Is Divorce Too Easy? Helping Marriages Survive Infidelity
posted by Solangel Maldonado
Last week I came across a New York Times article that has led me to question my position on the legal regulation of divorce. I generally agree that once a person decides to end his or her marriage, there is little that lawmakers can do to help “save” it. Most people know that divorce often wreaks havoc on the family’s financial security, is almost always painful for the children, and can have long term negative effects on children’s emotional health, academic achievement, and adult relationships. Despite this knowledge, approximately one million children each year experience their parents’ divorce. Although there are many reasons why couples divorce, adultery is often at the top of the list. While some states require spouses seeking a no fault divorce to live apart for a statutory period (often 6 months), no state imposes a waiting period when the alleged ground is adultery. Adultery is seen as a marital offense that no one should have to endure. Indeed, until the late 1960s, adultery was the only ground for divorce in New York. It turns out, however, that most marriages survive adultery. In other words, although a betrayed spouse has the legal right to file for divorce immediately (at least in the two-thirds of states that still have fault based divorce), most do not. Marriages often last for years after the infidelity is discovered.
Many of us find it hard to believe that, in a time of websites with mottos such as “Life is short. Have an affair“, marriages might actually be stronger and more resilient today than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The divorce rate has stabilized in recent years after rising dramatically in the 1970s and 80s. In addition, the 10-year divorce rate for couples who married in the 1990s is significantly lower than that of couples who married in the 70s and 80s. Admittedly, a lower divorce rate does not necessarily mean that spouses are happy, but marriage has traditionally served a greater good than promoting the happiness of its individual members. The Supreme Court has described marriage as the “foundation . . . of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 364, 384 (1978).
Given society’s interest in marriage and all of the negative consequences of divorce, should law incentivize couples to repair the marriage after infidelity? For example, the reason why some states require couples seeking a no fault divorce to live apart for a significant period of time is that lawmakers believed that this waiting period might actually lead to reconciliation. The hope was that spouses who were living apart while waiting out the statutory period would come to the realization that they did not want to be apart and would reconcile. I am not aware of any empirical evidence suggesting that this waiting period actually leads to long term reconciliation, but many couples do reconcile after separation. Maybe they would not have done so had they been able to seek a divorce immediately.
Studies have found that at least two-thirds of people who discovered a spouse’s affair were still married and living with the cheating spouse years later. These studies might suggest that the law need not provide an incentive for spouses to stay together after infidelity—the majority are already doing so even though they have legal ability to exit immediately. Of course, there are many reasons why a betrayed spouse might stay (for the sake of the children or financial stability, for example) even if the law does not place any obstacles to exit. But is it possible that some marriages that did not survive infidelity could have survived had the law made divorce more difficult? Is it possible that a woman (whose first instinct upon discovering her husband’s affair is to kick him out) would give him a second chance if she knew that she was stuck with him anyway for at least another 6 months to a year. As the New York Times article noted, although the wife of unfaithful South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford asked him to move out after she discovered his affair, she still believes that their marriage can be repaired. What if the law could give them a push in that direction? Although a waiting period alone might not change spouses’ willingness or desire to try and save their marriage after an affair, social norms might. If the law were to require a cooling off period in cases of adultery, as it often does in no fault divorce cases, it would signal that adultery is forgivable—that society no longer considers it an offense that no one should be expected to endure. As a result, individuals who do not give their cheating spouses a second (or third, or fourth) chance could be stigmatized as uncommitted or even selfish. Therein lies the challenge when law tries to regulate intimate relationships. How can lawmakers encourage stronger marriages (which are presumably good for society and children) while simultaneously respecting individuals’ rights to personal happiness and freedom?
July 9, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Posted in: Family Law
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Jens Müller - July 10, 2009 at 9:49 am
In Germany, we only have no-fault divorces. The legal term is “Zerrüttungsprinzip”.
A Reader - July 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm
This seems to be premised on taken for granted the statement that marriage is the foundation etc etc., which sounds like b.s. And the “cooling off” period is archaically patriarchal and offensive; I’d prefer to waiting periods lifted for all types of divorce rather than added to adultery-fault divorces. As someone who has never been aware of this distinction but to whom adultery is taboo, I just don’t see how this particular point would have contributed to the stigma. It definitely underscores it, but cheating is a taboo in many intimate relationships not just marriages.
_Family_ may be the important foundation, and “the law” could certainly do leaps and bounds more to help support families regardless of the marital status of the parents. They make you wait to get married, wait to get divorced, wait to buy a house, but you can become a parent unregulated and with no support. Part of why divorce, especially no-fault divorce, is devastating to the children is that they are treated as pawns through the whole process. It’s more about the quality of parenting and support than it is about whether their parents sanctimoniously tried to work it out.
David Bernstein - July 10, 2009 at 3:31 pm
How many couples who are getting divorced because of adultery actually get divorced on grounds of adultery, as opposed to just going through the no-fault process.
A.J. Sutter - July 10, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I think some of the comments may be confusing the question of divorce as a de facto result of adultery with that of divorce on legal grounds of adultery. The former arises even in no-fault jurisdictions. Solangel’s point seems to be to suggest that in fault-based jurisdictions, a waiting period should be required when adultery is the stated legal ground for divorce.
What I wonder is, then, since no-fault jurisdictions require waiting periods regardless of the de facto grounds, why shouldn’t other jurisdictions do the same, instead of singling out adultery? Just for the purpose of saying adultery is forgivable? But the post mentions studies that apprently show no-fault jurisdictions can achieve favorable results at reconciliation without such explicit signaling.
Also, as entertaining as it might be to watch the debate, I doubt most politicians would want publicly to support the position that adultery is forgivable, even though some of them will need to make that argument sooner or later later in their personal life. A grounds-neutral waiting period would be easier to support, as “pro-marriage”.
Blawg Review #220 - July 13, 2009 at 12:43 am
[...] 13].” Presumably coincidentally, here in the U.S., Solangel Maldonado at Concurring Opinions considers whether current divorce laws unduly steer couples toward ending marriages rather than working through difficulties: “Given [...]
Blawg Review #220 - July 13, 2009 at 12:43 am
[...] 13].” Presumably coincidentally, here in the U.S., Solangel Maldonado at Concurring Opinions considers whether current divorce laws unduly steer couples toward ending marriages rather than working through difficulties: “Given [...]
Lizzie - July 29, 2009 at 7:18 am
I think once a couple has decided to divorce, it’s their move — the state, the government, whoever, should keep their noses out of it! Good grief. Now, I do think divorcing couples should be encouraged to keep things civil, particularly if children are involved. I could go encouragement for divorcing couples to use divorce mediation, such as outlined by Ora Schwartzberg in a book, “Divorced Mediation from the Inside Out,”which is billed as a “mindful approach to divorce.”
It doesn’t really matter if it’s adultery or whatever. Divorce is divorce. Let’s use a process to make it less painful for everyone involved. Anyone with kids, particularly, should use the process attorney Schwartzberg describes in this book.
Leave a Reply