Talk:No-fault divorce

Origins of No-Faut Divorce

I am distressed by the assumptions and errors in the USA history. The California Act of 1969 was not due to "disgust" by judges or lawyers, but due to the intense political pressure of political interest groups. The entire USA history, other than the identification of the 1969 origin, is hopelessly biased and POV.

Rex Judicata 19:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I happened to be visiting one of the largest law libraries in the United States a month ago and browsed through several books about the no-fault divorce revolution. Some were published when it was happening in the 1970s and some were from later as well. All the sources agreed that the modern American no-fault divorce revolution arose from the fact that about 90 percent of American divorces were already uncontested by 1974 (that fact in particular comes from Michael Wheeler's book on No Fault Divorce published by Beacon Press in 1974).

Because unhappy spouses will always find ways to get what they want, the traditional legal fiction that divorce was an adversarial proceeding had already become hopelessly empty---it seems so archaic, but under the old system, a petitioner prosecuted a divorce.

Everyone was sick and tired of seeing ordinary people routinely perjure themselves under oath in what was becoming (and still is) one of the most common types of court proceeding. That's why no-fault divorce was inevitable. --Coolcaesar 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does Rex want in order for us to be able to remove the POV check? The article seems neutral to me. It would be good if he could state which interest groups he is referring to and source his claim that it was intense political pressure by political interest groups that created the 69 California Act. SqueakBox 01:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why do liberals always feel a need to throw around the word "inevitable" with regard to any policy change they happen to favor? I think the use of this word is meant to stifle criticism of liberal policies by making the public feel it has no say in whatever matter is under discussion.

Okay, I did some more research on LexisNexis. The ONLY person who directly proposed a connection between Soviet no-fault divorce and modern no-fault divorce (which was the core of an earlier version of this Wikipedia article) is an ultraconservative professor named Lynn Wardle at the law school of Brigham Young University. He published his wild theory in a 2004 issue of the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy. Mary Ann Glendon, an ultraconservative professor at Harvard, also made some oblique references to the similarities in various articles over the years, but never argued the same idea as directly as Wardle.

Basically, Wardle's theory, as expressed on an earlier version of this page (see the page history to see what it looked out before I edited most of it out) is an extreme point of view that does not represent the viewpoint of the majority of experts on family law and violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Coolcaesar 01:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, another problem with Rex Judicata's view is that he seems to think that no fault divorce pioneered unilateral divorce. It did not. Divorces at common law always had to be unilateral or they would not be granted. If a judge believed that the two spouses were cooperating to arrange what we would now call a mutually amicable divorce, he would not grant the divorce on the grounds that the case was collusive. This was part of the larger doctrine in adversarial systems of justice that the courts should try to refrain from deciding collusive cases --- where one party is deliberately submitting to a hostile judgment in favor of the other party, in order to achieve some mutually desired result for some long-term tactical purpose, which also happens to violate public policy.

In the case of divorce, what violated public policy was the idea that two spouses who did not love each other should be allowed to agree to a divorce. This violated the public policy that favored keeping together the family unit in order to ensure the proper upbringing of children and the stable management of the unit's property assets (as opposed to the chaos that resulted then, and still results now, from their division in divorce). These policies were thought to outweigh the individual interest of a given spouse in finding a new spouse they actually loved, and in not having to be subject to constant bickering (or domestic violence) every night. They also outweighed the interest of children in not having to endure the sound of their parents arguing (or even worse, beating each other up).

I find this contention spurious. The law did not require that such a couple continue to live together or have anything further to do with one another, only that it continue as husband and wife. It simply asserted that, where no party had violated the marital contract, the marital contract should be enforced.

