Has no fault divorce outlived its initial purpose?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I'm almost not sure if I should be breaking a several week hiatus just for this, but as a site that's shaped my views on these sorts of matters, I felt this might be the most suitable place to follow up.

This is an Elizabeth Bruenig tweet that's been making the rounds these days. Warning: Profanity.

So... this is what it's about? Not baby urges, not the longing to have kids for its own sake... just the need for someone by her side who is (relatively) less likely to leave her? How is she to know there isn't some committed eco-antinatalist who'd stay with her so long as she doesn't have kids?

But then that got me thinking... how could that promise be enforced? Part of the point of marriage is to get their vows in writing in case one of the participants goes back on their word. Is that not undermined by the ability of either participant to abandon the other easily even when without the slightest evidence the other is at fault?

I've heard no fault divorce touted as everything from "a way for couples who want to split on good terms to not have to pretend one of them was at fault" to "a way out of relationships where one of the participants really IS at fault but it can't be proven". I'm not sure which of the two is more popular, but I'm guessing the latter, as even so much as questioning no fault divorce gets its proponents calling you an accomplice in abuse. But if one merely leaves an abuser instead of pressing charges or getting a restraining order, what incentive has said abuser to refrain from abusing someone else? Is there really any scenario in which the system cannot at least get a preponderance of evidence either way to determine most likely direction of blame for divorce?

What about having vows more easily adjusted case-by-case? Could an open-relationship contract stipulate penalties for leaving without it being a package deal with penalties for infidelity, so as to allow those who mind the former more than the latter to at least deter the former? Sure, it won't make them love each other, but it could make them hesitate to get their vows in writing in the first place unless they're sure they're willing to stay, making way for those who are more sure of it.

EDIT: Huh, apparently I can't display the image directly in the post. Oh well. The linked one is there anyway. For now, at least.

[Esternial]

IPart of the point of marriage is to get their vows in writing in case one of the participants goes back on their word. Is that not undermined by the ability of either participant to abandon the other easily even when without the slightest evidence the other is at fault?

For some marriages that may be part of the point. For others it is not, hence the existence of no fault divorces.

[Ifreann]

I'm almost not sure if I should be breaking a several week hiatus just for this, but as a site that's shaped my views on these sorts of matters, I felt this might be the most suitable place to follow up.

This is an Elizabeth Bruenig tweet that's been making the rounds these days. Warning: Profanity.

So... this is what it's about? Not baby urges, not the longing to have kids for its own sake... just the need for someone by her side who is (relatively) less likely to leave her? How is she to know there isn't some committed eco-antinatalist who'd stay with her so long as she doesn't have kids?

But then that got me thinking... how could that promise be enforced? Part of the point of marriage is to get their vows in writing...

What? Where do married couples get their vows in writing?

[Heloin]

Why should someone be forced to stay married if they just don’t want to be with the other person anymore?

[Ethel mermania]

".....I've heard no fault divorce touted as everything from "a way for couples who want to split on good terms to not have to pretend one of them was at fault" to "a way out of relationships where one of the participants really IS at fault but it can't be proven". I'm not sure which of the two is more popular, but I'm guessing the latter...."

Its the former.

The rest of your argument is we should get rid if no fault divorce so society can ascertain blame and enforce Punishment if required?

[Infected Mushroom]

All divorces should consider fault.

Marriage is like a contract. If you break it, issues of fault ought to be considered. If you want fault to be a non-factor, specify it in writing and register it as part of your marriage certificate. It’s an implied term (for thousands of years) that if you marry, you shouldn’t cheat. If you do and we have no reason to believe it’s not a breach of an agreement, then we should sanction you with the power of the law.

[Infected Mushroom]

Why should someone be forced to stay married if they just don’t want to be with the other person anymore?

Because when enough people start breaking promises, words start to lose their meaning.

[Giovenith]

No fault divorce can have some unfortunate side effects such as allowing an abusive or unfaithful partner to reap benefits from the divorce division that they arguably don't deserve, but fault divorces can also be used by those same abusers and cheaters to hurt the aggrieved partner (who usually has less money to work with in court) during divorce.

