No-Fault Divorce is a Good Idea for Moms--So Is Working Full Time

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Sounds like the bantering of someone who lives in a fantasy world. Why do so many women end up staying at home? Because there is a lack of work place flexibility. Not many couples can get equal time off to care for children. You act like women ought to have babies only to ship them off to daycare to be raised by strangers. You are right, however, there is plenty of financial risk for a stay-at-home spouse. There ought to be more financial protection built in for that person. 401k an an education fund. If the other spouse doesn't like it then don't get married.

MisQ of 12:51AM April 14, 2012

No fault PROMOTES the slacker spouse to become unemployed or work "under the table" during the divorce to get the courts pity. The spouse who worked to get the home and improve it can literally have it stolen by bankruptcy fraud comitted by the offending spouse. The same offending spouse is not held accountable if they take out a credit card in their spouses name. The offending spouse can embellish vacation plans without the others consent/knowledge by forging their signature, there is no law enforcement group in a "no-fault" state that will prosecute the criminal because they hide behind "its a civil issue"

tim of CA 9:04PM February 14, 2012

If you can't get someone to honor their marriage contract, how are you going to get that person to honor an agreement to do his or her part in raising the kids? You can't. And usually it's the woman who is forced to put her career on the back burner because the husband won't fully commit to his half of shuttling kids around, doing due diligence in finding safe child care, keeping the house up, running herd on the kids' homework, and taking care of the myriad details that arise in a household with children. The working mother ends up exhausted, the husband blames her for not being able to do it all, and then he walks. How is that good for the kids?
I'm sure it's not always the husband, but when I look around, it's the wives and mothers who have the same complaints and haggard looks. Fifty years after all the bra-burning and insistence that women work outside the home, men still don't step up to the plate when it comes to child care and housekeeping.
And just because women file most of the divorce petitions doesn't mean they want a divorce for no reason. If one spouse has broken the marriage contract, then the courts should consider that in the settlement. So what if it's messy? Most lawsuits are. That's what the courts were created to do -- render judgments based on facts and testimony, not just divide property.
Especially if the working spouse agreed to support the one at home caring for kids, which freed the working spouse from numerous and heavy responsibilities and enhanced that person's career opportunities, then the courts should value that contribution and divvy up the finances in a way that recognizes that sacrifice.
Of course, the other alternative, which I highly recommend, is don't get married or have children any more. It's a thankless task.

Susie Cue of FL 6:42PM April 15, 2011

This post follows the logic that "if you say it enough, it will become fact." Bunk. Sound logic recognizes that when divorce is easy, more people do it. It's time people stop expecting a fairytale marriage and put some effort into it. It's the effort that makes others feel valuable.
My biggest issue with this post though, is the statement "...if women want to give up working to stay home to raise children, they are also giving up their financial futures as well." So what do you propose, Bonnie? Should we make babies only to fulfill our quota and then ship them off ot boarding schools where they can be raised by professional parents?
The problem with the old feminist mindset is that it implied women had to choose between work or family. That is so short-sighted. Many of us who are feminists choose to get an education, raise a family, and while doing so also acquire experiences, skills, and knowledge that will prepare us for a post-family career. It's invigorating to enter the business world with a clear plan and a unique portfolio of skills. This is not a handicap but an advantage.

Kathi Browne of TN 11:07AM June 29, 2010

Pappas said that there was a gang rape of Hillary Clinton when Ted Kennedy endorsed then-Sen Obama for president. Her “studies” take a bias that is almost humorous because on one hand she demands “equal” rights for women and on the other she demands “superequal” rights for women. And is she relevant at all or merely loud?
I discount her as a serious commentator because not only is she not interested in truth, she is not interested in any rational solution to the problems she conjures: the children who are born from casual relationships and formal relationships and marriages..
Despite the wishful thinking of many, there have never been many competent studies that show living together in “trial marriage” or some other arrangement enhances chances of marital success. State sanctioned "trial marriage" is pointless. What incentive is there to stay married after the six months? If you want incentive you provide penalties, but then you need to set the penalties (and there are few involving longterm marriage, remember?) But we can make up studies and maybe get away with conclusions?
Who is Bonnie wanting to protect or preserve? Who is Pappas is wanting to protect or preserve? Adults of legal age? What a minute: protect them from whom? And have some governmental entity decide who is to be protected and who the protector is to be? Health and Human Services bureaucrats? Social services bureaucrats? Family courts (with their bureaucrats?) Gasp!!!
Then, do we protect adults of legal age (who made a choice) or their children? [As an aside, we have to have licenses to drive motorcycles and do a manicure in most places...that is more important than bearing children? But only if I were the issuer of the licenses?]
Were there a way to eliminate the cachet of having children the parents (adults of legal age or otherwise) cannot, or worse, will not, support financially or with mature guidance or emotionally or intellectually …with or without the benefit of marriage, then we eliminate the group who had no choice in whether to be brought into these faux studies.
The sad truth is that more sectors of the population multiply like Scandinavians without taxpayer-supported safety nets for the children. And the antichoice group beat their chests demanding no terminations of pregnancies without sensibly doing anything else.
Back to the main question: Where does anyone get the cockeyed idea that "[m]ore marriages survive if trial marriage before "I do."? And then realize that that is not the important question after all.

