No Fault Divorce


#1

My Fight to Stop My Divorce

The comments at the end of the article are very disheartening. :(


#2

This story is the perfect example of why we should have no fault divorce. No one should have the ability to use the court system to punish a spouse.


#3

[quote="KostyaJMJ, post:2, topic:211145"]
This story is the perfect example of why we should have no fault divorce. No one should have the ability to use the court system to punish a spouse.

[/quote]

No fault divorce punishes the spouse who wants to preserve the marriage.

Marriage is "till death do us part", which doesn't include a provision for one party simply deciding they don't want to be married anymore.


#4

What!? :confused: Isn’t marriage actually a sacrament? Aren’t we supposed to help our spouse get to heaven? Unrepentant adultery and abandonment are grave sins and by a spouse refusing divorce, they could potentially force their straying spouse to wake up to the gravity of their actions and start thinking about what they are really doing. That is charity, not punishment.


#5

[quote="mommamaree, post:4, topic:211145"]
What!? :confused: Isn't marriage actually a sacrament? Aren't we supposed to help our spouse get to heaven? Unrepentant adultery and abandonment are grave sins and by a spouse refusing divorce, they could potentially force their straying spouse to wake up to the gravity of their actions and start thinking about what they are really doing. That is charity, not punishment.

[/quote]

:thumbsup:


#6

[quote="mommamaree, post:4, topic:211145"]
What!? :confused: Isn't marriage actually a sacrament? Aren't we supposed to help our spouse get to heaven? Unrepentant adultery and abandonment are grave sins and by a spouse refusing divorce, they could potentially force their straying spouse to wake up to the gravity of their actions and start thinking about what they are really doing. That is charity, not punishment.

[/quote]

Another :thumbsup:

My heart aches for her - all she wanted was what she was promised by him. That's all, just keeping promises. Is that really so hard these days? :confused:

I wonder if the author of the story is familiar with Bai MacFarlane's fight for her own marriage and the work she has done to try to help women (and men) stay out of a divorce they didn't ask for and don't want.

Her book - And Justice for None, while not terrifically well written (the copy I read was not edited) his heart wrenching, and very eye opening when you realize how the divorce industry actively works against any possibility of reconciliation of a marriage to keep a family with children intact. I think you can get the book from her website marysadvocates.org/

~Liza


#7

But no-fault divorce takes away a woman's bargaining chips when her husband decides he wants to ditch her.

That is so true! Like the article said, post-divorce women have very high poverty rates and often have to raise the kids themselves because they are still more likely to have custody of them. No-fault divorce lets men completely off the hook for their responsibility to take care of their wife and children. Women are the ones left picking up all the pieces when a man runs off.


#8

Interesting article and Kudos to the woman for wanting to preserve her sacred marriage. BUT, as we see, there’s absolutely no way to prevent the split from happening ultimately. If a person doesn’t want to be there, they will leave…period. At least the no-fault allows for an HONEST preceding instead of one based on lies.

My situation was very similar (except I didn’t fight) But, in reverse. My wife wanted to not be married, and undertook all kinds of extra-curricular activities to prove that point. I refused to ask for a divorce (not believing in the idea of letting a marriage go) Saying; I will NOT ever pursue a divorce, but if one is grated to her, I WILL pursue an annulment with the Church. So, because I wouldn’t sue her for divorce, and because NY State did not have a no-fault provision, she had to invent grounds for her suit. Neither of us were comfortable with it, but my choices were either; Cruelty and inhuman treatment or Abandonment. She asked me which one of these I’d be more comfortable with. (Obviously neither) But, I had no choice. The court doesn’t really care why. They HAD to have grounds, and there was nothing I could do to stop it. (other than to sue HER, which I would not do)

So, since the divorce will happen no matter what…in all cases…in THIS case, it would have helped me out a lot to have the no-fault provision in place, because I wouldn’t have to be branded an abuser for ever and ever. I’ve never raised a hand or voice to anyone. I adored my wife, and have never been in a fight in my entire life. Although my ex-wife assured me that court files are sealed, and nobody will ever see them, once I’m gone, my daughter could find and read those papers that I have copies of. What would she think of me? AND It was quite embarrassing to have those records read at the tribunal meetings. Not so sealed after-all.

