God, I hope so. The Matrimonial Commission, which was appointed by the state’s chief judge, Judith Kaye, in 2004 as part of her ongoing effort to reform, overhaul and otherwise drag the court system into the 21st Century, has recommended that the New York follow the rest of the country and institute no-fault divorce.
By not allowing couples to end their marriages by mutual consent, New York has kept some of the strictest barriers to divorce in the nation. Currently, one party in the divorce must allege cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery, or abandonment — literal or sexual — for a year. That rule has often resulted in costly legal proceedings and bitter custody fights in cases where both sides want a divorce. . . .
“Divorce takes much too long and costs much too much — too much money, too much agony, too hard on the children,” Judge Kaye said on Monday in her annual address on the state of the judiciary. She said afterward that no-fault divorces would mean that spouses “don’t have to invent charges against each other.”
Of course, there are those who want to keep the law the way it is, especially conservative groups, but there has been a growing sentiment that things need to change. Various state and city bar associations have gotten on board (oddly enough, the Women’s Bar Association was opposed to no-fault divorce until 2004). So, great! Almost everyone agrees.
Yes. Well. Unfortunately, the decision lies in the hands of the Legislature. Otherwise known as the Black Hole of Albany. Individual legislators rarely seem to have much power or influence, since most of the decisions are made by the governor, Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House in a smoky room somewhere. But on certain issues, they like to flex their muscles, particularly where the Big Three aren’t inclined to take a stand. And flex they do:
But for no-fault divorce to come into being, the Legislature would have to agree, and lawmakers have had bruising fights over the issue. While the report, from a commission led by Justice Sondra Miller of the State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, gives the proposals a new immediacy, the issue languished in the Legislature after Judge Kaye called for no-fault divorce a year ago.
Lawmakers said on Monday that they had yet to review the report. Helene E. Weinstein, a Democratic assemblywoman from Brooklyn who is chairwoman of the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee, said she had supported no-fault divorces in the past, with some reservation, and was working on “a potential draft proposal.”
Leaders in the Republican-led Senate suggested that the focus might be on more incremental changes.
“There’s been no real talk about having a true no-fault divorce,” said John DeFrancisco, a Syracuse Republican who is chairman of the State Senate’s Judiciary Committee. He said that he has been focused, as a first step, on cutting down the amount of time it takes to get divorced once a separation agreement is reached. Currently, couples do not need grounds to divorce when they reach a legal agreement to separate, with consensus on all financial, property and child custody issues — a method of ending a marriage that can avert the bitter court fights that consume costly lawyers’ fees. But then they must live apart for a year.
I have a friend whose divorce was done via the separation-agreement method. Her husband had been living in Italy for several years while she tried to get a divorce in New Jersey, where they lived, only to find out a couple of years on (the week she was to marry her current husband) that since they had both moved out of state, the New Jersey courts no longer had jurisdiction and she’d have to start again in New York. The fact that it had to be done by mutual agreement gave him a certain amount of power over the proceedings, as he played games with actually signing the papers. Had he not finally signed, they would be in court for several very expensive and acrimonious years.
It’s actually a little funny that a seemingly progressive state like New York has such a retrograde court system, but I’m convinced that it’s a legacy of the Tammany Hall era, with so many interests so entrenched that it’s next to impossible to get a handle on it. But Judge Kaye has doggedly been working on reform, and with luck (and sufficient public outcry), maybe she’ll get us into the modern era.
My god…as if divorce isn’t difficult enough already. I wasn’t aware that somebody had to be at fault. Why can couples break up mutually, but if they’re married and they want a divorce, it’s obviously somebody’s fault.
Our culture needs to place the blame on something or somebody in the spirit of simplification through objectification. The rule of binaries states this clearly: There will always be good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, and subject vs. object – in every situation.
I don’t think it’s Tammany Hall that has caused such “backlash” divorce laws. I think it has more to do with the fact that the State Senate has been controlled by the Republicans since the expulsion from Eden.
I will suggest that with the number of men who just dump wives for cuter/younger/trophy spouses, that no-fault is not an unalloyed good.
I will suggest that with the number of men who just dump wives for cuter/younger/trophy spouses
I think we’ll be seeing this trend accelerate in the next 2 decades.
You could suggest that, but it won’t change the fact that the majority of no-fault divorces are filed by women.
Really, zuzu? I was unaware. How much of a majority?
Well, if the choice is he’s gonna kill you if you mention abuse, then “no fault” is a politically apt solution. I’ve certainly had friends who made that choice, and for good reason.
And sometimes there really is no fault. But sometimes — it’s the worst way to go.
I still remember the jackass who had seven kids with his wife, and *now* he wanted an “open marriage”. Oh well. That makes it all good, right? And no-fault.
Scorpio, why is it the worst way to go? Just because there’s a no-fault system doesn’t mean that adultery or whatnot can’t be brought up, nor does it mean that divorces are all uncontested. It simply means that when both parties wish to end the marriage, there’s no need to come up with some cockamamie story of abuse, abandonment, adultery or whatever and end the relationship in an adversarial position.
When parents are trying to work out custody arrangements, it seems to me that having as amicable a split as possible would be the best thing for the children. Not to mention the fact that money not spent on unnecessary legal fees (and do you have any idea how fast *those* add up?) is money that’s available for food, shelter, clothing and education for the kids.
evil_fizz, I’m looking through Trish Wilson’s archives for an exact answer, but I’m not finding a link. But try these links:
2 of 3 divorces after age 40 sought by women
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/misogynistic_pr.html
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/do_girls_cause_.html
Currently, in many states, it’s easier to get out of a marriage than a car lease. It’s nice to see that at least in NY, you have to wait a bit before you can go on to the next honey or stud.
zuzu
In CA there has been no-fault for years..and it doesn’t take two, only one to decide the marriage is over.
On paper, it makes a lot of sense. No one should be forced to continue in a relationship that no longer works.
And women and children have borne the brunt of no-fault in CA for all these years.
No business partnership can just dissolve without negotiation and some leveraging between the partners. Why should divorce be any different?
Darleen,
Is California a community-property state? Here in Illinois, damn near everyone goes the no-fault route, and it doesn’t present the kind of financial burden you seem to be alluding to, because any assets gained during the marriage are the property of both parties.
I don’t think it’s Tammany per se so much as a legislature dominated by Catholics who debate and vote on that basis — look at how Albany treats certain healthcare issues.
I wonder, too, if, since this is a point of entry for immigrants, there was some intention of making green-card marriages harder to get out of.
That said, I must admit the divorce thing is kinda NY’s thing. Just as Massachusetts is the state where people who love each othwer can get married, New York is the state where people who no longer love each other have to stay married.
Yeah, California is a community property state.
Thank you, zuzu, for bringing this to my attention.
This makes me very angry.