Comments on: McManus pushes to end ‘no fault’ divorce

By: BeerMan

BeerMan — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:30:00 +0000

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

By: mznomer

mznomer — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:19:24 +0000

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

Reactionary = Republican, it seems, once again.

By: mznomer

mznomer — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:19:24 +0000

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

Reactionary = Republican, it seems, once again.

By: paulcr

paulcr — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:15:18 +0000

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.

By: gogonostop

gogonostop — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:00:30 +0000

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."

By: CFLAP

CFLAP — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:39:22 +0000

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.

By: John Fodors

John Fodors — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:56:00 +0000

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

By: timshepard

timshepard — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:26:30 +0000

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.

By: divorcecoach

divorcecoach — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:58:40 +0000

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.

By: ebrayton

ebrayton — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:31:52 +0000

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.