The Top 10 No-Fault Divorce Myths and How to Refute Them

Experts Respond to 10 Common Critiques of No-Fault Divorce

Let’s separate the facts from the fear-bombs. This article addresses the common critiques of no-fault divorce, and gives answers from a law professor and a lawyer from Southern Methodist University: No-Fault Divorce: The Case Against Repeal. This post covers concerns about morality, children, safety, legal issues, religious values, sanctity of marriage, breaches of rights, domestic violence, and more.  Page numbers from the paper are indicated.

Q1: Does no-fault divorce make it too easy to end a marriage, undermining the commitment of marriage, and increasing divorce rates?

A: Law professor Grossman & co-author attorney Green found that while there was a brief uptick in divorces after no-fault was introduced in 1970—due mainly to “pent-up demand”—the national divorce rate has since dropped below pre-1970 rates. Long-term evidence suggests no-fault divorce does not increase overall divorce rates; it makes divorce more efficient, not more frequent. (To understand the difference between at-fault divorce and no-fault divorce, look at this handy comparison chart.)

“The introduction of no-fault grounds has not led to more divorce, but rather to more efficient divorce. In fact, the national divorce rate has fallen from around 23 divorces per 1000 married couples in 1979 to less than 17 per 1000 in 2005.” (p. 2)

Note: As of 2022, the rate has dropped even further to 14.6 divorces per 1000 married couples.

---

Q2: Doesn’t no-fault divorce harm children by increasing family instability?

A: Grossman & Green’s review of research demonstrates that it is high-conflict marriages, not the legal structure of divorce, that most severely harm children. When parents are forced to stay in unhappy or hostile relationships, children suffer elevated stress. Studies cited in the article find that children of high-conflict marriages benefit from divorce, and overall, most children adjust within a few years of family breakup.

“Time and time again, studies have found children of high conflict marriages actually benefit from divorce, and that higher rates of stress on children before and during parents’ divorce have longer lasting effects.” (p. 2)

“…children are better off in divorced single-parent families than in two-parent families marked by high levels of discord.” (p. 10, quoting Paul R. Amato, Laura Spencer Loomis, & Alan Booth, Parental Divorce, Marital Conflict, and Offspring Wellbeing during Early Adulthood, 73(3) Social Forces 895 (Mar. 1995). )

---

Q3: Isn’t marriage a contract, and isn’t ending it unilaterally a breach of the other spouse’s rights?

A: Legally, marriage is considered a legal status or institution, not a private contract. This view is deeply embedded in American law, with the Supreme Court holding since 1888 that “marriage is not a contract.”

“The Supreme Court settled this argument in 1888 when it held in Maynard v. Hill in no uncertain terms that ‘marriage is not a contract,’ and this precedent has been reinforced again and again both in the current Court and in state courts across the country.” (p. 2)

---

Q4: Do no-fault laws deny the other spouse a right to defend the marriage or resist divorce?

A: Grossman & Green answer that there is no legal or constitutional right to forcibly keep another person in a marriage—to hold them hostage. Procedural due process does not guarantee a right to defend oneself against a claim of incompatibility or breakdown, and the Supreme Court recognizes that access to divorce is a fundamental right.

“In the context of a civil marriage there is no legal, much less fundamental right to force another individual to stay married. No court or legislature in this country has ever found a right to hold another person hostage in a marriage against their will, and such right is not articulated in the state or federal constitution.” (p. 2)

---

Q5: Is it true that no-fault divorce leads to an unfair division of property and loss of parental rights for the “innocent” spouse?

A: The Grossman and Green paper noted that, under current law, property division and custody are decided based on principles of equity and best interests of the child, not on who wanted the divorce. The system avoids the humiliation and perjury of the past while still safeguarding rights through neutral, reasoned judicial processes.

“This system has freed couples from the adversarial and contentious nature of fault-based divorce, as well as from the artificial placing of blame on a single act of misconduct when marital failure is almost always due to a complex set of factors.” (p. 2)

---

Q6: Doesn’t no-fault divorce encourage moral irresponsibility or exploit “innocent” spouses?

A: By removing the incentive to fabricate false evidence or collude, no-fault laws encourage honesty and dignity in legal proceedings.

“The ability of individuals to leave a marriage while keeping their dignity intact by not having to reveal personal moments and intimate secrets to a court, the general public, and others is central to the right to divorce overall; and being able to choose to leave a marriage with some semblance of respect is a right that enables individuals to define their own concept of life, their very existence, their personal identity, their personal belief system, and their autonomy.” (p. 17)

Note: No-fault divorce lets people leave relationships marked by abuse, cheating, or crime—without being forced to share private humiliation in the courtroom. For Christians this concept is familiar in the story of Mary and Joseph in Matthew 1:19. When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant he sought to “put her away” (divorce her) quietly without exposing her to public disgrace.

---

Q7: Does no-fault divorce undermine religious values or traditional beliefs about marriage permanence?

A: Grossman & Green maintain that no-fault divorce reflects the concept of self-respect, but does not prohibit anyone from upholding their own religious or moral beliefs.

“These social changes do not mean that Americans value marriage less. Quite the contrary. One of the reasons people pushed for easier divorce laws was to pave the way for a second, happier marriage.” (p. 8)

Note: This harmonizes with the 2002 Institute for American Values study that found that marriages with serious problems such as infidelity, domestic violence, or substance addictions are not likely to improve. Victims of domestic violence and infidelity or family-crushing addictions need the opportunity to leave and form new healthy marriages and families. The Institute for American Values study found that  4 in 5 of those who divorced and remarried over the course of the study escaped from a destructive situation and experienced relief and much better lower-conflict marriages.

