Oppose

No-Fault Divorce

Currently, a married couple seeking a divorce in New York must have grounds, meaning one partner (the plaintiff) must accuse the other partner (the defendant) of one of the following:

•    Cruel and inhuman treatment (Domestic Relations Law §170.1)
•    Abandonment for a continuous period of one year or more (DRL §170.2)
•    Imprisonment for more than three years subsequent to the marriage (DRL §170.3)
•    Adultery (DRL §170.4)
•    Conversion of a separation judgment (DRL §170.5)
•    Conversion of a written and acknowledged separation agreement after living separate and apart for more than one year (DRL §170.6)

This bill would add a seventh ground:  “The relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath.”   This is, in fact, “no-fault divorce.”

Any divorce, regardless if it occurred under fault or no-fault laws, is one of life's most painful experiences. It signifies the failure of a dream—a dream of intimacy, of family, of security, of meaning. The consequences of divorce can therefore be severe, not only economically, but particularly physically, emotionally and psychologically.

It would seem logical, therefore, that with the massive increases in divorce rates, the rate of children involved in divorce, and the social consequences of the divorce epidemic, that the Legislature would be looking for ways to strengthen marriages, not make divorces easier to obtain.

California was the first state to adopt a no-fault divorce law in 1972 under the guise of “reform.”  Since then all states except New York have adopted similar laws. Reformers championed no-fault divorce as the answer to each of the fault-based system's weaknesses. The non-adversarial structure of no-fault divorce would replace the adversarial aspect of fault-based divorce, thereby assuaging the bitterness and sense of personal failure. No-fault divorce would establish standards for alimony and property awards that treated men and women equally, abolishing the gender-based assumptions of the traditional law. No-fault divorce, proponents argued, might even stem divorce rates that were increasing during the last years of fault-based divorce.

No-fault divorce did not deliver on these promises. In fact, the opposite is true: instead, the introduction of no-fault divorce saw a mere transfer of the acrimony to the secondary issues of the divorce, such as child custody and property disputes, a loss of negotiating power for the spouse who opposed the divorce, an economic free-fall for many women and children, and an accelerated divorce rate.  In fact, we believe that:

•    No-fault divorce changes the meaning of marriage.  Instead of a covenant between a man and a woman that can only be broken by unfaithfulness of one, it becomes a contract that can be revoked at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all (no-fault).  The vow “until death us do part” is changed or ignored to become “until we feel differently.”

•    No-fault divorce causes divorce rates to jump further.  After the introduction of no-fault divorce, the rate of couples dissolving their marriages exploded.  A study by Justice Research of 38 states with no-fault divorce laws found "very strong evidence" that no-fault laws increased divorce in eight states and "some lesser evidence” for increases in eight more. In none of the states studied did no-fault divorce laws decrease divorce.  The study’s author concluded that, on average, the no-fault laws increased divorces by 20 to 25 percent.

•    No-fault divorce reduces the protection for spouses wanting to continue marriages. Most couples approach the altar under the belief that they are consummating a lifelong arrangement, solemnizing vows of lifelong fidelity—"for better or worse, in sickness and in health."  Over 80% of no-fault divorces are unilateral. This means that one party to the divorce objects to the marriage ending, and no-fault laws take away that party’s control over whether or not they can save their marriage.

•    No-fault divorce reduces the negotiating power of spouses who do not want to end their marriages, especially women. Under the fault-based divorce system, the spouse who did not want to absolve the marriage received leverage from the more stringent divorce laws.

•    No-fault divorce results in an economic free-fall for many women and children. With the loss of negotiating power and any ability to legally stop a divorce proceeding, studies have found that women and children have been particularly hard hit by no-fault divorce.

•    No-fault divorce removes incentives for couples to invest greatly in their marriages. One result of no-fault divorce—of knowing that your spouse can leave at any time, for any reason—is a decreased incentive to invest in the marriage. Women, particularly older women, have often sacrificed their economic viability in order to devote more time to home and family. No-fault divorce has removed much of their protection for making such a sacrifice. Consequently, many women have either delayed marriage or have married, but continued working to maintain their economic status should the marriage end.

•    No-fault divorce takes away the rights of fathers to their children.  Since the father has no defense against a wife who wants to leave the marriage, it becomes difficult to prove that she is an unfit mother.  A man, having done nothing wrong, can lose not only half of his property, but also custody of his children.

•    No-fault divorce changes the role of the State (Courts).  Before no-fault divorce laws, the state supported the couple’s vows and put some effort to protect the sanctity of marriage.  After no-fault divorce, the State is with the institution of divorce, and the main concern is to make the divorce quick and off the court docket.

We therefore urge all members of the New York State Legislature to vote “NO” on this bill, and instead work on ways to strengthen marriages and families.