Either way, no-fault is not such a bad thing. In this case, the husband in the article simply does NOT have the fear of God in him. NOT a believer in the sanctity of the sacraments. A person’s faith needs to be worked on earlier in life, by the parents and the spiritual community. We need to all be taught the sanctity of marriage and we need to show our children by example. (the best we can. some of us had no choice) It’s NOT a matter for the courts. And also, we need to make better choice of our partners…people who share our beliefs.

p.s. oh, and I would have liked it if the writer of the story hadn’t restricted her angle by saying that this type of thing removes the options that WOMEN have to defend their marriage. That’s very sexist, and in my experience, women are every bit as bad as men in splitting up marriages.


#9

If you are not an abuser then the court should not have found you so.


#10

I guess it’s a good thing for the culture at large I’m not a judge… I’d put the person seeking a divorce at such an automatic disadvantage that they’d be silly not to try and reconcile. Because in my opinion the term “No Fault Divorce”, the person seeking divorce is automatically at fault. Therefore when weighing things out, they should be treated accordingly.

But that’s me anyway.


#11

[quote="1holycatholic, post:9, topic:211145"]
If you are not an abuser then the court should not have found you so.

[/quote]

Well, 1HolyCatholic, that is very true. And if NY had the no-fault, that wouldn't have happened to me. But since I would not counter-sue, and would not participate in her suit, I was told that it didn't matter whether or not I "signed-off" on it...it would just be accepted as fact and happen no matter what I did. (I'm sure I could have held it up for a while in the courts, but I had no desire to do that) They HAD TO have grounds listed. And since she didn't have any other than "want to sow my wild oats", she had to lie about her grounds. The court system FORCED her to lie. And she was very much not comfortable about that. She told me many times.


#12

[quote="1holycatholic, post:9, topic:211145"]
If you are not an abuser then the court should not have found you so.

[/quote]

indeed. False accusations and findings are as unjust as no-fault divorce. In some cases more so as they can be used against you in later cases.


#13

[quote="crazzeto, post:10, topic:211145"]
I guess it's a good thing for the culture at large I'm not a judge.... I'd put the person seeking a divorce at such an automatic disadvantage that they'd be silly not to try and reconcile. Because in my opinion the term "No Fault Divorce", the person seeking divorce is automatically at fault. Therefore when weighing things out, they should be treated accordingly.

But that's me anyway.

[/quote]

Maybe you SHOULD be a judge!


#14

[quote="DarrinP, post:11, topic:211145"]
Well, 1HolyCatholic, that is very true. And if NY had the no-fault, that wouldn't have happened to me. But since I would not counter-sue, and would not participate in her suit, I was told that it didn't matter whether or not I "signed-off" on it...it would just be accepted as fact and happen no matter what I did. (I'm sure I could have held it up for a while in the courts, but I had no desire to do that) They HAD TO have grounds listed. And since she didn't have any other than "want to sow my wild oats", she had to lie about her grounds. The court system FORCED her to lie. And she was very much not comfortable about that. She told me many times.

[/quote]

The court didn't force her to lie. She lied of her own free will.


#15

[quote="1holycatholic, post:14, topic:211145"]
The court didn't force her to lie. She lied of her own free will.

[/quote]

Actually, her husband changed the venue by establishing residency in New Jersey. She may have been able to fight the venue change by citing her own NY residency, the prior case in NY, etc. She also may have been able to preempt his NJ case by suing him in NY for cause before his residency was established (a sad situation but it may have secured better arrangements for her and her children's care).


#16

[quote="1holycatholic, post:14, topic:211145"]
The court didn't force her to lie. She lied of her own free will.

[/quote]

That's true.


#17

[quote="mommamaree, post:4, topic:211145"]
What!? :confused: Isn't marriage actually a sacrament? Aren't we supposed to help our spouse get to heaven? Unrepentant adultery and abandonment are grave sins and by a spouse refusing divorce, they could potentially force their straying spouse to wake up to the gravity of their actions and start thinking about what they are really doing. That is charity, not punishment.

[/quote]

:shrug:...but the Bible (I Cor 7:15 says) that if the unbelieving spouse (which sounds like) wants to leave the believing spouse is to let him/her go, and not to prevent it:

Douay-Rheims Bible
"But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace. "

I think forcing someone to "stay" is asking for much more trouble than one would bargain for, like forcing someone to believe...it can't be done.


