ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, February 13, 1996 TAG: 9602130120
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: LANSING, MICH.
SOURCE: DIRK JOHNSON THE NEW YORK TIMES
note: above
THE FAULTLESS ROAD TO SPLITSVILLE, though paved with good intentions, is too easy, social conservatives say.
Matrimonial wrongdoing, such as adultery or desertion, was once required for courts to grant a divorce. But in the last 25 years, every state has adopted a form of ``no-fault'' divorce, which has been widely credited with making divorces easier, quicker and less fraught with moralistic blame.
And that is precisely the problem, in the view of many social conservatives who are at the fore of an emerging campaign to restore notions of guilt to divorce law.
Now, a divorce is granted even if only one spouse wants it. A measure to be introduced in the state Legislature here Wednesday would revoke the no-fault provision in cases where one spouse opposes the divorce.
In those instances, a divorce would not be granted unless the plaintiff could demonstrate that a marriage partner had been physically or mentally abusive, had a problem with alcohol or drugs, had committed adultery, had deserted the home or had been sentenced to prison. Gov. John Engler, a Republican, has promised to sign the bill if it passes.
Similar legislation is being drafted in Iowa, where Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, denounced no-fault divorce laws last month. And there has been talk of toughening divorce laws in Idaho, Georgia and Pennsylvania.
``A year or two ago, this issue wasn't even on the radar screen,'' said David Blankenhorn, the director of the Institute for American Values, a private research organization in New York. ``But we're seeing a cultural shift, or at least a yearning for one.''
The sponsor of the Michigan bill, state Rep. Jessie F. Dalman, a Republican, said people ``must begin to see the connection between divorce and other problems,'' especially poverty and juvenile delinquency.
She noted that the median wage for a married couple with children in 1994 was about $47,000, while the median wage for a family headed by a single mother was less than $15,000. And she pointed to several studies that have found that children of divorce are far more likely to become sexually active earlier, use drugs and fare poorly in school.
Critics, however, say the measure would not save marriages, but rather would worsen hostilities in a fault-based divorce proceeding, with more pain for children.
``No law, no matter how well intentioned, can force people to stay together,'' said Michael Robbins, a suburban Detroit lawyer who heads the family law section of the state bar association. ``Before no-fault, there was a lot of perjury, a lot of fabrication, just so people could legally separate. And if we go back to that, we'll be spending more time on who's to blame.''
He added: ``That means more litigation, more expense, more adversarial behavior. And for children, it means being subjected to character assassination between the parents. That's a heavy burden for a kid.''
The incidence of divorce has jumped about 30 percent in the last 25 years, but scholars disagree on whether changes in the law account for the increase. Researchers at the University of Oklahoma, who conducted a study on divorce last year, contended that no-fault laws raised the divorce rate about 15 percent.
But Larry Bumpass, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, argues that no-fault laws account for a short-term rise in divorce by speeding ``those cases that were already coming down the pipeline.''
Bumpass said the incidence of divorce had been increasing for 100 years, a trend that seems independent of any particular social policy. The most significant change in recent times, he said, is the number of unmarried people living together. He said about half of all adults younger than 40 had lived with a romantic partner to whom they were not married.
As a result, he said, many unions dissolve without appearing in the official statistics.
If divorce laws were toughened, he said, far more people would likely choose to live together without marriage, which would mean even deeper financial and social insecurity for women and children.
The backlash against no-fault divorce laws has gained wider political attention in large part as conservative Christian groups have come to see such laws as an instance in which government is promoting a threat to family values. Abortion rights and anti-discrimination measures for homosexuals are in the same class, these groups contend.
One such group, the Michigan Family Forum, has campaigned vigorously to restore the assignment of fault in divorces, in part because it would strengthen the bargaining power of a virtuous spouse.
``Let's say a homemaker has a husband who cheats on her,'' said Dan Jarvis, the director of public policy for the Family Forum. ``Under the proposed law, she would have the upper hand. She can say: `All right, you want your divorce? You can have it. But it's going to cost you.'''
The Michigan proposal would also provide a financial incentive for marriage partners to go through a counseling session before tying the knot. For those who get counseling, the marriage license would cost $20; for others, it would cost $100. The measure would also mandate a 30-day waiting period before marriage.
In the view of those who seek tougher divorce standards, the very phrase no-fault, a term taken from no-fault automobile insurance, encourages a casual attitude toward the dissolution of marriage.
But that assertion offends many people who say divorce is never easy, like Wilma Fellman, 49, of suburban Detroit, who was divorced a decade ago and is now remarried. ``It can't be called easy by any stretch of the imagination,'' she said at a hearing on divorce laws in Michigan. ``It's the worst nightmare anyone could go through.''
LENGTH: Long : 103 linesby CNB