but you can't force them to be happy. Why should the law require people to lead unhappy lives?

[msc545]

In that hypothetical situation, you mentioned, you and Lynn could have remained married but lived in separate homes or even separate countries.

The law could be changed such that people with "irreconcilable differences" could be married in a "fault" system. I don't see a practical need to have it as it is now.

[OlderAndWiser]

Yes, but what is the point of being married if we are living apart and leading separate lives?

[msc545]

What I am saying is that under a no-fault system, if you and Lynn could not get divorced given the limited legal reasons for doing so, then you could have simply lived apart and gone on with your separate lives. There is no advantage to being married under this circumstance but probably no harm either. I doubt that you would have literally been forced to live together.

Conversely, the damage done to men under the no-fault system is so profound that a switch to a fault-basd system would seem to be the lesser of two evils.

[OlderAndWiser]

The harm done to me is that I have finally found someone else who wants to be my wife. If I was still marred to Lynn, Helen and cold not make that happen.

[msc545]

You might not be able to marry her but you could still have a relationship with her. At least that would not be prevented. That actually could work to your advantage in the end as I'm sure you well know.

[OlderAndWiser]

Do you realize that if my wife and I are lving separately, that she can fle a pettion to be awarded support (alimony) even though we are not divorced? And that can include her getting the exclusive use of our home even though I must contnue to make the mortgage payments. No, I am not seeing the advantage.

[msc545]

@OlderAndWiser i take your point. I guess nothing is without its perils.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I couldn’t even charge my ex-wife with adultery because of no fault and I still lost half of everything and then some

[msc545]

Exactly. Your spouse could have assaulted you and it wouldn't make any difference.

[lightbulb27]

not sure, that seemed the start of the increase in divorce, so seems worthy. I really don't know the tradeoff that created the change in the 1960s.

Maybe a simple solution is "Divorce Insurance", provided by Human Condition Insurance. When you get married, part of the certificate cost of marriage is an optional rider of insurance policy against divorce that covers you in the event the spouse divorces.

That will encourage marriage, and of course there are limitations to collect... duration of marriage, pre-requisites achieved prior to getting married, therapist engagement in trouble times, men's support networks, etc.. That puts standards in place along with support systems to avoid divorce.

Fraud will be rampant.

...

Most men I've seen get divorced I did not see get screwed over and quite a few of the women got screwed over. But I did see how a woman could destroy the man in the system and it's legal, all she has to do is be mentally ill or pissed off.

[msc545]

Fraud would indeed be rampant, making obtaining re-insurance on risks
almost impossible.

[Leopard23]

No. What should be the case espicially on the US is that those 87%of women who initiate divorce shouldn't expect half of what their ex husband worked for, shouldn't get alimony and child custody should be 50/50 by default with no child support unless otherwise. Basically if society and the law would stop rewarding women who choose to get divorce and treat them like adults capable of supporting themselves there'd be a lot less divorce.

[msc545]

if wishes were horses we would all be riding. The things should be is not the way they are or will ever be.

[Leopard23]

Things are changing if ever so slightly. A lot of women are now having to pay alimony and child support

[msc545]

Neither of those is enforced against women but is very rigorously enforced against men.

[exitseven]

I know guys that make good money that got divorced and ended up moving back in with their parents or ended up in a rooming house. They say that they go to court and the wife's lawyer presents what her monthly expenses are and that is what the guy has to pay. If there is anything left over , that's what he gets to live on.

Divorce is not nobody's fault. There is usually fault on both sides but in tif the case of one spouse cheating or abuse there should be consequences.

[Fuentes]

Yup its 100% wrong

[msc545]

@exitseven yes, exactly, but Judges heavily favor women in divorce (they are mostly white knights like half the men in the US), and changing a Judge's philosophy or beliefs is not an easy task in that they pretty much do what they want. What they often seem to want in divorces is to please women and trash men.

[exitseven]

@msc545 all the cops I know tell me the wife's lawyer shops for the female judge that the only thing she hates more than men are cops.

[msc545]

Uh.. what?

[exitseven]

I must know a couple of hunderd cops. A big percentage of them are divorced, many more than once. They even have their own expression when somebody is divorced. If it is fir the first time they say."he's got one behind him" and if it is twice it is "he's; got two behind him" and so forth. The wife;s lawyer always shops for a female judge that hates cops. One guy told me that when he went to court the judge asked him if he could work a lot of extra details. Hr said he did. The judge told him that was good because he was going to need it.

