Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 1 decade ago

Was no-fault divorce the beginning of the end?

This writer seems to think so. What do you think?

Interesting quote:

"Yet patently false accusations of both child abuse and domestic violence are rampant in divorce courts, almost always for purposes of breaking up families, securing child custody, and eliminating fathers. “With child abuse and spouse abuse you don’t have to prove anything,” the leader of a legal seminar tells divorcing mothers, according to the Chicago Tribune. “You just have to accuse.”

Among scholars and legal practitioners it is common knowledge that patently trumped-up accusations are routinely used, and virtually never punished, in divorce and custody proceedings. Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, writes that “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in custody cases. The Illinois Bar Journal describes how abuse accusations readily “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” The UMKC Law Review reports on a survey of judges and attorneys revealing that disregard for due process and allegations of domestic violence are used as a “litigation strategy.” In the Yale Law Review, Jeannie Suk calls domestic violence accusations a system of “state-imposed de facto divorce” and documents how courts use unsupported accusations to justify evicting Americans from their homes and children.

The multi-billion dollar abuse industry has become “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice” writes David Heleniak in the Rutgers Law Review. Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in the scholarly journal Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.”

Feminists confess as much in their vociferous opposition to divorce reform. A special issue of the feminist magazine Mother Jones in 2005 ostensibly devoted to domestic violence focuses largely on securing child custody.

Both child abuse and domestic violence have no precise definitions. Legally they are not adjudicated as violent assault, and accused parents do not enjoy the constitutional protections of criminal defendants. Allegations are “confirmed” not by jury trials but by judges or social workers. Domestic violence is any conflict within an “intimate relationship” and need not be actually violent or even physical. Official definitions include “extreme jealousy and possessiveness,” “name calling and constant criticizing,” and “ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victim’s needs.”

For such “crimes” fathers lose their children and can be jailed. “Protective orders” separating parents from their children are readily issued during divorce proceedings, usually without any evidence of wrongdoing. “Restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,” and “the facts have become irrelevant,” writes Epstein. “In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.”


Rebecca, Thanks for your balanced, principled answer.

10 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think it plays a key part in destroying families, men and children.

    The divorce industry has become all about women. It isn't about families or even the best interests of children.

    And false accusations are the bread and butter of lawyers while they are working for a female client.

    Edit: Sunshine you are wrong my divorce was no fault yet in court i was still some sort of horrendous scum bag. She got everything she wanted and I got a high legal bill.

    Like most women I suspect you make statements like the one you just made because you like the way the divorce system works.

  • 1 decade ago

    No fault divorce is basically an open invitation for a married woman who wants to get away from her husband, to try to get a lucrative divorce.

    There are no consequences for breaking the marriage contract.

    The wife might cheat the husband, she might be even become pregnant from her boyfriend, she might even at the same time refuse to have sex with her husband.

    Still after divorce, she is entitled for alimony, for child-support for HER child, despite he is not the father, she gets a good part of all savings, the house, the car...

    No fault divorce means for a woman, who is looking for divorce out of what reason ever, that she can only be the winner, even in case of serious wrongdoings by her side.

    No fault divorce is more or less the end of marriage.

    As man you should trust your wife, but if she is misusing you, there is little what you can do about.

  • 4 years ago

    The no-fault divorce is corrupt by design.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Most people have no clue this is going on until it touches you or someone close.

    Why do we tolerate hysteria of Domestic Violence? It's a Huge Money Making for Profit Industry. That's why.

    Look at Tyra, Oprah and the feminist dominated media fanning the flames week after week. The sky is falling. Is he controlling you, Yes Oprah. Stay tuned for this episode of the (Manipulator) Eating the souls of Women and Tiny Children.

    It's about FEMINIST $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Power & politics, in the end.

    ********* Think of the Iraq war, Bush scared up the world with the darkest images of nuclear weapons and lies of Osama Bin laden staying at the Bagdad Hilton in Iraq. Few cared about the truth, or the consequences everyone was fired up over the Twin Towers. BUSH ~ BIG OIL saw OPPORTUNITY to seize Iraqs oil.

    The feminist / Women's groups go before congress with the worst victims and the worst stories. Think of Women's groups as BIG OIL (special interests). The women's groups need to scare up their yearly $ billions $ of gov. funding (our tax dollars ).


  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    This is very interesting in a number of ways. The concept of no fault divorce originated in order for couples who wanted to get divorced without having to prove wrongdoing on the part of the spouse (ie adultery, neglect etc). Yet it seems that rather than keeping fault out of the divorce procedure, no-fault divorse has opened a door through which blame can be levied and accepted without qualification. Before no-fault divorces the person who filed for divorce actually had to prove wrong doing. A high profile example of this was the case of Clark Gable who was unable to divorce his wife and marry Carole Lombard because he could not prove wrong doing on the part of his wife and she refused to divorce. How times have changed.

    But the thing that truly worries me is that abuse has become the most over used word in the US vocabulary. A tiff with one's husband that results in him yelling is abuse. He looks crossed eyed at you and it is abuse. This over use takes the validity out of the term, it makes abuse seem paltery and insignificant. But there are people out there that are getting abused in their relationships and this over use actually keeps them from getting the help they need. And the funny thing is, they are not the ones crying abuse all the time.

    It is time to tighten up our divorce laws. It is time to replace a year of planning the perfect wedding with a year of planning a good marriage. And it is time to pull back on our extremist views on abuse. 25 years ago a woman in my town Lisa Bianco by name was bludgeoned to death by her ex-husband in the front yard of their house. When she called the police they did not take her seriously. Her neighbors watched her get beaten to death and did nothing. That was the extreme of the past and it was wrong. Today a woman can say "he slapped me" not have a mark on her and the husband is sent to jail. That is the extreme of today. A middle ground is needed.

    By the way, I very much enjoy the links you put in your questions. They are always interesting and informative. Just wanted give you some kudos on that.

  • RoVale
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I remember that case of the woman who was beaten to death by her ex-husband. He was allowed out of prison on a furlough and the police didn't notify her. He showed up at her front door carrying an unloaded rifle. He said he didn't plan to kill her but something happened and he snapped. He was later executed for killing her. The neighbors who just stood and watched should be ashamed of themselves. It reminds me of the Kitty Genovese case in 1964 where a young woman was repeatedly stabbed in an attack that lasted more than half an hour. Dozens of people witnessed it and did nothing.

  • 1 decade ago

    I agree with Rebecca W. The divorce industry is the embodiment dishonesty all the care about is the money they make.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    it's the beginning of the end for marriage. what man would want to marry and fear being accused of violence and name calling. he loses the children and they think he's a deadbeat dad when he doesn't visit anymore as he's in jail.

    feminists are not thinking about the children of the marriage.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No fault divorces inherently mean neither parent is accused of anything, they both agree to the terms of the divorce. So your attempt to paint men as the victims in this is ridiculous. They agree to no fault divorces because they don't want the hassle of a long drawn out court battle anymore than anyone else.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's a product of the "Me first, **** everyone else" feminism has taken on.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.