Comments on: Will New York FINALLY Institute No-Fault Divorce?

By: anne

anne — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:51:44 +0000

Thank you, zuzu, for bringing this to my attention.

This makes me very angry.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:06:13 +0000

Yeah, California is a community property state.

By: Hershele Ostropoler

Hershele Ostropoler — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:00:18 +0000

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.

By: La Lubu

La Lubu — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:56:15 +0000

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.

By: Darleen

Darleen — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:43:04 +0000

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?

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:13:20 +0000

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.

By: zuzu

zuzu — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:53:22 +0000

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

By: Scorpio

Scorpio — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:21:24 +0000

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.

By: evil_fizz

evil_fizz — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:13:48 +0000

Really, zuzu? I was unaware. How much of a majority?

By: zuzu

zuzu — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:02:46 +0000

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.

You could suggest that, but it won’t change the fact that the majority of no-fault divorces are filed by women.