You can try to tweak it if you want, but there's no such thing as a perfect system.

[Infected Mushroom]

Imagine being cheated on, the other partner wanting max benefits when getting out and then when you want to bring it up:

Judge:
“Excuse me. This is a No Fault jurisdiction. They are allowed to cheat. We’re not encouraging it but as far as the law is concerned, no degree of fault will be assigned. It’s cool.”

I think that’s really removed from most people’s common sense morality.

[Heloin]

Why should someone be forced to stay married if they just don’t want to be with the other person anymore?

Because when enough people start breaking promises, words start to lose their meaning.

Good.

Imagine being cheated on, the other partner wanting max benefits when getting out and then when you want to bring it up:

Judge:
“Excuse me. This is a No Fault jurisdiction. They are allowed to cheat. We’re not encouraging it but as far as the law is concerned, no degree of fault will be assigned. It’s cool.”

I think that’s really removed from most people’s common sense morality.

You have no idea what is being talked about do you?

[Juansonia]

Imagine being cheated on, the other partner wanting max benefits when getting out and then when you want to bring it up:

Judge:
“Excuse me. This is a No Fault jurisdiction. They are allowed to cheat. We’re not encouraging it but as far as the law is concerned, no degree of fault will be assigned. It’s cool.”

I think that’s really removed from most people’s common sense morality.

Do you really believe that extramarital sex should be a criminal offense?

Also, if it's a "no fault jurisdiction", that only means that divorce can occur without proof of a wrong - fault can still be assigned if damages are claimed.

If you're going to compare marriage to a contract, please keep in mind that "at will" contracts also exist.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Why should someone be forced to stay married if they just don’t want to be with the other person anymore?

Define "forced to stay married". Are we talking, "the marriage is legally on the books but he's still free to go"? Then the marriage is just symbolic. Are we talking "he is literally her prisoner"? Then as far as I'm aware that is beyond what would typically constitute normal enforcement of marital vows in society.

I'm just talking civil penalties, like him owing more alimony if she holds up 100% of her end of the marriage deal and he leaves anyway because he felt like it (eg. the scenario described in Elizabeth's tweet) than if he leaves with some semblance of culpability on her part.

Otherwise you're creating a situation where he's within his rights to leave a non-pregnant woman for any reason or even no reason, without even the slightest civil penalty, but if he leaves a pregnant woman for even the most pressing of reasons suddenly he's an asshole who deserves to be dragged into poverty through child support bills he can't afford, even if she told him she wouldn't.

In that case, you shouldn't doubt that would incentivize some of them to resort to getting pregnant off him on purpose.

(You shouldn't doubt that anyway, because the people who say it doesn't happen are the same people who tried to smear those gainfully employed thousands of miles from their hometowns as "basement dwellers," but still...)

[Infected Mushroom]

Imagine being cheated on, the other partner wanting max benefits when getting out and then when you want to bring it up:

Judge:
“Excuse me. This is a No Fault jurisdiction. They are allowed to cheat. We’re not encouraging it but as far as the law is concerned, no degree of fault will be assigned. It’s cool.”

I think that’s really removed from most people’s common sense morality.

Do you really believe that extramarital sex should be a criminal offense?

Also, if it's a "no fault jurisdiction", that only means that divorce can occur without proof of a wrong - fault can still be assigned if damages are claimed.

If you're going to compare marriage to a contract, please keep in mind that "at will" contracts also exist.

Criminal offense? No. But a factor in divorce proceedings? Yes if we’re going to give marriage reasonable meaning.

[Heloin]

Why should someone be forced to stay married if they just don’t want to be with the other person anymore?

Define "forced to stay married". Are we talking, "the marriage is legally on the books but he's still free to go"? Then the marriage is just symbolic. Are we talking "he is literally her prisoner"? Then as far as I'm aware that is beyond what would typically constitute normal enforcement of marital vows in society.

I'm just talking civil penalties, like him owing more alimony if she holds up 100% of her end of the marriage deal and he leaves anyway because he felt like it (eg. the scenario described in Elizabeth's tweet) than if he leaves with some semblance of culpability on her part.