Actually, it did require that they had to have some contact with one another, regardless of how mutually destructive that contact was. It used to be a felony punishable by fine and imprisonment in nearly all states for a man to abandon his wife and children and refuse to support them, and it is still is in a few states, like Massachusetts. Furthermore, your understanding of marriage as a contract is incomplete. The defense of recrimination, which was not abolished in most states until the 1950s, meant that where both spouses had violated the marital contract, then they were both at fault for the marriage not working and they could not obtain a divorce. See, e.g., De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal. 2d 858 (1952) (abolishing recrimination in California) [1]. --Coolcaesar 05:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Divorces were acceptable only where one spouse had committed a sin so severe that it indicated the family unit had completely and irretrievably broken down, and even then the list of sins was tightly limited (and still is in certain states like New York). The point of no-fault divorce is that by removing the ground of fault, it removed divorce from the rule that lawsuits generally should not be collusive. --Coolcaesar 02:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the original 'Russian Origin' complaint, how about we just change the text to show the Russian legal change as an early example of no-fault, and not cite it as an origin for the US No-Fault.--Fish-man 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of Arguments Against No-Fault

Shouldn't this page contain more arguments against no-fault divorce, in order to bring it closer to a neutral point of view?

The problem is that most arguments commonly given today against no-fault divorce are really arguments against the availability of divorce of any kind. The risk is that if we returned to a fault regime, then people would simply go right back to lying in court, as was common in the mid-1960s. --Coolcaesar 7 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

I think that's a vast overgeneralization. Some would argue that no-fault laws actually harm women by making possible unilateral divorce. Under a fault-based system, both parties to a divorce have to collude to obtain the divorce, which means that one party can threaten not to cooperate in order to obtain, say, a higher property settlement.

No, your understanding is still incorrect. Unilateral divorce already existed under the old system in the sense that a man could severely beat up his wife or flee the state forever or do some other downright mean act which would clearly indicate fault on his part. The problem is that most people wanted amicable or uncontested or bilateral divorces, in which they could separate their assets and arrange for joint custody without having to first destroy everything they had worked for and go to jail.

Second, your reasoning fails to deal with the problem of people colluding and lying in court, which was one of the fundamental reasons for switching to no-fault divorce. The basic problem is that common law courts lack the power to execute their own civil judgments. If every civil defendant tomorrow ignored all court judgments against them, then there would not be enough room in the jails to throw them all in for contempt. The system works only because the majority of people at any given time respect the power of the courts, and try to tell the truth when they're in the witness stand. If the majority of people came to believe that they could regularly get away with making affirmative misrepresentations under oath, then all testimony would become useless and the entire judicial process would break down. That's why perjury and obstruction of justice have always been crimes. --Coolcaesar 05:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC).

The arguments for and against no fault divorce have so far evaded and sense of legitimacy or rational. The premis held is that no-fault began with Bolshevic Russia and that it had its start in America with California's adoption of irreconcilable differences, that a legal fiction was taking place in collusive divorces and that the non-uniformity of law allowed for turism divorce.

As historical fact, California was not the state that introduced no fault. U.S. Virgen Islands had no fault prior to its acceptance as a territory of the U.S. Divorce based on discord or personalities had long been a part of Dutch society well before the Bolshevics. They in turn brought it with them to the Virgen Islands where it was picked up by states such as New Mexico and Alaska. The language of Texas no fault resembles that of what Oklahoma had and does not comport to the language used by California. California only has one element withing its statute while The Texas ground of Insupportability has 3 separate components 1) the legitimate ends have been destroyed 2) by discord or conflict of personalities and 3) the discord or conflict of personalities prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation. These elements raise the material fact questions that are to be determined by the trier of fact. No fault does not accomplish the elimination of perjury and therefor the legal fiction that took place in court continues today. Also, the collusion that took place in a mutually agreed divorce is more prevelant than ever. Most every divorce in Texas that is agreed to must be recognized as a collusion and a legal fiction.

With no definition given to this statute, there is no ability to show evidence that the legitiamte ends of the marrige have been destroyed. To be sure, if the plaintif doesn't understand the meaning of legitimate ends of the mariral relationship, then there cant be any evidence that the requirements of the stute can be met. Texas no fault cannot be equated to California no fault. The rules of statutory construction do not allow it. 98.198.251.125 (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV on Arguments Against No-fault Divorce?