velville catfish of GA 1:08PM June 22, 2010

In college I was a dorm rat. We said about the Greeks, "the best friends money can buy". But I would always add, I am not against contracts, they are great for business arrangements, but leave me out of the social/friends contracts. And I think this is where the marriage contract fails at its most basic level.
I remember watching many, but not all of my friends get married. And I would ask them why. One response was,"you got to get one right away, before all the good ones are taken". Clearly a "gold rush" phenomenon. I would think about this remark, and say to myself, "I'll take my chances". Besides, I was enjoying a great social life, and I thought, "why would I want to ruin this". So, I didn't buy in. But he was right! All the good ones did get taken! And now, my selection has dwindled. Sad, remorseful, not in the least, I would do it all over again?
Correct me, if I am wrong here, but in the Christian faith, the human that put the final touches on the marriage institution was a "wild and crazy" guy in old Roman days. A real Cad you could say. He played the field in Rome, but, as he got older, he could see his prospect dwindle too, so he got nervous, and got married. Then he set about, more clearly defining the marriage contract. I think this characters name was St. Augustine?
So I say, as I always have, "if you want to hang around with me, your welcome, if you don't, I'll see you later".

Ken of KS 1:14AM June 22, 2010

Clearly the "facts" that you state are subject to debate:
From: http://www.divorcereform.org/why.html
"No-fault divorce caused already-climbing divorce rates to jump further. As the preceding statistics reveal, divorce rates in America zoomed to new heights under no-fault. Though not all of the increase can be attributed exclusively to the changes in the law, a significant portion can. In a 1989 study by Justec Research in Virginia on the effects of no-fault divorce in 38 states, the findings revealed "very strong evidence" that no-fault increased divorce in eight states and "some lesser evidence" for increases in eight more. The study's author, lawyer and sociologist Thomas B. Marvell, concludes that "on the average, the no-fault laws increased divorces by some 20 to 25 percent."
Divorce should be discourages, and infidelity, the leading factor, should be prosecuted and punished.
Most women these days do not stay home to rear their children; most work.
In the event of a divorce, they should grant 50/50 parenting time - THAT's a law that should be implemented.

Dave of IL 10:55PM June 21, 2010

It might be wise to try a program where a man and woman would be sure not to conceive, and live together as man & wife for six months. That should expose any deadbeat relatives who would come sponging on the pair. if there were premature ejaculation, far better to break up than suffer a lifetime of bitter frustration. BO?
Dirty language? Tops left off tubes and jars,-- wet towels on floor--noisy aggressive pet? Person always late? Divorce follows because of traits that may not be changeable or tolerable. Too long, churches have interfered in lives all over the world. Almost every nation is dangerously overpopulated with too many CONSUMERS.
Churches pretend they OWN marriage as the institution that can force women to produce millions of church benefactor to replace those who die. But marriage always ends in civil court where property settlement & custody are decided. My generation was rushed into marriage by the WW II draft. Divorces came to couples after they had time to discover they were mismatched. I suggest a tradition should begin, where nobody "goes steady" and all couples have a wide range of choices to find marital success.

auradawn veirs of CA 10:52PM June 21, 2010

See books on Reagan divorce. Some say the first wife did not want it. Book by elder daughter comments on when she was conceived. It's distasteful to pry, but the No Fault divorce endorsement coming from such a theatrically Christian man praising
"high family values," seemed odd. Around the same time. a best-selling book told poor young women how to feather their nests. They were to find a man whose wife was old enough to have spent years developing her husband's career so they had family assets. By that time, the wife would show wear and tear of the struggle & still be distracted getting the last of the kids through college, usually depriving herself of things, "putting the family first." Along comes the needy climber who attaches herself to the assets of the man's family. He's flattered by the way the parasite thanks him for jewelry & entertainment, and along comes the divorce. Some wives are smart enough to contest the breakup, or males in their family give hubby a good thrashing and set him right.

auradawn veirs of CA 10:37PM June 21, 2010

If a couple spent more time praying for God's blessings on their marriage, perhaps the divorce rate would lower and the economics of a marriage would be in last place of importance, instead of in first place.
Men and women- look for your future spouse's character traits instend of their love-making technique and you will most likely get a better result in the cpouse you choose.

Ann Fetters of FL 6:28PM June 21, 2010