I already could tell you thought people should be forced to remain in unhappy marriages but thanks for restating that.

Otherwise you're creating a situation where he's within his rights to leave a non-pregnant woman for any reason or even no reason, without even the slightest civil penalty,

Good.

but if he leaves a pregnant woman for even the most pressing of reasons suddenly he's an asshole who deserves to be dragged into poverty through child support bills he can't afford, even if she told him she wouldn't.

Child support if for the child not for whichever parent has the child.

In that case, you shouldn't doubt that would incentivize some of them to resort to getting pregnant off him on purpose.

You don’t talk to a lot of women I take it.

(You shouldn't doubt that anyway, because the people who say it doesn't happen are the same people who tried to smear those gainfully employed thousands of miles from their hometowns as "basement dwellers," but still...)

I don’t really care but I’m currently rotating this basement you want me to think about in my head.

[Infected Mushroom]

Define "forced to stay married". Are we talking, "the marriage is legally on the books but he's still free to go"? Then the marriage is just symbolic. Are we talking "he is literally her prisoner"? Then as far as I'm aware that is beyond what would typically constitute normal enforcement of marital vows in society.

I'm just talking civil penalties, like him owing more alimony if she holds up 100% of her end of the marriage deal and he leaves anyway because he felt like it (eg. the scenario described in Elizabeth's tweet) than if he leaves with some semblance of culpability on her part.

I already could tell you thought people should be forced to remain in unhappy marriages but thanks for restating that.

Otherwise you're creating a situation where he's within his rights to leave a non-pregnant woman for any reason or even no reason, without even the slightest civil penalty,

Good.

but if he leaves a pregnant woman for even the most pressing of reasons suddenly he's an asshole who deserves to be dragged into poverty through child support bills he can't afford, even if she told him she wouldn't.

Child support if for the child not for whichever parent has the child.

In that case, you shouldn't doubt that would incentivize some of them to resort to getting pregnant off him on purpose.

You don’t talk to a lot of women I take it.

(You shouldn't doubt that anyway, because the people who say it doesn't happen are the same people who tried to smear those gainfully employed thousands of miles from their hometowns as "basement dwellers," but still...)

I don’t really care but I’m currently rotating this basement you want me to think about in my head.

No one should get into a marriage thinking/knowing “I can promise never to cheat but if I do, the state can’t sanction me for it at all. In divorce proceedings, I will still get to game everything at the maximum level.”

It’s contrary to public policy and a common sense understanding of marriage.

[Heloin]

I already could tell you thought people should be forced to remain in unhappy marriages but thanks for restating that.


Good.


Child support if for the child not for whichever parent has the child.


You don’t talk to a lot of women I take it.


I don’t really care but I’m currently rotating this basement you want me to think about in my head.

No one should get into a marriage thinking/knowing “I can promise never to cheat but if I do, the state can’t sanction me for it at all. In divorce proceedings, I will still get to game everything at the maximum level.”

Do you know what no fault means?

It’s contrary to public policy and a common sense understanding of marriage.

Look at me not giving a fuck.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I already could tell you thought people should be forced to remain in unhappy marriages but thanks for restating that.

"Forced" is too strong a word for a civil penalty. The point is more to encourage people to hold off on marriage unless they're ready to commit to it.

Child support if for the child not for whichever parent has the child.

But still doubles as a de facto method to punish him for leaving unavailable to women who don't resort to it.

You don’t talk to a lot of women I take it.

On the Internet, anyone claiming to be a man could be a woman, and anyone claiming to be a woman could be a man. So it's anyone's guess how many people of either sex I've been talking to. But the aforementioned fact they were wrong about me being a basement dweller applies whether most of the people dismissing this risk are men or women. They were still wrong. What else could they be wrong about?

In person, the women I've discussed this with have been former high school classmates at parties, and conversations with my department heads back when I used to be a teacher. Each of them believing me about being afraid of this happening to me, instead of them just writing it off as "incel cope" or "sour grapes" or whatever the status quo apologists are calling it this week. Almost as if only those who know what I look like have one clue that those defending it online don't have.