I'm a little distressed that the article ends on this note: The "revolution" in no-fault divorce is now entering the third generation in some families, leaving children with parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents who have been divorced. According to Judith S. Wallerstein, director of the long-term study on the effects of divorce begun in the early 1970s, "divorce is a long-term crisis" which inflicts permanent psychological damage on children of divorce, who themselves are more likely to suffer failed marriages ("they don't have the template to follow") or even avoid marriage in order to avoid divorce. "A huge number are staying single."

The tone seems to imply a critique of divorce itself, which isn't substantiated. Does divorce cause certain behavior patterns or is it merely correlated with them? Is it possible that some of these problems would be worse if these couples stayed married? Basically--is divorce necessarily bad? For that matter, is staying single bad? The final quote seems to say so. It's incredibly difficult for anyone to make a simple value judgment on such a complicated issue, no matter how long they spend looking at the problem. If others agree, I'd like to see the issue treated in a more neutral manner. PoetrixViridis 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have long disliked that ending too. There are several editors hostile to no-fault divorce who have persistently insisted on putting a non-neutral attitude to no-fault divorce into the article. I have been too busy with lawyer work and with taking other bad editors to arbitration (see what happened to User:Ericsaindon2) to take some of these editors through the time-consuming dispute resolution process. Although I contributed nearly all the sources in this article, my main focus right now is on keeping the vandals away from Lawyer and on fixing the Freeway v. Expressway mess (which has been a mess for 4 years now). --Coolcaesar 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Statistics source? Fact check!

Since the accuracy of the emancipation info is BAD (or VERY dated?) 18-21 is not accurate, voting rights are given to 18 year olds, they are full adults at that time (excepting alcohol)

Divorce rates percentage NEEDS to be accurately sourced, as far as I know the 1st marriage divorce rate is WELL below 50%, although it may be that high for people on subsequent marriages

Zotel - the Stub Maker 22:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparent POV and OR introduced by Michael H 34 in violation of NPOV

Michael H 34 is introducing his personal bias and original research into this article, which is a violation of several Wikipedia official policies including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. He has inappropriately rewritten several sentences which I originally wrote, so that they now contain assertions not in the sources cited after those sentences. He also appears to be abysmally ignorant of the history of no-fault divorce as documented through the sources cited.

Please see the notice at User:Ericsaindon2 for what happened to the last user I encountered who persistently refused to bring his edits into compliance with Wikipedia official policies. First, Eric was banned from editing the Anaheim Hills article and then was banned completely for using sockpuppets to try to get around the ban. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the last few paragraphs of the article as it now stands, it looks like Michael H 34 has difficulty understanding the basic difference between in personam and in rem jurisdiction (which is usually taught in the first month of civil procedure in law school).

The ENTIRE POINT of no-fault divorce was to take divorce OUT of the adversarial system into a more neutral, therapeutic context (even if in practice it didn't always work that way), and to focus on fixing the MARRIAGE rather than focusing on who is the victim of the marriage. That's why the case captions changed from plaintiff v. defendant to "In re Marriage of" after the Family Law Act went into effect in 1970. The jurisdiction is now over the thing, the re, specifically the marriage, to which the jurisdiction over the persons is ancillary, rather than primary. In personam is jurisdiction over the person, like a defendant; in rem is jurisdiction over the thing, like a car, a hundred thousand dollars, a house, or a marriage.

So to call modern no-fault divorce part of the adversarial system sounds totally silly. Got it? --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"The jurisdiction is now over the thing, the re, specifically the marriage, to which the jurisdiction over the persons is ancillary, rather than primary."

I agree. Jurisdiction concerning the common law rights and obligations of parents have been assigned to courts of equity.

"So to call modern no-fault divorce part of the adversarial system sounds totally silly."

I did not add the words adversarial system to this or any article. I don't even see these words in this article.

"...(even if in practice it didn't always work that way)...."

