No-Fault Divorce Under Fire in State, Nation

Michael Bowman’s parents divorced when he was 6. After that, time with Dad was limited to Saturdays and special occasions. His folks--once so happy together--scarcely spoke for 19 years.

Bowman turned out fine--graduating from college, marrying and landing a good job--but he believes he’s one of the lucky few. Divorce, he contends, is devastating for children, shattering their sense of security and leaving a legacy of trauma that can stain an entire life.

Today, Bowman is director of a conservative lobbying group in Sacramento, and one of his priorities is to make divorce harder to get. From his office two blocks east of the state Capitol, he is engineering a drive to abolish the law that allows married Californians to call it quits at a moment’s notice even when one spouse objects.

“The current system promotes irresponsibility--it lets you walk away from your marriage too easily,” said Bowman, 33, a wiry, energetic UCLA graduate and father of two. “There is no justice in our divorce laws, not for children or for the spouse who wants to keep the marriage going.”

Bowman’s effort is part of an expanding national movement that aims to do away with no-fault divorce. Dismayed by the nation’s high divorce rate and the splintered families left in the wake, activists such as Bowman are promoting legislation that would put more teeth into the pledge “till death do us part.”

The campaign has been led most vocally by conservative Christians, who say the modern divorce “experiment”--laws that allow couples to split up unilaterally and divide their assets in half--has been a flop.

To advance their cause, they cite a growing body of research that links fractured families with numerous social woes. Experts predict that one in two American marriages will end in divorce; each year, 1 million children watch as their parents part.

Disagreement on Effects

Studies show that a higher percentage of youngsters from broken homes do poorly in school, suffer relationship problems, have babies out of wedlock and get in trouble with the law.

But some sociologists say such consequences have been hyped by those seeking to enforce a traditional, moralistic view of marriage and home life. The majority of children from divorced families, they say, do not suffer long-term harm.

Moreover, critics argue, a return to the old divorce laws--in which one spouse had to prove adultery, “mental cruelty” or some other form of “fault” to get out--would do little for children while intensifying the hostilities that often surround divorce.

“All we do by making divorce more difficult is to keep couples--and their children--stuck in misery,” said USC sociologist Constance Ahrons, co-chair of the national Council on Contemporary Families. “It’s not divorce that’s inherently bad, it’s how the parents handle it.”

As with so many other social trends, California was a pioneer in no-fault divorce. And it was a Republican--former Gov. Ronald Reagan, himself once divorced--who did away with the old regime, which required suing spouses to prove that their mates were to blame for marital breakdown.

Assigning such blame often led to lies and lurid accusations in court, persuading participants and experts alike that fault-based divorce was a sham. In 1969, Reagan took the state in a new direction, signing a law that allows one spouse to exit the marriage simply by citing “irreconcilable differences.”

California’s leap into the world of no-fault divorce was quickly copied. By 1974, 45 states had some form of no-fault law; by 1985, the rest were on board.

Critics say it is time for a counterrevolution.

Their campaign got its start in the Midwest, where legislators in Michigan and Iowa have sought to create a two-tier divorce system that would prohibit no-fault dissolutions in cases where one spouse contests the split or minor children are involved.

Those efforts have stalled, but they ignited interest in Illinois, Virginia, Washington, Georgia and a handful of other states.

Modest Changes in Some States

So far, none of the broad-scale overhauls has succeeded; more modest reform attempts have fared better. Several states--Iowa, for example--now require parents to take classes on how to protect their children from the pain of divorce.

Others are tinkering with extended pre-divorce waiting periods, mandatory counseling and other steps forcing couples to pause and reflect before giving up. And a newer wave of legislation takes a different tack, approaching the issue from the front end by creating an optional type of marriage contract that makes parting harder.

Couples who choose a so-called covenant marriage agree to tougher nuptial conditions: pre-marital counseling, pre-divorce counseling and a mandatory two-year waiting period before a divorce is granted. Louisiana passed the nation’s first covenant marriage law last year.

“We’re not erecting barriers to divorce, but we are creating speed bumps,” said Louisiana state Rep. Tony Perkins, a conservative Republican who sponsored the law.

In California, covenant marriage is one of several divorce-related proposals afloat this year. State Sen. Richard Mountjoy (R-Arcadia)--whose own marriage spans 45 years--is pushing a bill that mirrors Louisiana’s legislation.