[msc545]

That is horrible. The Judge admitted bias from the outset.

[exitseven]

yup , some would say that.

[RavVid]

There is a societal purpose in marriage in being an environment to raise children and as being a stable economic unit that is more advantageous then two singles. Simple example of that is heating and cooling cost of one house/apartment will be less than two houses/apartment.

However I think the genie is well out of the bottle now. A divorce was once scandalous but just isn't now. There aren't the social penalties that backed up judicial fault based divorce.

Fault based divorce will not stuff the genie back in the bottle.

[SaoirseS]

I think @OlderAndWiser would be a good one to comment on this question.

[msc545]

He has now done so!

[SaoirseS]

Excellent

[Anonymous]

I dont know how you feel that the UK has a bearing on "No Fault" divorces given it was only something passed by the courts a few months ago to approve without a 2 year separation?

I just got an annulment and I could have taken him through the coursts for a no fault divorce and got 50% of everything (I was entitled) but I didn't. It's down to the people and how they handle a separation as to what happens financially. It also depends how much people have to start a new life and how much they put into the old one as to their entitlement. Sorry but this question seems a bitter, twisted bias for men. I am sorry if you have experienced this sort of person rather than a good, fair one.

[msc545]

It is unreasonable to expect men to depend on the Goodwill of women in divorce situations. Men need the same level of protection that women now enjoy.

[Opinion Owner]

Stop tarring all women with the same brush, it certainly won't have justification in my world as I have had 2 separations and I never took anything that wasn't mine to begin with. The simple fact is this; you don't know your partner until you break up. That is when the ugliness begins but this isn't a man v's woman scenario it is a human v's human. Due to this some people will be better than others. I know one thing; BOTH men came after MY finances after I split with them.

[msc545]

Your experience does not define the experiences of many others.

[Opinion Owner]

No but my point is why should the good people suffer because of the horrible ones?

[msc545]

what good people and what suffering?

[Opinion Owner]

Some good people are stuck in situations they want free of fast. I was one.

[msc545]

ok, but that is unrelated to what I was talking about., which was advocating a fault-based system rather than no fault. The reasons for that are technical and have nothing to do with staying or leaving any situation.

[boggboss]

It won't have that effect as women as a whole get treated better via law even in criminal courts by most male judges

[LiamJHayden]

No-fault should only be by mutual consent; otherwise at-fault would be better. It would end the craziness of the innocent spouse having to pay alimony to the cheater - and that happens to women, too.

[Adam1978]

No just the consequences of it. The one breaking the contract should leave empty handed or with what they entered the relationship with. Punishment should only be given if they actually can prove a fault.

[Drumlin2001]

No. No fault divorcesshould be allowed. But there should be an overhaul of family court and the default position should be 50/50 unless there is a very good reason not to.

[msc545]

"should be". There won't be, so...

[shortster]

I think that the government shouldn't issue divorces to marriages it didn't perform. As marriage is a religious sacrament. So if you got married in a church you should have to go back to the church for your divorce.

[Anonymous]

No, if you're a man you either be smart and avoid marriage or be brave and check out when the papers arrive

[Fuentes]

Well no matter what Men have to take it with no Vaseline

[DarkLegacy]

It has been made legal in the UK a couple of years ago and yes i agree.

[msc545]

what was made legal?

[DarkLegacy]

No fault divorce was made legal, before that you had to have a specific reason.

[msc545]

In the specific reason method, was it possible to allege fault?

[DarkLegacy]

Yes usually adultery, but not being able to or unwilling to produce offspring, financial destitution, not showing love and affection including having sex and deserting the family home were all acceptable reasons to sue for divorce.

[msc545]

Was there some sanction or penalty if a person was found guilty of infidelity or other things in the marriage?

[DarkLegacy]

It is civil offence, they can ask for the divorce in civil courts. The divorcing party gets half of everything financial

[msc545]

Do things such as adultery and the like change the nature of divorce and custody and support orders?

[DarkLegacy]

Not really.

[msc545]

Then there is probably no point in bringing it up in court really.

[DarkLegacy]

No but people do

[msc545]

I am sure they do but to what end?

[lottiebannotie]

Yeah seems like a good idea