You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 5 (1255 words)
Because I do not support the contemporary divorce, I want to find ways to curb the huge American desire for divorce. The rate at which divorce occurs in this country cannot be sustained for another thirty years without incurring unsupportable social costs and casualties…
It does not however mean that the repeal or reform of no-fault divorce will effectively reduce the rate of divorce generally. Indeed, at this moment in time, I really want to believe that at this moment in time a fault requirement would do more harm than good. In the short term, the need to establish a legal finding of fault may prevent some divorces from happening, and encourage couples that are contemplating divorce to work out their marital difficulties. But the deterrent effect is likely to be weak. A lot of people do not think of divorce until their marriage is in very bad shape; by which time, the marriage will be very difficult to salvage. Moreover, the fault requirement would also be indiscriminate in its deterrent effect. Some marriages especially those that involve physical violence and abuse that rightfully should end will be preserved. Unfortunately, fault is likely to be most successful in deterring socially isolated women, often-battered wives, from seeking divorce. It would be wrong indeed if a pro-marriage policy unintentionally became a pro-bad-marriage policy, giving aid and comfort to the critics of the institution.
Fault law invites unending litigation, and thus intensifies and prolongs conflict. Requiring fault would be bound to hurt the children (if there are any) who will be caught in the middle. ...
Not exactly what you need?