#18

[quote="gretahope, post:17, topic:211145"]
:shrug:...but the Bible (I Cor 7:15 says) that if the unbelieving spouse (which sounds like) wants to leave the believing spouse is to let him/her go, and not to prevent it:

Douay-Rheims Bible
"But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace. "

I think forcing someone to "stay" is asking for much more trouble than one would bargain for, like forcing someone to believe...it can't be done.

[/quote]

I really think that you're really misusing this scripture a little bit to make it seem as if this is a good thing. What you're forgetting is that this address the then new and novel case of two non-believers getting married, one is converted to the Christian faith but the other is not. You can't take this senario and apply it across the board to allow "No Fault Divorce". Not even addressing the fact that if you haven't gotten a statement that you are able to marry from the Church, then you are indeed married (assuming you're catholic).

I have the Rev. Haydock's notes which should help shed some more light on your cited scripture.

1Co 7:15 But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

1Co 7:12-17 For to the rest, &c. This was a case entirely new, which the wisdom of the apostle regulates according to the laws of charity. Tertullian thinks that some of the faithful, who had been converted from paganism, did not esteem it lawful to live any longer with their wives, who were yet buried in the superstitions of idolatry, which scruples St. Paul answers, guided as he was, by the particular lights of the Holy Ghost. (Calmet) --- Not the Lord. That is, it is the command of the Lord, for such even as are separated, not to marry to another, but when I advised the unmarried not to marry, this is a counsel, or advice, not a divine precept, which doctrine he repeats again before the end of this chapter, ver. 25, 28, and 39. --- If any brother have a wife that believeth not, &c. St. Paul speaks of two that were joined by a contract of marriage, when both of them were infidels, and that one of them is converted to the Christian faith: we do not read of any precept that Christ gave, as to those marriages, but the apostle seems to order by his apostolical authority, that they continue as man and wife, unless the party that remains still an infidel, will needs depart; then, says the apostle, let such an one depart. There is also another case, to wit, when the man or woman remaining an infidel, will not live without continual injuries and blasphemies against God and the Catholic religion, so that there can be no peace on that account betwixt them. In these two cases, according to the canons of the Church, it is looked upon as no marriage, so that the party converted may marry another. And this seems grounded on the reason, which the apostle here gave, that God hath called us in peace. (Witham)

1Co 7:14-16 Is sanctified. The meaning is not that the faith of the husband, or the wife is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the state of grace and salvation: but that it is very often an occasion of their sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith. (Challoner) --- Sanctification which has different significations, cannot here signify that an infidel is truly and properly sanctified, or justified, by being married to a faithful believer; therefore we can only understand an improper sanctification, so that such an infidel, though not yet converted, need not be looked upon as unclean, but in the dispositions of being converted, especially living peaceably together, and consenting that their children be baptized, by which they are truly sanctified. --- How knowest thou, O wife? &c. These words seem to give the reason, why they may part, when they cannot live peaceably, and when there is little prospect that the party that is an infidel will be converted. (Witham)


#19

I think this is just another example of how we live in a fallen world. People should try to save their marriage for the simple reason it is the right thing to do. Laws should not be a consideration nor financial consequences.

It is kind of like the fact there has to be laws against physical abuse to protect people. Wouldn't it be nice if we wouldn't need those laws because we live in a world where no one would use violence

CM


#20

Actually, not quite true–there would’ve been the option for a separation for one year and the conversion to divorce, which doesn’t require the lying and is, in effect, no-fault.

In my case, my husband almost certainly would’ve divorced me if there had been no-fault before I filed. I’m filing on the grounds of adultery and cruel & inhuman treatment and while he’s fighting me, it’s not because he has any real interest in remaining married to me (besides which, I fully anticipate having yet another grounds in the relatively near future–his imprisonment on charges of 1st degree rape). None of it is false–he’s rather freely admitted to having multiple “girlfriends” (some of whom are quite young for a 48 year old man, as in barely older than our oldest son who is 16), the DA is planning to indict him for the rape (although he’s claiming it was consensual sex and that she’s lying about him threatening to shoot her with a gun if she didn’t comply, that gun being imaginary but he told her it was in the glove compartment of the car), he’s been verbally/emotionally abusive to me and our children, such that middle son actually thought things were improved during the days that his father was in jail. That was, in a sense, my ‘wake up’ that I wasn’t protecting them from anything by staying.

Reconciliation is really not an option, since he still doesn’t think he has done anything wrong (and therefore, doesn’t need to change).


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.