I don’t really care but

But nothing. I brought up something they were at best wrong about, at worst lying about, and noted this could be extrapolated to their other assumptions. Are you saying you don't care?

[Juansonia]

-snip-

No one should get into a marriage thinking/knowing “I can promise never to cheat but if I do, the state can’t sanction me for it at all. In divorce proceedings, I will still get to game everything at the maximum level.”

It’s contrary to public policy and a common sense understanding of marriage.

First of all, most promises aren't backed by the state. I promise that my next sentence will contain the word yes, but does that mean that the state will back that promise? Of course not.

Oh and by the way, there is nothing about a marriage which bars against extramarital affairs - after all, "open marriages" exist. People who are married simply choose to not engage in extramarital affairs - this in itself may be backed by a binding contract. However, marriage in itself does not impose such obligations.

[Infected Mushroom]

No one should get into a marriage thinking/knowing “I can promise never to cheat but if I do, the state can’t sanction me for it at all. In divorce proceedings, I will still get to game everything at the maximum level.”

Do you know what no fault means?

It’s contrary to public policy and a common sense understanding of marriage.

Look at me not giving a fuck.

The fact that infidelity will not be considered as a factor in the distribution of assets and visitation rights etc is tied to the concept of no fault divorce. See for example:

https://ramsdenlaw.com.au/news/infideli ... y-divorce/

In accordance with the Family Law Act 1975, in Australia our system provides for ‘no-fault’ divorce. The only ground for divorce is referred to as an ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’, which must be evidenced by a separation period of no less than 12 months.

This means that the court will not consider why or how the marriage broke down. This means infidelity plays no part in whether there are sufficient grounds to obtain a divorce.

https://calebblandlaw.com/blog/how-does ... y-divorce/

Kentucky, along with 16 other states, is a no-fault state, meaning even if your marriage did end because of adultery, a judge will typically not consider this in determining things like child custody or division of assets. This can often come as a shock to those who have been cheated on.

---

So in Canada, USA and other western countries, family courts have expanded the strict definition of “No Fault” beyond just “you don’t need to show fault to create the grounds for divorce” to… “I don’t care if they cheated. They more or less have a right to cheat.”

It’s valid, even necessary, to talk about no fault divorce as it has evolved in family courts and not just stick to the misleading notion that it’s only implication is that it’s easier to divorce people. That’s just one dimension of it. It’s created an expanding effect where courts are increasingly tolerant of cheating.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

-snip-

No one should get into a marriage thinking/knowing “I can promise never to cheat but if I do, the state can’t sanction me for it at all. In divorce proceedings, I will still get to game everything at the maximum level.”

It’s contrary to public policy and a common sense understanding of marriage.

First of all, most promises aren't backed by the state. I promise that my next sentence will contain the word yes, but does that mean that the state will back that promise? Of course not.

Oh and by the way, there is nothing about a marriage which bars against extramarital affairs - after all, "open marriages" exist. People who are married simply choose to not engage in extramarital affairs - this in itself may be backed by a binding contract. However, marriage in itself does not impose such obligations.

Question: Is there any way to get a pre-nup for an open relationship with no penalty for adultery but a penalty for leaving?

[Heloin]

Child support if for the child not for whichever parent has the child.

But still doubles as a de facto method to punish him for leaving unavailable to women who don't resort to it.

But nothing you want here fixes child support abuse. In fact nothing here is about child support abuse, just your idea that ending no fault divorce could help anyone instead of keeping couples in unhappy marriages.

You don’t talk to a lot of women I take it.

On the Internet, anyone claiming to be a man could be a woman, and anyone claiming to be a woman could be a man. So it's anyone's guess how many people of either sex I've been talking to. But the aforementioned fact they were wrong about me being a basement dweller applies whether most of the people dismissing this risk are men or women. They were still wrong. What else could they be wrong about?