“When an unhappily married adult experiences violence, divorce and remarriage significantly reduce the likelihood he or she will experience domestic violence (at least from spouses).” (p. 12)

“Eighty-one percent of those second marriages were happy.” (p. 12)

---

Q8: Does no-fault divorce leave domestic violence victims more vulnerable?

A: Quite the contrary—the fault system required victims to prove abuse in a sometimes hostile courtroom and could trap them in dangerous relationships. No-fault divorce lets victims exit without dangerous and public confrontation, lowering the barrier to safety for survivors of domestic violence.

“A return to fault-based divorce would also place an unacceptable burden on a woman’s right to safely divorce an abusive spouse…. ‘[f]or victims of domestic violence, the requirement to prove fault and engage in extensive litigation in what is already a traumatic and dangerous situation adds an additional burden for women and children caught in domestic abuse situations.’” (p. 18)

 

---

Q9: Is no-fault divorce less fair, more arbitrary, or a threat to procedural justice?

A: The procedural rights of both spouses—including notice, hearing, and fair process—are fully protected under no-fault regimes. The article states that courts still provide the opportunity to be heard, but the main change is that it is not necessary to assign blame for a marriage to end.

“By creating these procedures for the dissolution of marriage, the state has clearly satisfied the demands of procedural due process….Because no-fault divorce statutes remove any assignment of blame, they also eliminate the need for defenses to divorce.” (p. 14)

---

All quotes above are from Grossman & Green, “No-Fault Divorce: The Case Against Repeal” (2018), with page numbers as indicated.

---

Q10: Is there any evidence that unilateral no-fault divorce reduces violence, suicide, and homicide?

A: Yes. The strongest, most consistently supported finding is that unilateral/no-fault divorce laws in the U.S. reduce women’s risk of suicide and domestic violence, and homicide of women by their partner.

• The suicide rate for wives dropped by 8-16%.
• The domestic violence rate by and against both men and women dropped by 30%.
• The homicide rate of women murdered by their partner dropped by 10%.

—Stevenson and Wolfers, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress,” [Harvard] The Quarterly Journal of Economics (Feb. 2006): 267, 286.

Other No-Fault Divorce Studies: Dee and Pisanelli

(See chart comparing these three studies here.)

DEE’s  2003 Study Was Debunked. Larger studies found that no-fault divorce did not increase homicide of men by their partners.
This study was debunked. Prior to the Stevenson and Wolfers study, there was a study by Thomas S. Dee published in 2003 (often cited as Dee 2003/2004) called “Until Death Do You Part: The Effects of Unilateral Divorce on Spousal Homicides.” He found that the count of men murdered by wives increased by “roughly 18% after the introduction of uni-lateral divorce laws that were not subject to separation requirements” (p. 177). His study was peer reviewed but received significant scholarly criticism. Later research studies using larger datasets and longer time periods (specifically Stevenson and Wolfers, 2006) did not support his view. Stevenson and Wolfers found that unilateral no-fault divorce had “no discernible effect on males murdered…” (p. 286-287). They found that no-fault divorce didn’t discernibly increase or decrease the percentage of men murdered by wives.

PISANELLI 2024 showed that when domestic violence victims were required to get their spouses’ consent to divorce, there was an increase of wives murdered by their husbands. 

In 2024, a new working paper (not yet peer reviewed as of the writing of this article) was published in Italy: by Elena Pisanelli, “Divorce, Domestic Violence, and Help Seeking.” It analyzes the impact of Italy’s 2014 divorce law—which reduced the cost of divorce but required mutual consent—on domestic violence patterns and help-seeking behavior. The wife murder rate went up, and their effort to seek help went down. They realized their reports of violence had no effect.

So we can conclude that no-fault divorce is effective in reducing suicide, domestic violence, and murder when it is also unilateral: one spouse can file for divorce and no-one—not the other spouse or judge—can stop it. 

Quote from the Pisanelli in the abstract (brackets and bold type mine):

“This paper examines the impact of the 2014 Italian divorce law on help-seeking behavior of domestic violence victims and femicides. I find that contrary to expectations, the reform, which aimed to make divorce cheaper while requiring mutual consent, led to a decrease in help-seeking behavior among intimate partner violence (IP) survivors and an increase in femicides [homicide of wives by husbands, up 3.7%]. These findings suggest that while reducing the cost of divorce may empower individuals to leave abusive relationships, the requirement for mutual consent may inadvertently escalate violence as husbands seek to assert control and prevent separation. The study underscores the importance of considering the unintended consequences of divorce legislation and prioritizing the safety of IV survivors in family policy interventions.”

Italy’s 2014 law made divorce “no-fault” but required both spouses to agree—unlike U.S. unilateral laws, which let one walk away. A 2024 study found that when abusers can withhold consent, more women are killed trying to leave. Unilateral divorce saves lives. Forced consent traps victims. The unilateral ability to walk out is key. Otherwise it’s more akin to human enslavement. Italy changed its laws in 2023 to allow women to get a no-fault divorce without consent from their [abusive] spouses. Apparently lawmakers finally figured out how dangerous it was. The laws aren’t as safe as most U.S. laws are — because most U.S. divorce laws are unilateral and allow the victim to escape without their spouse’s consent — but they moved in the right direction.

Other Articles on No-Fault Divorce

• Side-by-side comparison chart of At-Fault Divorce and No-Fault Divorce.
• 6 Pros and Cons of No-Fault Divorce
• No-Fault Divorce is a topic that the Federal Reserve in interested in. They look at who has gained or lost “bargaining power.” This this paper
• Update on which states may be changing their no-fault divorce laws.