Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

McManus pushes to end ‘no fault’ divorce

By Eartha Jane Melzer | 02.22.10 | 7:02 am

State Senate Michelle McManus (R-Lake Leelanau), a candidate for Michigan Secretary of State, has introduced legislation that would make it harder for people to get divorced.

McManus is the sole sponsor of SB 1127 which would eliminate ‘no fault divorce’ for couples with children or where one member does not consent to the divorce.

McManus_103Since 1972 Michigan’s “no fault” divorce law has required only that one spouse say “there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.”

Under the McManus bill those seeking divorce would be required to allege specific problems such as adultery, physical abuse, imprisonment, physical incompetence at time of marriage, or that a spouse had sex with an animal or dead human body.

The person accused of wrongdoing in the marriage would then have a chance to agree to the charges or deny them and a court would make a determination as to their validity.

Veronica LaDuke, spokeswoman for McManus, said that the Senator decided to introduce the bill because she was asked to do so by Mike McManus (no relation), president of the DC-area based Christian ministry called group Marriage Savers.

In a telephone interview Mike McManus said that simple incompatibility is not a good enough reason for divorce, and that it’s wrong for the state to grant divorce when no evidence of abuse has been presented. Making divorces more difficult will reduce the divorce rate, he said, and he emphasized that Michigan should see divorce as a key cause of the state’s economic woes.

McManus said that he believes the legislation could cut the divorce rate in half, and that this would have wide ranging positive effects.

McManus is nationally prominent in the field of marriage promotion, and has stirred some controversy.

In 2005 Salon reported that McManus had promoted the Bush Administration’s Healthy Marriage Initiative in his syndicated column Ethics & Religion without disclosing that he had been paid by the administration to advance the program.

There are benefits to requiring that a court establish fault in divorce proceedings, he said.

“Forty years ago when this was the law,” McManus said, “a man who was having an affair with his secretary would have to ask himself, ‘Am I going to pay her alimony or am I going to give up this bimbo?’“

“Now the law prompts people to be irresponsible.”

Under the current system, he said, courts are too quick to remove fathers rights in cases where women claim they fear physical violence.

People took their marriage vows in front of God, he said, and the state should support them in keeping the vows.

This is important, he said, because children whose parents are divorced are more likely to be expelled from school, get pregnant, be poor or kill themselves.

Though most people blame the sad state of Michigan’s economy on the decline of the auto industry, McManus claims that the prevalence of divorce in Michigan is a major factor.

“Only married people can create new businesses. It takes one couple living under one roof to generate enough income to set off in business on your own.”

Plus, he said, because divorced women and their children are more likely to be poor, divorce results in increased need for Medicaid and housing subsidies.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan said that his group is strongly supportive of the type of legislation proposed by Sen. McManus.

Glenn also supported a recent proposal by Rep. Paul Scott (R-Blanc), another Republican candidate for Secretary of State, to prohibit transgendered people from changing their gender on their drivers licenses.

“If candidates for public are trying to prove that one is more pro-family than the other then that’s good,“ Glenn said. “We certainly appreciate the actions of both Rep. Scott and Sen. McManus.”

Family law experts, however, say the legislation will only make divorces harder on families and children because parents will be forced to invent allegations of abuse and mistreatment in order to justify the divorce.

Michael A. Robbins is current President of the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Robbins said that Michigan repealed fault divorces in 1972 because the process created needless hostility, collusion and perjury — people would make up stories of abuse to get out of their marriages.

A return to the old system would result in separation or abandonment in cases where a judge did not find fault and did not grant a divorce, and this would make it much more difficult to divide property, establish child support or arrange for alimony.

“If they don’t grant divorce people are just going to live apart while married,” he said, “and they are going to have children with other people while they are living apart, and they are going to have new problems that the system is not going to be able to help them with.”

Robbins also said that the reinstitution of ‘‘fault’’ divorces will not give any more bargaining power to the innocent spouse than they already have because under the current law the court can still consider ‘‘fault’’ when it comes to division of property, an award of alimony, and a determination of custody.

Robbins disagrees that divorce is a cause of the bad economy; he says it’s the other way around, financial problems and unemployment are putting a strain on marriages.

The bottom line, he said, is that people who want to get a divorce are going to get a divorce.

“You cant legislate morality and you can’t force people to stay together if they don’t want to stay together.”

Henry Gornbein, a family law attorney since 1968, and former chairperson of the Family Law Council of the State Bar of Michigan, agrees.

Gornbein says the McManus legislation “would be an unmitigated disaster.”

“If one party wants out there is a breakdown,“ he said.

“My understanding of the legislation is that unless there is some egregious situation you can’t get a divorce and if one person wants a divorce and the other does not there is no divorce,” Gornbein said. “I guess the sponsors believe that that is going to slow down the divorce rate but I think that people are going to get divorced whether there is fault or no fault.”

“I don’t think it is going to accomplish anything and I don’t think it is going to pass,” he said. “Politicians are pandering during an election year.”

Comments

  • divorcecoach

    Although I am a resident of NY, I applaud the Senator's effort to demand that divorce return to a fault based system. As president of a Not for Profit group which deals exclusively in highly contested divore actions, the litigants are VERY CLEAR..the need to establish fault to obtain a divorce in NOT THE PROBLEM. In fact establishing a spoused abuse, infidelity, or harm is often extremely simple. Rather the issue is the mannor in which the court's handle the other issues. The attorneys and judges in NYS seek to make NYS a no fault divorce system as we, thankfully are the last state to demand that a spouse who seeks a divorce MUST have grounds before destroying the lives of the family, but the litigants vehementaly oppose such a change. Kudos to you Senator.

