Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
The Future of No-Fault Divorce in the U.S.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The legal option of no-fault divorce has been accessible to married couples in the United States for over five decades. This provision, which allows individuals to end their marriages without having to prove wrongdoing by their spouse, is seen by many as a vital safeguard for victims of domestic abuse and a means to reduce the backlog of complex divorce cases in family courts.
Recent remarks from Vice President-elect JD Vance have raised concerns among advocates for women’s rights. During the presidential campaign, Vance expressed opposition to the no-fault divorce system. Following the election of President-elect Donald Trump alongside Vance, social media platforms buzzed with alarmed messages encouraging women contemplating divorce to act swiftly before potential changes in the law could impede their options. Some attorneys noted a noticeable increase in inquiries from women seeking divorce-related consultations.
Although Trump has not actively pursued the revision of divorce laws, Vance’s earlier sentiments have echoed a growing conservative narrative suggesting that divorce is too easily obtained. “We’ve run this experiment in real time, and what we have is a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that’s making our kids unhappy,” Vance stated during a speech at a California Christian high school, where he criticized the notion of easily replacing a spouse.
While there is apprehension regarding this discourse, advocates for women emphasize that significant legislative shifts are not anticipated in the immediate future. The decentralized nature of divorce laws in the United States, which varies by state, means that national leaders have limited power to enforce sweeping changes.
“Even in some of the so-called red states, it hasn’t gotten anywhere,” remarked Beverly Willett, co-chair of the Coalition for Divorce Reform. The organization has sought unsuccessfully to convince state legislatures to repeal no-fault divorce laws.
Mark A. Smith, a political science professor at the University of Washington, noted that while the American public has largely adapted to no-fault divorce, Vance’s comments could rekindle discussions that had been notably absent for years. “To have a nationally recognized politician bring this topic up is significant,” Smith stated.
In recent years, some Republican Party platforms, notably in Texas and Nebraska, have called for abolishing no-fault divorce. The Louisiana Republican Party contemplated a similar measure but ultimately opted against it.
There have been several attempts in conservative-dominated state legislatures to introduce measures aiming to restrict no-fault divorce. For instance, in Oklahoma, legislation proposed by Republican Sen. Dusty Deevers aimed to eliminate grounds for divorce based on incompatibility, reflecting his belief that such legal avenues amounted to an “abolition of marital obligation.”
Similarly, in South Carolina, some Republican lawmakers aimed to amend the process such that both spouses would need to consent for a no-fault divorce. South Dakota has also seen attempts to modify no-fault divorce provisions since 2020.
Despite these legislative initiatives, responses to inquiries from The Associated Press regarding these proposals have gone unanswered, which could indicate a lack of organized effort behind these attempts.
Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern over the potential risks to no-fault divorce, especially considering the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion. Rep. Linda Duba from South Dakota emphasized the importance of not remaining silent on such issues. “When you choose to be silent, you allow for this to creep in,” she warned.
Historically, no-fault divorce emerged as a solution to a system that placed undue burdens on individuals seeking to end abusive or unhappy marriages. Prior to its implementation, couples were required to prove fault—such as infidelity or abandonment—to secure a divorce, often resulting in prolonged and costly legal conflicts that disproportionately affected victims of domestic violence.
Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, highlighted that the previous legal landscape essentially dictated that couples could only divorce if they could sufficiently demonstrate wrongdoing by the other party. This system often left vulnerable individuals trapped in untenable situations.
Currently, every state in the U.S. has adopted a no-fault divorce option. However, 33 states still allow for fault-based divorce filings, maintaining various justifications for such filings. Only 17 states provide no-fault divorce as the sole option for ending a marriage.
Calls for reforming no-fault divorce gained some momentum in the late 1990s, influenced by then-President George Bush’s administration, which focused on the national divorce rate. This led to the introduction of “covenant marriages,” which required counseling and limited grounds for divorce. While Louisiana was the first to embrace this approach, interest waned after a few states adopted similar measures.
Christian F. Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women, expressed significant concern regarding the potential elimination of no-fault divorce in light of the new administration and GOP-controlled Congress, stressing that such changes would largely roll back women’s rights. “This is why removing ‘no fault’ divorce is another way for the government to control women, their bodies, and their lives,” Nunes stated. “Eliminating no-fault divorce is also a backdoor way of eliminating gay marriage, since this implies that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.”
Willett, who opposes no-fault divorce, acknowledged some cautious optimism about the shifting political landscape and its implications for divorce legislation. “Was what he said an indication of things to come? I don’t know,” she remarked, highlighting the uncertain nature of the current discussion surrounding divorce reform.
Source
abcnews.go.com