No-fault divorce and its ironic consequences

This process allows married couples to dissolve their marriages without having to prove wrongdoing, so that “irreconcilable differences,” whether actual conflict or lack of passion, constitute sufficient reason for one spouse to decide the legal fate of the marriage.

Divorce on fault, an old system now available in only two-thirds of states, required one party to prove the other’s fault for abandonment, abuse, or adultery. Such claims caused tedious legal battles to determine how to divide assets and whether a divorce would be granted at all, but they prevented the accidental abandonment of the marriage that the couple wanted to avoid in the first place. No-fault divorce also has its relative advantages, which cannot be ignored given the cultural prevalence of divorce. But the continued support for no-fault divorce, especially that backed by the Democratic Party, slams the door on the young women and minority men who are at the center of today’s politics.

However, the promotion of no-fault divorce as we know it began with former Republican President Ronald Reagan. While governor of California, Reagan signed the California Family Law Act of 1970, establishing that marital fault is not a ground for divorce. The state’s no-fault divorce law was the first of its kind in America and, as such, provided the basis for most others. Since then, every state has accepted no-fault divorce, and some are even “pure” no-fault divorce states that do not allow no-fault grounds for divorce.

In the decades that followed, divorce rates skyrocketed as couples took advantage of their newfound freedom of action. By the 1980s, levels stabilized and began a steady decline. Pent-up desire for divorce is likely responsible for much of the immediate jump, along with the brouhaha over taking advantage of the new popular policy. The divorce rate hit a 50-year low in 2019, a statistic that proponents of no-fault divorce counter with concerns about the state of marriages. But this low point for filing for divorce remains much higher than the divorce rate for many years before 1970. “the most important element of women’s freedom.”

Why did he take the country by storm and what strengthened his influence?

First, no-fault divorce responds to the human urge to seek out self and self, to continue to find something better. Under the auspices of no-fault divorce laws, people are free to act up and even make some money from it. Take a rich but unskilled woman – she can marry a man and, if she plays her cards right, soon divorce him and receive half his income. This example is illustrative, but it shows how this policy is most suitable for a generally undisciplined society. However, the larger issues are what makes it so important to lawyers.

No-fault divorce brings real benefits to women in difficult situations, regardless of the moral judgment of the decision to divorce. Abused women are particularly likely to have their claims trusted when domestic violence would otherwise be difficult or difficult to prove. Economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers studied the impact of unilateral divorce, which is often synonymous with no-fault divorce, on these conditions. A unilateral divorce does not require the consent of the other spouse, and a no-fault divorce can be unilateral or bilateral. The type most associated with negative circumstances, such as abuse, is one-sided. Their study found that in states that adopted unilateral divorce, incidents of domestic violence fell by 30%, the number of women killed by a partner fell by 10%, and suicide rates among women fell by 8–16%. The sooner the state adopted the reform, the sooner this decline began.

Allegations of abuse have been a valid basis for divorce for some time, but for the abused spouse, obtaining evidence is either difficult or dangerous. Battered wives may consider it a greater security risk to file for a fault-based divorce and not pursue it at all than to never pursue one. And the process itself carries some risk of increased violence.

No-fault divorce gives a woman a way out without question. But instead of acknowledging and believing violence, women should be content to feel that their experiences are believed. Our divorce laws, as American Principles Project fellow Maggie Gallagher has argued, no longer “distinguish between a woman who wants to leave an abusive husband and a man who wants to exchange an aging wife.” The seriousness that no-fault divorce advocates place on rescuing abused women is on the same level as any bout of indifference that pushes a perfectly comfortable spouse toward divorce. Pride for the vulnerable is only in words, at best implicit. It is a compromise that society is willing to make in order to respond to a difficult situation. Is it worth it? There has to be some way to strengthen this process without it becoming a perfect divorce. This, at the very least, raises the question of whether divorce is the modest and flawless mechanism it appears to be.

Look deeper and it becomes clear that no-fault divorce has harmed men and women by destroying marriages. Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor and director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, sums it up this way: No-fault divorce has “adopted a soulmate model of family life that prioritizes the emotional well-being of adults.” Many things are as simple as preferences, and divorce history is certainly one of them. The great disaster lies in what flowed downstream towards children who were not given priority, more than in objecting to the appearance of a marriage that “failed”. Moreover, to some rejection of female dignity.

Reflection on the nature of marriage continues to contribute to this awareness. The big change, perhaps the biggest change, has come from society’s changing approach to marriage. Of course, the diminishing influence of the religious sphere after the 60s and 70s means that fewer people fully accept marriage as a covenant. But even on a secular level, marriage is more than just a measure of personal happiness. Under the “institutional model” that dominated before no-fault divorce, “a decent job, a well-kept home, mutual spousal support, child rearing, and shared religious faith were almost universally regarded as goods essential to marriage and family life.” were intended to promote,” Wilcox wrote. Modern wisdom today holds marriage captive to the whims of the “soulmate model,” in which subjective, moment-to-moment happiness determines whether a marriage serves its purpose.

If the divorce rate has decreased, it is due to the decrease in marriage rates caused by this soulmate model. Fewer people are getting married, largely out of fear that the marriage will fail, and more are refraining from testing their relationships through cohabitation. No sex, no intimacy, no children, no financial benefits—nothing but comfort remains exclusive to marriage. As a result, marital status separates the poor and uneducated from the wealthy.

The effect is cyclical, so the great disaster of no-fault divorce is that it flows downstream to children who have no priority. Unstable marriages hinder children’s socioeconomic status and emotional development—both elements of family structure that determine their chances. If they struggle academically because they don’t have access to two loving parents and if they don’t have an example of a viable marriage, children will achieve far less than they are capable of. To further the stratification, these poor working-class citizens are much more likely to be black or Hispanic, meaning that marriages also tend to be racially segregated.

“Children at the lower end of the economic spectrum,” Wilcox explained, “are doubly disadvantaged by their parents’ economic and family circumstances.” This will affect their physical living conditions, but also their prospects for a stable and happy life. Today we see this in general among young girls, regardless of their economic status. Those children whose emotional well-being was not a priority for their parents turn into anxious young women crippled by the fear of abandonment. They have no hope for the relationship to succeed and avoid marriage not only because feminism does not encourage it, but also because they do not consider it a safe choice.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The health benefits for women from no-fault divorce appear to decline with each generation until they finally reach a climax where women and men are likely to be at even greater risk. If the most sincere argument for no-fault divorce is that it gives wives the freedom to escape adverse conditions and abuse, we must recognize that these same problems are further compounded for children. Poor, unmarried minorities are more likely to cohabit because they do not marry, and cohabitation is a consistent risk factor for domestic violence. Young women are depressed and young men are stuck. Of course, this is not due to the lack of parental relationships.

So what is more valuable – female satisfaction or children, many of whom grow up to be the same women? Men who decide to give up their family, or men who want to have one? No-fault divorce can quietly lead to the opposite result that its strongest defenses seek. Democrats looking to put women’s rights and men’s empowerment at the center of their campaigns should take a hard look at this.