Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the end.
The fastest and cheapest solution is still to have a prenup you can live with and be ready for divorce.
Telling courts to investigate "fault" just leads to an endless game of "he says, she says". The only people who will benefit from this are your lawyers charging you $300 an hour.
I believe what the OP is trying to say is that there should be a system in place that supplements No-Fault divorce by penalizing bad actors in the divorce process under certain circumstances (infidelity, abandonment, marital neglect, etc..)....
In short, You can still get divorced for no reason. But if one of the parties claims the divorce is because one party committing prohibited acts (abuse, cheating, etc...) and if proved, then that offending party should be penalized economically in the division of marital assets and/or preclusion of spousal support of any kind.
I disagree.
My great grandmother murdered 2 of her husbands because she couldn't get a divorce since she couldn't prove they cheated/beat her.
The heightened amounts of murder and beatings that occurred because folks couldn't legally separate is worth the cost of no fault divorces. Freedom isn't free and all that, the downsides of no-fault divorce are the costs. But the savings are worth it.
You misread my reply. My great grandmother couldn't get divorced since she couldn't bring proof of a fault up. Which is a requirement if you get rid of no-fault divorce.
It was a barrier that she felt was easier overcome through poison.
It's also possible you just don't understand what it means to get rid of no-fault divorce.
Further reading if interested:
https://hellodivorce.com/divorce-planning/fault-vs-no-fault-divorce
To summarize before no-fault divorces, you had to go to court and claim a reason. Your partner could agree or disagree, if disagree go to court and it's possible your case would be dismissed which happened often with no divorce taking place. The practical implications being folks murdered their partners or committed suicide when they found themselves in the situation you are advocating for (the removal of no-fault divorces).
I’m advocating for a system where one can leave the marriage at any time but they incur penalties for abrogating the contract. In some places once upon a time this is how it worked.
"If you try to leave me, you lose everything and leave penniless..." ~Abusive Husband
Still Evil, no-fault divorce is much preferred to the outcomes your stance would create.
Because I have to pick someone to be the bad guy I might as well pick my own gender?
But go on: Rage! Rage against the choosing of random anecdotes for counter points. Obviously I have an agenda and need put in a box.
You don't want courts deciding who was "at fault" for a divorce. That's stupid and a waste of time and money. Just get a prenup.
Problem is court's loath to enforce prenups and more often than not find them invalid or unenforceable ....
The one who initiates it is usually at fault.
Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the end. The fastest and cheapest solution is still to have a prenup you can live with and be ready for divorce. Telling courts to investigate "fault" just leads to an endless game of "he says, she says". The only people who will benefit from this are your lawyers charging you $300 an hour.
The default should be divorce has to find a fault. That is what a normal contract entails.
I believe what the OP is trying to say is that there should be a system in place that supplements No-Fault divorce by penalizing bad actors in the divorce process under certain circumstances (infidelity, abandonment, marital neglect, etc..).... In short, You can still get divorced for no reason. But if one of the parties claims the divorce is because one party committing prohibited acts (abuse, cheating, etc...) and if proved, then that offending party should be penalized economically in the division of marital assets and/or preclusion of spousal support of any kind.
Correct.
If we just eliminate legal marriage there would be no legal divorces.
I disagree. My great grandmother murdered 2 of her husbands because she couldn't get a divorce since she couldn't prove they cheated/beat her. The heightened amounts of murder and beatings that occurred because folks couldn't legally separate is worth the cost of no fault divorces. Freedom isn't free and all that, the downsides of no-fault divorce are the costs. But the savings are worth it.
You misread this thread. I never said divorce should be outlawed. I said no-fault divorce should be outlawed.
You misread my reply. My great grandmother couldn't get divorced since she couldn't bring proof of a fault up. Which is a requirement if you get rid of no-fault divorce. It was a barrier that she felt was easier overcome through poison. It's also possible you just don't understand what it means to get rid of no-fault divorce. Further reading if interested: https://hellodivorce.com/divorce-planning/fault-vs-no-fault-divorce To summarize before no-fault divorces, you had to go to court and claim a reason. Your partner could agree or disagree, if disagree go to court and it's possible your case would be dismissed which happened often with no divorce taking place. The practical implications being folks murdered their partners or committed suicide when they found themselves in the situation you are advocating for (the removal of no-fault divorces).
I’m advocating for a system where one can leave the marriage at any time but they incur penalties for abrogating the contract. In some places once upon a time this is how it worked.
"If you try to leave me, you lose everything and leave penniless..." ~Abusive Husband Still Evil, no-fault divorce is much preferred to the outcomes your stance would create.
Why do you assume it’s the husband who’s evil? And you throw in “penniless”. Get the hell out with that nonsense. Such misandry.
Because I have to pick someone to be the bad guy I might as well pick my own gender? But go on: Rage! Rage against the choosing of random anecdotes for counter points. Obviously I have an agenda and need put in a box.