The ABCs of No-Fault Divorce
~ A Brief History ~

A SUMMARY OF THE REALITY OF NO-FAULT DIVORCE:
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Deborah Kochiss Frankel declared from the bench on April 30, 2002, in the case of Grimm v. Grimm [FA-01-0341257-S] "Irretrievable Breakdown is not litigable in the state of Connecticut. If one party says it is irretrievably broken, then it is irretrievably broken. That is all it takes in the state of Connecticut."

* * * * * * * * *

A. "No-fault" divorce emerged out of a movement to make divorce laws throughout the country more uniform. Up until 1970, divorce laws were varied, meaning that some people would 'forum shop' in order to access laws that were less stringent, travelling across state lines in an activity labeled "migratory divorce. Some regions cultivated "divorce tourism," the most famous being Reno, Nevada, where a lot of Hollywood stars travelled to shed their marriages. Divorce-seekers would spend six weeks on a ranch riding horses, get their divorce, then head back home.

B. The same group that standardized weights and measures, also drafted a "uniform" divorce law that eventually became known as "no-fault" divorce.

C. Various groups were proponents of uniform divorce, including some who were alarmed by the rising number of divorces. They wanted to see states enact stricter laws. Eliminating migratory divorce activity was also one of the goals. One group that took on the cause of Uniform Divorce was the National Association of Women Lawyers. They wanted women to have more protection in divorce.

D. Early proponents of uniform divorce laws advocated for standardizing the list of reasons, or "grounds", which typically included adultery, extreme cruelty, abandoment, and other things, like persistent drunkenness. The logic was that marriage was considered a "civil contract" and if one party-to-the-contract is guilty of a breach of the contract, the aggrieved party should be granted "relief" to make up for the harm that was done. The judge's role was to hear the "complaint" filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant's arguments (defenses), and then make a ruling (judgment), based on the "facts" presented.

E. While the push for uniform divorce began early in the last century, this movement did not meet with much success until it picked up steam in the 1960's, when a radical new concept called "breakdown of the marriage" was introduced. Eliminating blame and accusations was seen as an enlightening reform. The origin of this idea was the French Revolution but the Bolsheviks also implemented it after the Russian Revolution. One spouse could fill out paperwork at the civil registry office, making the claim that the marriage had broken down. The other spouse would then be notified by mail that the marriage was dissolved. This became popularly known as Russian Post Card Divorce. One of the goals of the revolution was to loosen family ties as well as loyalty to church authority. It worked well, with family breakdown causing a subsequent rise in juvenile crime and general social chaos.

F. The likelihood of such a system catching on in the United States would have been unthinkable, until the popular argument arose that, by eliminating the requisite accusations ("complaint"), rancor in these cases might be reduced. The argument went even further: that the chances for reconciliation would even improve if blame for the problems was removed. At the time, certain jurisdictions sponsored "Conciliation Courts" where trained professionals helped couples design a reconciliation plan.

G. As the concept of "breakdown" was catching hold in England, certain U.S. observers took that as a cue that the time was ripe for this idea to be introduced in the U.S. to solve the problem of lack of uniformity in the laws.

H. A national group of lawyers took up this cause and drafted a law that would become known as the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA).

I. "Breakdown" was incorporated as the sole "ground" for divorce, even though the term was given no specific definition. The discussion from the meetings reveals a heated debate during which some objected to this law, saying it was too close to the Soviet-style "Post Card Divorce." But the idea won the day and the Commissioners were successful in promoting this new law throughout the country. Within 15 years the "breakdown" ground was incorporated into state laws in some form. While some states would use different ways to implement it - one example is Louisiana, that would require a period of 6 months living apart to meet the standard - the outcome would be the same: divorce defendants would be given no meaningful opportunity to defend themselves in the lawsuit, and the judge's role would turn into merely a 'ministerial' function. "Divorce" would be a predetermined outcome -- a 'given.' In the past, the judge had to offer a "judgment" based on the facts presented. Now, the only 'fact' that is considered is one person saying they they are done.

J. California provided the first major breakthrough for this new movement, when then-Governor Ronald Reagan signed The Family Law Act in 1969 that wiped out previous grounds and replaced them with the undefined "breakdown" standard. California's change was originally driven by a promise to implement "conciliation courts" in tangent with the law-change, but this feature was quickly dropped. County officials balked at the costs. Reagan later confessed to his oldest son that signing the Family Law Act was "one of the worst mistakes I ever made in office."

K. Simply stated, this new system of divorce - where no complaint is filed and no defense is possible - resulting in "no case in controversy" put into place a system that undermined the Rule of Law in this country. A 'remedy' is only supposed to be offered when a 'complaint' is filed. To be forced to forfeit something of value (marital status, time with children, financial resources, property, etc.) is a civil liberty violation -- the Constitution is supposed to protect against these violations. If you have been served divorce papers, you need to understand that you are being drawn into a process that is, at its very core, unconstitutional.