No Fault Divorce Makes Moving Forward Easier To Do
78
No fault divorce is a way of dissolving a marriage where no evidence or accusations of failures of either party are required. Laws which allow no-fault divorces permit a court to grant a divorce from either party without the requirement of evidence to be presented regarding a party’s breach of the marital contract.
The concept originally emerged in Russia in 1917, where government dislodged the power of the church by granting divorces more easily on grounds of irreconcilable differences. Previously the church had greatly reduced the amount of divorces which were allowed. The idea soon spread to America, with California being the first state to implement relevant changes in 1969. Later every state in the US adopted no fault divorce law, although it has frequently been interpreted slightly differently in each state.
No fault divorce means that either spouse can bring a marriage to an end, citing irreconcilable differences. This can be due to a variety of reasons, from infidelity to simple unhappiness. Though the behaviour or reasoning behind the divorce will not affect the inevitable outcome, it can impact other matters such as the custody of children.
No fault divorces can greatly reduce the amount of time that each party needs to spend in court, and no accusations or evidence of blame are required to justify the breakdown and dissolution of the marriage. Before no fault divorces were introduced, one party had to accuse the other of adultery or abandonment in front of a judge who could dissolve the marriage.
Any divorce where neither spouse is trying to prove the error of the other is no fault. In many states, the divorce can be completed a month after it has been filed for. Before the introduction of no fault divorces, some people deliberately got caught committing adultery in order to precipitate a divorce. Thanks no fault divorces everyone can be honest and find their way out of a marriage, even if there reason is poor. While some may think that divorces should be hard work, and that spouses should be forced to attempt to make it work, but when you are in the situation yourself often all you want is for the saga to come to a swift, succinct ending.
When divorce is mutually agreed upon, and blame cannot be definitively pinned on either spouse, a no fault divorce is the perfect way of bringing the situation to an end and carrying on with life.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (2)
- Funny
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Very interesting take on no fault divorce!
Adam,
Pardon me for sounding critical, but historically, Texas had a no fault statute as early as 1913. Living Seperately for x number of years. Russia enacting no fault in 1917. The idea soon spread to America (1969)? That is 52 years later. You would be able to find other states that had enacted no fault divorce statutes earlier than 1969(Oklahoma and the U.S. Virgin Islands to name 2).
California was not the first. I believe that Texas and California enacted their respective statutes at the same relative time (1970), the difference being too close to establish the claim that California's law predates Texas'.
The greater majority would be in agreement with you only because divorce is litigated under a custom of practice that has the force of law and the indeterminacy of the law enables this to occur indefinitely.
You use the "irreconcilable differences" language indiscriminately as applied to all states but in the case of Texas, this would be misapplied and incorrect. The Texas Family Code does not use "irreconcilable differences" in the text of it's no-fault ground but something altogether different. But then again, if it is not being argued at trial by the lawyers, a custom of practice takes place that disregards what the law really requires.
What your article does not do is to differentiate between the Insupportability statutory scheme and the Insupportability/SAPCR statutory scheme or make any distinction between the scenario in which the respondent agrees with the plaintiff and the scenario in which the plaintiff wishes to contest the claim for the best interests of the child. This places your article in direct opposition to any father who desires to contest against a false claim made by a spouse for a Bad Faith Motive.
Yes,there are a lot of questions and disagreements that you and others may have but for a public debate on the issues not to be taking place is something I find to be inexplicable. Why would a system of jurisprudence be acting against those fundamental liberties that a man and his children hold? Dunno!
Ooops! Adam, I have another something that has me curious.
In your article, you refer to the marriage as a contract. I'm happy to hear someone else refer to marriage for what it is, a "contract" which, by the way the Catholic Church also recognizes it as being such.
I don't know anyone within contemporary jurisprudence who would want to refer to it as a contract as this would prevent no fault from existing as we know it.
In your article, you say:
"Laws which allow no-fault divorces permit a court to grant a divorce from either party without the requirement of evidence to be presented regarding a party’s breach of the marital contract."
This seems a little oxymoronic because the marital contract binds the two parties to it unless there is a breach of the contract (fault) by one of the parties. Therefore, just by seeking the divorce against the will of the other spouse is clear and attributable proof of fault on behalf of the claimant.
This may seem a bit nuanced and I guarantee that now attorney would ever be willing to argue this point at trial. Consider the implications that this would have on the entire legal community.
Thanks for giving attention to these little missives of mine.
Philip
It's good to see others having an interest in a topic that never really gets enough attention. If find it interesting that you mention that no fault originated in Russia. Truth be told, Texas and others had the no-fault divorce (living seperately) a few years earlier.
Also, my sister in-law, a girl from St. Petersburg related her parent's experiences with Russian divorce court and mentioned that the court denied the divorce in consideration of the childrens' best interest. How crazy is that when the Red Communists thought more about family values than we do today. Veeery Interesting
Hello, hello, 19 months ago
I think it would be a good idea. Thank yoiufor brining it out attention.