Critics of no-fault divorce state that "fault has entered the back door" because of the family court judge's power to make decisions related to the custody of the children. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes

Disagreement between groups ABA Family Law section and the NCCUSL [[2]] Michael H 34 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Enactment of no-fault divorce and the clean hands doctrine: [3] Michael H 34 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Objection to amended draft prior to ABA mid-winter meeting [4] Michael H 34 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Explanation of the UMDA Act by the NCCUSL [5] Michael H 34 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Explanation of the UMDA Act by the NCCUSL (continued):

The proposed Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act is designed "to strengthen and preserve the integrity of marriage and to safeguard meaningful family relationships." Michael H 34 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Divorce 'contests' would be eliminated by the proposed Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

'The best lnterests of the child" are the only consideration in determining custody of the children of broken homes, under the uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

US - substantial movement for revival of fault.... page 524

[6]

History in Canada

I removed the reference to the "astronomical increase" in divorces after the 1986 amendments to the Divorce Act. The word choice was inflammatory, and there was no citation. Farside268 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Choice of links in "See Also"

   * Feminist movement
   * Fathers' rights movement
   * Men's Rights
   * Misandry

Really? I don't see how any of these relate to a No-Fault Divorce. At the very least, I am pulling Misandry. 129.15.139.229 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What a mess

There is way too much anti-no-fault divorce bias in this article as currently framed, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE. I am going to start purging some of that garbage soon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

United States History

The first paragraph in United States History says no-fault divorce was introduced to america in august 2010, should this be 1969? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.116.148 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

no-fault article is inaccurate, unreliable and expresses author's POV.

NPOV and statistics? This article concerning no-fault divorce is subjective, distorted and absent of the necessary historical background to make it credible in the least. By using USLegal Forms as a credible source is dubious. As defined by this website, divorce a vaniculo and minso et thoro are completely distorted. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/divorce and LECTLAW articulate the correct translation.

Russia and California as origins of no fault? Historically inaccurate as "Incompatibility of Temperament" was a ground of divorce recognized by St. Thomas and St. John in 1921 followed by New Mexico in 1933 and Alaska in 1935. -Burch v. Burch, 195 F. 2d 799 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1952. In Denmark after 1770 divorces became more frequent and were given on new grounds, in part for unmerited misfortunes such as insanity or leprosy, in part for irremediable disharmony in the common life ["ubodelig Uvilje til Samliv (odium implacabile)"]. From 1790 the records show that an important change occurred, namely, that many divorces were given without there being any distinct legal grounds, notably when the parties had separated, but also when there had been no separation. Viggo Bentzon, Familieretten, København, 1924, vol. 1, p. 155. By a law of March 23, 1827 in force in the Danish West Indies, a royal consent divorce might be given by the authorities when the spouses after a separation agreement had lived separately for three years and spiritual and temporal mediation had failed and both wished a dissolution of the marriage and were agreed on the terms of the divorce. Viggo Bentzon, Den Danske Familieret, København, 1910, pp. 245, 246. -Burch v. Burch, 195 F. 2d 799 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1952

the uniform marriage act was intended to bring a uniformity of law to marriage and divorce, and although California's version of no-fault followed the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law's policy recomendations, the individual States were not required to accept these recommendations where they conflict with policy and constitution.

Removal of the adversarial nature of divorce? Not possible when determining the issue of divorce as those rights and obligations that come with marriage are fundamental liberties that the State is prohibited from interfering with (absent a compelling interest). This would be a 10th Amendment issue considering the "Prohibition Clause". In light of "collusion" and "legal fraud" arguments that only apply to those divorces that had been mutually sought, this can only be understood to apply to testimony of ugly and sordid details in order to obtain a collusive divorce or when the respondent desired to avoid having his misconduct introduced into evidence.

The clean hands doctrine must still apply as a matter of law since those rights and obligations are liberties that protect the children of the marriage and the spouse who has entered into marriage in good faith( Texas Family Code,§1.101 Every Marriage Presumed Valid).

This article states "No-fault divorce is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage requires neither a showing of wrong-doing of either party nor any evidentiary proceedings at all[1]." and " Laws providing for no-fault divorce also limit the potential legal defenses of a respondent who would prefer to remain married. There is no mediation involved." This is highly erroneous, lacks any support and is dependent on the laws of the individual state. The article's whole construct is based on the author's biased POV as it is a collection of statements and citations that are inaccurate and misleading. California pioneered its own no-fault statutory scheme that other states such as Texas did not follow. The determination of a marriage being insupportable must be based on the evidence presented at trial. The only reason conceivable in thinking different would be that the respondent has a misunderstanding that marriage is incontestable and therefore doesn't understand the meritorious defenses that exist. With no argument made to oppose the claim, the trial court has no evidence to rule against the claim and therefore it prevails. This is circular logic that has led to "sec. 6.001" having the appearance of incontestability. This is a custom of practice under the color of law.

