Governor David Patterson recently made New York the last state in the country to adopt a no-fault divorce law. The new law goes into effect on December 14, 2010.
Previously, a spouse could only obtain a divorce if he or she could prove fault based on grounds such as cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment, or adultery.
“Finally, New York has brought its divorce laws into the 21st century,” Mr. Paterson said in a statement. “These bills fix a broken process that produced extended and contentious litigation, poisoned feelings between the parties and harmed the interests of those persons — too often women — who did not have sufficient financial wherewithal to protect their legal rights.”
In 1970, California adopted America’s first no-fault divorce law, which permit just one spouse to end a marriage. By 1985, all other states except New York had passed similar laws. It was perceived to be a reform that would reduce “conflict within the family” that “is harmful to the partners and destructive to the emotional well-being of children” as if divorce is beneficial to children.
The New York legislature thought they were late to the party, but they were actually delaying a catastrophic mistake – both socially and economically. There were 636,000 divorces in the U.S. in 1969, but 1,036,000 by 1975. That’s a 62 percent increase in just six years. New York’s divorce rate was only 38.7 percent, almost the lowest in America. By contrast, the divorce rate of neighboring New Jersey was 56 percent, and 60 percent in nearby Connecticut.
In addition to the societal ramifications, states suffer economically from higher divorce rates. According to the Heritage Foundation, each divorce costs taxpayers an average of $20,000 annually for welfare, Medicaid and other subsidies. Since New York is more generous when it comes to entitlements, the cost is likely going to be in the $25,000 range. The anticipated increase in divorces could cost New York taxpayers an additional $725 million.
Divorced people live shorter lives. Men live ten years less and women and children, four years less. Children of divorce are more likely to divorce themselves, and divorce produces other negative consequences such as increased juvenile delinquency, aggression, teen pregnancy, depression, and learning difficulties. “The best interests of the child” governs in child custody, yet no-fault divorce does no such thing.
Women and children are worse off financially after divorce. One expert put it this way, “Approximately 95 percent of divorce cases in New York are resolved by the parties themselves, not by the judge, without going to court. This is the best possible process. No-fault takes away any bargaining leverage the non-moneyed spouse has. Currently she can say, ‘If you want a divorce I’ll agree, but you have to work out a fair agreement.’ We must look at the socioeconomic standing of women in our society. Women clearly continue to be the non- or lesser moneyed spouse, as women continue to give up careers and financial independence for the role of housewife and mother. For this reason alone we must look closely at how divorce affects the lives of women and children and the role that the state should play to ensure that homemakers and children not be left destitute after divorce.”
If no-fault is good, why do we have the highest divorce rate of any Western nation? (see the rates here) Why is the divorce rate for second marriages even higher? Studies show most “unhappy” marriages ride out the storm. No-fault removes that option. It also removes the notion that one might want to stay married because of the covenant that they entered into or for the sake of the children. No-fault divorce has also left fathers with no protection against possible confiscation of their children.
Carrie Lukas, vice president and director of policy at Independent Women’s Forum, has stated that “no fault divorce… makes the marriage contract effectively no contract at all”. She has also stated, “People wonder why marriage as an institution is in trouble. One reason could be that the legal system has devalued the marriage contract and made marriage a less attractive institution.”
