Were the old divorce laws really that bad?

Question

I'm talking about the laws which existed before the "no-fault" divorce laws came in.

I wasn't around at the time, but whenever I read or hear about them, they seem pretty sensible.

What was so wrong with them that they needed changing?

Answer 1

They made it hard for a battered spouse to get a divorce. The court proceedings were long and drawn out because someone had to prove fault. Now a battered spouse can just get a divorce. The whole "no-fault" divorce was started by feminist divorce lawyers who wanted to weaken marriage and at the same time make their jobs less stressful. The "no-fault" divorce is ok if the marriage is one of violence, but it has turned marriage into nothing more than a extended courtship. It is so easy to end a marriage now, that people don't think about the commitment it will take to make it work. They just jump in knowing if they don't like it they can leave.

Answer 2

Yes they were that bad. There were two main problems.

First, the requirement of finding fault meant that every divorce turned into an accusation grudge-match. Unless you were able to prove how bad your spouse was, and how much harm they'd caused, the court would not order the divorce. So, people dredged up every wrong ever down, and blew them out of proportion, to make their spouse look at wicked as possible. Which, in addition to resulting in expensive litigation, was also very hard emotionally on both the parties and the children, as well as any other family or shared friends.

Second, let's suppose that there wasn't any animosity. Let's look at all the situations where the parties would have preferred to remain friends, but didn't want to stay married.

Because of the at-fault requirements, couples often had to stage (fake) a situation that would provide grounds for divorce. They'd set up an adulterous affair, which didn't really exist, just to prove to the court the requirements to get the divorce. This mean that people were in effect required to lie to the courts, and the courts knew that this was going on. So they were placed in the awkward position of either refusing to grant the divorce, and punish the people for perjury, or grant the divorce and ignore the perjury. Both are counter-productive.

And if the courts refused to grant the divorce, the people just often separated and went their own way, but without the legal closure that would allow them to get on with their lives and potentially to remarry down the road. So, refusing to grant divorces didn't have any significant effect on keeping couples together or preserving the family, except statistically on paper.

Because of no-fault divorce laws, people can remain amicable whenever possible, and thus save everyone a lot of grief and in-fighting. It drastically cuts down the costs of litigating the divorce, especially where the parties can come to some sort of negotiated or mediated settlement agreement as to division of property and custody. What used to cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars can now be done for a few hundred dollars.

Finally, there are the emotional benefits of being able to simple dissolve the legal partnership without accusations and in-fighting. Others can remain friends with both parties, because they are often no longer required to choose sides. And studies have shown a massive benefit to the children, especially in situations where the parents can remain civil, which rarely happened in the days of the at-fault requirements.

As a side note, the new no-fault laws generally didn't eliminate the ability of parties to file for an at-fault divorce. It just added another option where neither party was really at fault.

Answer 3

Divorce is really that bad ... There is no way to make the killing of love easier ... although, I can certainly see if a spouse was a beater, or habitually committed adultery how one would already see the love as dead and want a rebirth into a new life without the sin killing their soul. Dunno ... single, never married, and only have divorced parents to use as role models ... sounds like I'm SOL, but I'm not ... just happy to be.

What would be real useful in "Law & Ethics" is to make marriage require more to get into. People get married so eaisly, without thought or understanding. Wouldn't it be better to have people psyco-analysed before marriage to find out if they're aggressive or have a tendancy to be permiscuious? Money ... well money seems to be the #1 reason for divorce ... so wouldn't it be for the couples benefit and socities benefit to have them learn before they get married? So many do the Vegus thing, and then get annulments or divorced. Most churches and religious organizations do provide a lot of common sense stuff ... but if we're required to get a licence to hunt, drive, or sell food ... shouldn't we have stricter laws on who can get married? Ok, I'm sure there's ton's of bad points, but this also has it's merits.

Answer 4

It was if you were a woman. Men manipulated the system.
If a woman was smart she got 1/2 of everything & alimony, I made sure my friend was one of these. Most women got a job for the 1st time.

Answer 5

They tended to enrich lawyers and private detectives.