    • ebrayton

      I think this argument is absolutely vile. Why does the state have the authority to tell two people that they have to remain married if they do not want to? I see no grounds for any such authority by the state. It is not the state's business to force people to continue to live together if the relationship is broken, it is only the business of them and their family. The state should stay out of it completely.

      • divorcecoach

        Your argument fails simply because you are assuming that the 2 people have made the decision to end the marriage. In the cases discussed, the conversation dealt with 1 person wanting to end the marriage and the other person having no say in the matter what so ever. Certainly, if fault was instituted, then those who have a valid reason to end the contractual relationship, can do so. My office is repleat with successful men of a certain age who can now snare that 20 year old cheerleader, when as a clumsy teenager, they would never had. So, what not get rid of the 50 something year old wife to drive a red sports car, have the young thing on his arm! Meantime the former wife and children lives are turned upside down. Now, if he had grounds (fault) well then so be it. Remember a marriage is a state autorhized contract that gives rights -inheritance, insurance -those things disappear upon divorce. So, yes, the state has every right to say you must have grounds to end this contract -as they should.

  • Calylu

    Please clarify – who is Mike McManus? Very confusing.

    Thanks.

  • Calylu

    Please clarify – who is Mike McManus?

  • timshepard

    Hear Hear, the problem is, in a “No Fault Divorce” the man is always found at fault. Ive been through a divorce perpetrated by my ex. And her sole motivations was money. Adding a fault component would have prevented her from divorcing me and ruining my kids childhood. I have met many women who did the same thing. Divorced for convenience and money, they often end up with very generous support packages and the mans life is ruined.

  • http://divorceformen.referencesite.org/ John Fodors

    This is a step to getting the statistics of 50% of marriage ends up in divorce. I think another important step is to have the state ensure that the marriage works out in the end. Maybe counseling for the couple or something similar.John @ Divorce for Men

  • CFLAP

    As has been said, no-fault divorce really is fault divorce. The man's fault. 99% of the time, the man will pay the child support and the alimony. In most states the alimony is for life. He'll also pay the attorney's fees and all court costs. True, honest to goodness no fault divorce would fix all the problems in the current system. Forcing 2 people to stay married in the absence of love whether it's physically or financially is state meddling in privacy and is going to result in pain and suffering no matter what. Make divorce divorce and and the parties equally responsible for their children and the problems will go away. This law is the equivalent to tying the tails of two cats together and throwing them over a clothes line. The state needs to get out of the marriage business not deeper into it.It's their meddling that have turned it into the mess it is.

  • gogonostop

    As a father's rights advocate, I don't I agree with this legislation. I agree with the opposition's statement that “you cant legislate morality and you can’t force people to stay together if they don’t want to stay together.” Dr. Baskerville, one of the leading scholars of the fathers' rights movement, has also said “if a spouse wishes to leave, you can't stop her” in an interview with the group Dads Divorce.

    The opposition, though, is clearly a joke when it claims: “the legislation will only make divorces harder on families and children because parents will be forced to invent allegations of abuse and mistreatment in order to justify the divorce…Michigan repealed fault divorces in 1972 because the process created needless hostility, collusion and perjury — people would make up stories of abuse to get out of their marriages.”

    This, of course, is happening rampantly right now. Why not just establish a strong rebuttal presumption of shared parenting in the event of divorce, a high evidence standard for proof of physical abuse to justify any removal of children from a parent, and punish those who make knowingly false (not unfounded, but knowingly false) allegations? This will not only disincentivize divorce (as custody of the children is one of the main reasons people divorce), it will minimize spousal conflict as well. And it's not so extreme as to be utterly rejected by the legislative branch.

    Also: the poster CFLAP is entirely correct: “This law is the equivalent to tying the tails of two cats together and throwing them over a clothes line.”

  • paulcr

    My own solution consists of three paths to divorce from which the litigant can choose.

    No-fault, unilateral divorce, in which one party can simply leave. However, that party would lose the children and the marital property, unless the other party agrees otherwise.

    Bi-lateral divorce in which both parties agree to the divorce. They would present a plan to the court for division of property and custody of children.

    Fault-based divorce in which one party alleges fault on the part of the other. The other party can also alleged fault and defend oneself against the charges. The case could be heard by a judge or jury, who would determine fault and divide property and determine custody of children. Fault would be a factor in awarding custody and property.

    The current “no-fault” system is unilateral divorce, which the woman usually initiates because she will receive the kids, child support, alimony, and the bulk of the marital property. It encourages divorce. It does generate a lot of cash for “matrimonial lawyers,” however, which is why they love it.

  • mznomer

    Oh, yippee. A proposed return to the good ol' days!

    Reactionary = Republican, it seems, once again.

  • mznomer

    Oh, yippee. A proposed return to the good ol' days!

    Reactionary = Republican, it seems, once again.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WYHSVNDRJJLI6FUQS2OPMKH6QM BeerMan

    i am a divorcee…. i think the no fault divorce system in mi is just fine.bbecause the leading cause of a divorce is not infedility it is marriage because if the couple would take time and not jump head first into the marriage there would be a whole lot less marriages, because people make wrong decisions trust me on that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1