“Marriage today is basically a pledge to stay together until somebody burns a piece of toast,” Mountjoy said. “With covenant marriage, you give the whole relationship more forethought.”

Bowman believes that approach is wrongheaded, arguing that it cheapens the institution of marriage by offering a real and a “lite” version. The problem is not the seriousness of the wedding vow, he says, but the ease with which it can be broken in court.

“If your husband decides on a whim that he wants to run off with the secretary, there is nothing you can do,” Bowman said. “He gets the divorce, he gets half the [assets], and he gets a shot at custody of the kids. That’s not fair, and the law should not allow it.”

Bowman wants to create three divorce options in California. The first, and most preferable to him, would be divorce by mutual consent. If one spouse objects, the other would have to use persuasion--or financial incentives in the form of child support or assets--to purchase a ticket out of the marriage.

If that approach fails, one spouse could attempt to prove fault as divorcing couples did in the old days. Under the third option, a spouse could dissolve the marriage unilaterally--but only after a two-year waiting period during which the couple shared the same home.

Bowman’s work on divorce stems from his position as director of the lobbying group Capitol Resource Institute. Founded and largely funded by conservative state Sen. Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove) and wealthy Christian political donor Howard Ahmanson, the group is dedicated to “the principles of traditional families” and tracks legislation on a host of social issues, from abortion to gay rights.

The Battle in California

In 1995, Bowman added divorce to the list. Concluding that “the breakdown of the family” imperils society like no other force, Bowman and his staff set out to make it harder for Californians to get a divorce.

The first year, they researched and networked with other Christian-oriented groups around the country. The next year, they released a report that called divorce a “debilitating disease” and urged an immediate change of course.

In 1997, the institute lined up its first legislative ally--Assemblyman George Runner Jr. (R-Lancaster).

Runner, who sees “overwhelming evidence that divorce is bad for kids,” introduced a bill that initially aimed to throw out no-fault divorce. He did not get far.

In January, the bill was gutted by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, whose chairwoman, Martha M. Escutia (D-Bell), said, “We need more facts before we act.”

Despite that result, neither Runner nor Bowman is giving up.

Hoping to move more incrementally toward their goal, they have introduced a narrower bill that would give victims of domestic violence an advantage in the division of assets in a divorce.

Under the bill, which will have its first committee hearing next month, a judge could award a higher percentage of community property to the spouse of a convicted batterer.

Meanwhile, a second lawmaker is mobilizing forces for another wholesale attack on no-fault divorce next year. Assemblyman Dick Ackerman (R-Fullerton) said he hopes Republicans will win enough seats in the November election to retake the Assembly, creating a friendlier climate for his bill.

Resistance From the Public

Although it is hard to find anyone who is happy about the nation’s high divorce rate, Americans generally oppose efforts by government to make it tougher to split up, polls show. Critics accuse the reformers of trying to lock people in unhappy marriages for the sake of a traditional nuclear family.

Senate Leader John Burton (D-San Francisco) said “forcing people to stay together when they’re miserable can create a lot of resentment,” exposing participants to violence and other forms of abuse.

“Is that good for kids? I don’t think so,” said Burton, adding that his own parents were unhappy but “stuck it out” for their three sons.

Veteran Los Angeles divorce lawyer Ira Lurvey agrees and says the notion that you can force people to work out their problems--especially in a society addicted to instant gratification--is foolhardy.

“We didn’t force people to stop smoking and eat healthier--we began encouraging people that it’s in their best interest to do so,” Lurvey said. “So perhaps if we encourage people that a positive marriage is in their interest--and teach them how to get that--we’ll be better off.”

That said, Lurvey--who is former head of the American Bar Assn.’s family law section--believes that the painful consequences of divorce demand that something be done. The unanswered question, he said, is “what is that something.”

Lurvey believes that part of the solution is coming to a better understanding of what marriage means today. Toward that end, he serves on a national task force seeking to create an institute to fund nonpartisan research on marriage and divorce.

Bowman, however, believes that the facts are already in, that no more studies are needed. The longer we wait, he says, the more the distressing statistics pile up.

“Divorce is destroying families, making vagabonds out of our kids,” he said. “I don’t want to prohibit divorce, but I think it should be a lot more difficult to get.”