No-Fault Divorce

An article on the Opinion Page of the May 21, 2009 edition of the Buffalo News criticized fault-based divorce. I strongly agree with the author’s position, as no-fault divorce has revolutionized the world of matrimonial law. While no-fault divorce is not without its shortcomings, it is, on balance, the “least bad” option.

Up until the 1970’s, fault was required to obtain a divorce. Abuse, abandonment, adultery, or other enumerated transgressions had to be pled for a divorce to be granted. California, followed within 15 years by all other states except New York, enacted a no-fault divorce statute in 1970.

Opponents of no-fault divorce claim that it makes it too easy to get a divorce. I agree. What exactly does “irreconcilable differences” really mean? Who is to decide whether differences are truly irreconcilable or whether the parties just don’t feel like being married anymore? Does deciding not to reconcile differences make those differences irreconcilable? I don’t know.

But what is the alternative? If I had the choice between making divorce too easy or making it too hard, I’d rather make it easy. Again, as I stated at the outset, it is the choice between two bad options, but I believe it is the “less bad” one. We cannot allow people to manipulate the system by inventing salacious gossip about a spouse, ruining his or her reputation, simply because the petitioning spouse believes it is required to establish the merits of a divorce. However, neither can we force people to remain in a bad and possibly irredeemable marriage.

As a divorce mediator, I promote reconciliation whenever it is possible, and I’ve even persuaded some couples to reconcile even when they were dead-set on divorcing, but we cannot erect roadblocks to a process that may be vital to certain people’s happiness and even their safety.

Marriage does not require much of an application process, and those who have hurdled that ankle-high bar have earned the right to get out of their marriages as easily as they got in.