There is no mediation involved? This is not supported and in contradiction to what the Texas Family Code provides. Arbitration and Mediation occur frequently and is encouraged as a matter of policy. Amicable resolution through mediation has always been seen as preferable over trial court litigation (Adversarial system of justice in America).

No fault divorce as defined by the statute of insupportability (Texas) can only be defined as a divorce in which there is no regard to fault attributable to the actions of the respondent as plead by the plaintiff. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus Ex Machina 905 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Deus Ex Machina 905 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you say anything else and keep making a fool out of yourself, why don't you find a decent law library and read some of the actual academic literature as opposed to the garbage available on the public Web. Oh, I almost forgot that Texas has a critical shortage of law libraries, according to that source I added to Texas judicial system a few years ago, which was written by a former Texas District Attorney. That's why Texas has one of the worst legal systems in the United States. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Coolcaesar: I have no doubt that you are in the legal profession. When lacking substance, you revert to personal attacks. Notwithstanding, your curt little paragraph supports everything said; 1) your comments come from what I find available on the public web and not found in an decent law library, hence it must be garbage, 2) academic literature from decent law libraries are accessible from the public web and therefore must be considered as garbage too, 3) Westlaw, Findlaw, Wikipedia, Google Scholar etc.., are found on the public web and provide access to relevant case law, therefore the opinions of the Supreme Court and all other rulings must be garbage as well, 4) divorce lawyers rely heavily on promoting their contradictory and confusing understanding of divorce law on the web (this is garbage!?)5 Texas does have one of the worst legal systems in the United States (most likely because its populated by lawyers) 2nd only to California and apparently, this adds to the cumulative confusion concerning no fault divorce. Criticizing Texas jurisprudence is against the unwritten code that lawyers must not talk bad about other lawyers.

There is nothing for you to base your statement "Before you say anything else and keep making a fool out of yourself..," on. You have not mentioned what you disagree with. Everything that you responded too can be supported from case law. There is nothing that you have stated that is found in case law that stands as legitimate. The Texas Family Code is law and stands for what it is, "decent law libraries" or not and every mention of no fault divorce must be argued from the context of the individual states. No fault divorce has its beginnings in the Netherlands, not in Bolshevik Russia. We were first introduced to no fault legislation when we took the Virgin Islands on as a territory from the Dutch (historical fact found in appellate case law). Incompatibility of temperaments language was adopted by states such as Alaska, Oklahoma and New Mexico long before California and Texas codified no fault. Texas remains seperate from California in its statutory language and scheme. There is no law library in existance that can explain the legislative intent behind the Texas "insupportability" statutory scheme of sec. 6.001 as there is none. If you are half the academic that you hold yourself out to be, please explain how an incomplete statute that is vacant of any definition or controlling guidelines can be considered as constitutionally firm. If the judiciary has never applied any saving construction to this statute, how could it be possible for the trial court to determine what the law is or apply the law to the facts of each case? Do the trial courts in your state have the discretion to determine what the law is? Hmmm! How does the court activate its potential jurisdiction if the claimant fails to state any jurisdictional facts to have standing conferred? Highly suspect, isn't it? Please state what these highly accredited law libraries are that you are referring to. Where are they? Do they explain how the pleader can give fair notice in pleadings when they are based on a statute that does not give fair notice in statute? Insupportable101 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please educate yourself about the vast world of offline information out there. There are millions of books that have not been scanned in yet (and indeed, will not be until their authors specifically authorize such scanning), and millions of articles and thousands of cases that can be accessed online but only behind very expensive paywalls.