In person, the women I've discussed this with have been former high school classmates at parties, and conversations with my department heads back when I used to be a teacher. Each of them believing me about being afraid of this happening to me, instead of them just writing it off as "incel cope" or "sour grapes" or whatever the status quo apologists are calling it this week. Almost as if only those who know what I look like have one clue that those defending it online don't have.

So no.

I don’t really care but

But nothing. I brought up something they were at best wrong about, at worst lying about, and noted this could be extrapolated to their other assumptions. Are you saying you don't care?

I expressly stated I didn’t care. It’s written right there.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

But nothing you want here fixes child support abuse. In fact nothing here is about child support abuse, just your idea that ending no fault divorce could help anyone instead of keeping couples in unhappy marriages.

For starters, it would give non-pregnant women who suspect their husbands are considering leaving an alternative to getting pregnant off them on purpose as far as punishing them goes, and give other guys incentive to make sure they intend to stay before they get married. How would that not at the very least cut down on the issue?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

No fault divorce can have some unfortunate side effects such as allowing an abusive or unfaithful partner to reap benefits from the divorce division that they arguably don't deserve, but fault divorces can also be used by those same abusers and cheaters to hurt the aggrieved partner (who usually has less money to work with in court) during divorce.

You can try to tweak it if you want, but there's no such thing as a perfect system.

Nationalizing the legal profession would go a long way to cutting down on the ability of the wealthy to undermine justice itself.

[Heloin]

But nothing you want here fixes child support abuse. In fact nothing here is about child support abuse, just your idea that ending no fault divorce could help anyone instead of keeping couples in unhappy marriages.

For starters, it would give non-pregnant women who suspect their husbands are considering leaving an alternative to getting pregnant off them on purpose as far as punishing them goes, and give other guys incentive to make sure they intend to stay before they get married. How would that not at the very least cut down on the issue?

I can’t see how any of that makes any sense to you. Assuming you have a point which you don’t, what is stopping this fictional crazy lady from still getting knocked up to “punish him”?

[Brisketania]

I generally do not reply to some of these topics, but this one struck a nerve. Society has gone so overboard with happy meal fast food throw away everything that even marriage has become no fault, discard because of anything. What next, the kids - oh wait, that has already started as well. Just drop them off at the local Police or Fire Station. As someone that had a wife cheat on them (multiple times), I tried to make it work because I took the vows seriously and waited to get married. In the end, we were in divorce court. Her new boyfriend (just platonic), was an old hand at the game as she became number 5, half his age. She had a ruthless, itch of an attorney and they were taking 3/4 of my pay every month during the divorce (I didn't just sign everything, we had a child). Being in the military, she and her attorney tried to ruin me there, 20 years of service were almost washed down the drain in false accusations. I was removed from promotions, had a general letter of reprimand for something that never happened and was eventually cleared of it through great cost. Reprimand removed, but getting promoted ruined. In the end, she ended up getting part of my military retirement because of some outdated law.

She was eventually ruled as at fault for the divorce as the platonic friend was a sham and lie, and was proven in court and they got married. She also got fined and had to serve some time for the lies, fabrications, false testimony; and amazingly kept custody.

I do not believe in a No-Fault divorce unless the two are willing to to peacefully and amicably dissolve the marriage. Someone is actually to blame for why they have gotten to where they are. And the individual or both should accept responsibility for it. The person that is not at fault is the one that ultimately suffers from it and can have a hard time trusting someone else in the future.

Bottom line: If you are having issues before you get married, dont get married unless you can both resolve the issues. Once you are married, it take both parties to give 100% to make it work. Its not a 50% 50% to make 100%, it is 100% from both parties. If you are having trouble, but do love each other, get help - you can't resolve it yourself. If you do get to that point, be very open and honest with each other. Do not get into any other kind of relationship, dont go sounding to friends or someone else about your problems - they may have other motives. Seek the help of a professional. If it really comes down to the divorce - discuss it, try to end it peacefully, especially if there are children. And never ever ever use the children as leverage or pawns. Do not bad mouth or allow anyone else to bad mouth the other parent to them - they will grow up knowing what was said and can resent the parent that did it or allowed it.