As for the question you have posed, your understanding of statutory interpretation is so incomplete that there's no way I could explain it in terms you could possibly understand. Try applying for law school. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Suicide

"20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men"

Is this no reduction for men (as it reads) or no change? If there is actually an increase in suicide for men (I suspect it is on the rise) why is it not mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.157.130 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated the citation to the peer-reviewed, published paper rather than the the one hosted by the authors prior to publication. http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/121/1/267.abstract

Also corrected the numbers presented to reflect the paper.....it seems the last update intentionally included incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.27.111 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Too focused on the United States.

This article seems to be too focused on the United States. The part about the United States is about two or three times the information of other countries. I think other countries deserve some coverage; otherwise, the heavy contributions to the United States make the United States no-fault divorce laws somehow more detailed or complex than other countries. If there is a legitimate reason for such, then by all means cite it. Sneazy (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguments for and against no-fault divorce

I think the article should be reorganized so that the arguments for and against no-fault divorce go at the top of the page. Then, all the countries list their own positions and experiences with no-fault divorce. In addition, there seems to be a lengthier coverage on the "For" side rather than the "Against" side. I do not intend to favor any particular side, but still, I think there should be an equal coverage (two to four examples) for both sides. I'm going to check my local library's Opposing Viewpoints and see if I can find more coverage on the "Against" side. Sneazy (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea. I have reorganized the page, so that it looks somewhat cleaner than before. I like the article structure now. I would say that it has a more coherent layout. Sneazy (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I am also going to revise the For and Against sections. They look like examples, not actual arguments. Sneazy (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea again. I cleaned up the section a little for the "For" section, removed an argument (that to me looked like a reaction than an argument), added a new series of arguments.

Resolved

Unserious sources used to push "cultural marxism" type nonsense

> No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?

> The Russian Effort To Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, p. 108-114.

This is not a serious source, and any assertions cited to it need to be backed up with real sources or else removed.

I'm also highly skeptical about:

> The Soviet 1968 and California 1969 no-fault divorce laws bore many detailed similarities of terminology, substance, and procedure.

...which is of course the punch line to including the Atlantic scare stories in the first place.

Now, it *looks* like there's a real source here, No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?, David Bolas, 14 Family L. J. 31 (1975), but I can't find anything about the author or the journal or the article. They hardly seem to exist outside of Wikipedia and various webpages compiled by pro-life activists in the United States. David Bolas does not exist on Google Scholar

Edit: Whomever copy-pasted the citation from whatever prolife blog didn't get the author's name right, it's Donald M. Bolas. here's an OCR copy from some blog if you don't have database access.

This article has been cited dishonestly. Yes, it compares the two laws, and points out their similarities, but leaving it at that is incredibly disingenuous, it also points out:

> In light of the foregoing major similarities, the differences are even more intriguing from the standpoint of possible mutual reception of each other’s best features. Before proceeding too far into the depths of such speculation, how-ever, one is cautioned that **an ideological chasm separates the two systems and the differences, beyond the similarities noted, have a distinctively ideological flavor and basis in many particulars.**

All this crap needs to be removed and whoever added it doesn't belong here.

Also lol

TiC ^(talk) 00:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fully concur with your analysis. The users responsible may need to be blocked or suspended for clear violations of Wikipedia content policies, particularly WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that those parts were added in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-fault_divorce&oldid=563879662. I also noticed several issues with those parts, such as the link being dead and the reference for the 1969 claim being "ibid" when the previous citation was to a 1926 article. For now, I've added some tags and cleaned it up a little, but I'm not opposed to someone removing or significantly rewriting those parts if they are indeed unsupported by the sources. BreakfastJr (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No-fault divorce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110310015014/http://blogs.consumerreports.org:80/money/2010/10/new-york-legal-no-fault-divorce-law-50-states-.html to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/10/new-york-legal-no-fault-divorce-law-50-states-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No-fault divorce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013101546/http://www.articlealley.com/article_573525_18.html to http://www.articlealley.com/article_573525_18.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Reagan as a movie actor - relevant?

Under the United States heading, the article currently states that California's law was signed in by "Governor Ronald Reagan, a divorced and remarried former movie actor". Why is it necessary to mention his former job in an article entirely about legal proceedings? Vəssel ^{[talk to mə]} 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)