July 31, 2025 • 36 mins
Our exploration of fault versus no-fault divorce reveals surprising historical twists and powerful stakes for modern families. Did you know Ronald Reagan—yes, that Ronald Reagan—signed America's first no-fault divorce law? Before that watershed moment, couples resorted to hiring private detectives and staging hotel room encounters just to escape unhappy marriages.
Today, conservative voices like JD Vance advocate returning to fault-based divorce, arguing no-fault made ending marriages too easy. But what's really behind this push? As we unpack the complex history of divorce law reform, we explore whether making divorce harder actually creates healthier marriages or simply traps people in unhappy ones.
The conversation takes fascinating turns through domestic violence statutes, covenant marriages, and the concerning trend of weaponizing abuse allegations for financial advantage. We consider thought-provoking questions: Does fault-based divorce protect families or amplify conflict? How does assigning blame affect children caught in the middle? And ultimately, shouldn't we focus on creating healthy marriages rather than simply preventing their dissolution?
Our candid discussion reveals how divorce laws reflect deeper cultural values about gender, family, and personal freedom. Whether you're navigating your own relationship challenges or simply interested in how policy shapes our most intimate decisions, this episode offers valuable perspective on what genuinely helps families thrive rather than merely stay together.
Share your thoughts with us on this controversial topic! We're genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives as we continue exploring the complex intersection of money, psychology, and law in divorce.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So like, if I go up to you on the street, mark, and
I punch you in the face, there'sa legal remedy for that right.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I battered you, unless it was my fault in the
first place, because I upset youand my behavior was so
outrageous that a punch in theface was the only thing that
rectified it.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Welcome to the Three Wise Men of Divorce Money, psych
and Law podcast.
The Three Wise Men of DivorceMoney, psych and Law podcast Sit
down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,psychologist Scott Weiner and
attorney Sean Weber for a frankand casual conversation about
divorce, separation,co-parenting and the difficult
(00:40):
decisions real people like youface during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 70 years in divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting, divorce,
(01:04):
separation and co-parenting.
Okay, gentlemen, it's, uh, aninteresting political time and,
and whenever you have aninteresting political time,
there are interesting politicalquestions that are raised, and
some of them are policy thatimpact what we do in our divorce
work, and what we havescheduled to talk about today is
(01:28):
no fault divorce versus faultbased divorce and the impact on
families and society, and one ofthe reasons it's kind of in
vogue to talk about right now isthere's actually some people
that are agitating for variouslevels of abolishing the concept
of no-fault divorce, and Ithought it would be useful to
(01:52):
kind of we all did that it wouldbe useful to talk about.
You know, what impact does thatreally have?
What are states actually doingwith fault divorce versus
no-fault divorce?
What is it even, so that ourlisteners can kind of have an
idea and be able to make theirown informed choices?
Now we realize that this topiccan be sensitive.
(02:12):
I didn't realize when I startedkind of researching this topic
and thinking about it for thispodcast how polarizing it could
be as far as the gender concernsare.
You know it implicates conceptsof patriarchy and you have
(02:33):
women's groups that have verystrong feelings about this and
men's groups on other sides thathave other strong feelings.
And I realize here we aresitting here as three men, the
three wise men of divorce.
We don't have a wise woman here, and so we're going to try our
(02:57):
best to be as very neutral onthis topic, without necessarily
you might get to see what ourbias is, but if there is ever an
implication that we've saidsomething that sounds like it
might be discriminatory in anyway, it's not our intention.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Do you guys agree with that?
Yeah, absolutely.
Now there's a historicalperspective here, because we
used to have fault divorce,didn't we, sean?
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Yeah, so the way it used to be back in the old days
is you had to show a ground fordivorce, and the grounds for
divorce could be things likeadultery or abuse, abandonment,
sometimes cruelty, and everystate had their own list of
(03:38):
grounds for divorce that youcould go for.
If you weren't able to show oneof those grounds, then you
couldn't get divorced.
So this concept ofirreconcilable differences was
not a thing.
It was just you had to show oneof these grounds, and so people
will be kind of stuck in amarriage that they didn't want
(04:00):
to be in, and you would actuallysometimes have people you know
I heard of stories of in newyork of people all right, I'll
be the person at fault, we'llhire it, we'll hire a prostitute
, I'll go into the hotel roomwith the prostitute, you take
pictures and then we'll showthat to the court, and then
we'll be able to get divorcedyou know stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
People would make up a pretense for fault and you see
all the old black and whitemovies with the private
detective with the flash outsidethe hotel window.
That's.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
That's the yeah, that kind of image that jumps out to
me.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Yeah, and then?
And then what had happened?
Since World War Two, divorcehas been increasing
significantly in this country,and there's various reasons for
that.
A big part of that is thewomen's movement, that women
have become more independent andnot necessarily interested in
continuing the patriarchal orderof things that we've all been a
(04:59):
part of for the lastgenerations of time.
And so there has been a pushwhere women were feeling like,
geez, I am trapped in a marriagethat is awful, and because I
can't point to some particularground for divorce, I'm stuck, I
can't get a divorce.
And so there was a movement inthe 60s towards eliminating the
(05:24):
need to show fault to getdivorced.
And, interestingly, the firststate to actually have a pure
no-fault system was California.
And that's where the phraseirreconcilable differences comes
from, meaning I don't have toshow that somebody committed
adultery or that somebody wasabusive or cruel or whatever.
I just have to show that wehave irreconcilable differences.
(05:48):
And Ronald Reagan, theconservative lion himself, was
the governor at the time andsigned that into law.
Now there is some argument Iread papers on this before that
if you had the right kind ofjudges right meaning
subjectively the judges thatwould come up with this outcome.
If they look at the wordirreconcilable and try to define
(06:11):
that, what does that actuallymean?
Like, what is an irreconcilabledifference?
And the way the courts havetreated it since, you know, the
60s when this came into being,since Reagan was governor has
been to just make it very easyto get a divorce.
All you have to do is say, well, I want a divorce, and then you
get a divorce.
I have irreconcilabledifferences and you don't have
to really prove that they'reactually irreconcilable.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
And only one side has to say that.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
And only one side has to say it and the judge is fine
with it.
And I've had cases in my careerwhere attorneys some attorney
has attempted to oppose theground for divorce of a
reconcilable difference and say,well, actually our differences
are quite reconcilable and weshould just go to court and I'd
like to have the court orderthat we go to therapy and
(06:59):
counseling and stuff, and then Ithink it would save our
marriage.
And you know, if you had judgesthat kind, judges that kind of
interpreted in a more strictsense of what irreconcilable
means, it might actually beharder to get divorced in
California than it was before.
Because what doesirreconcilable really mean?
But that's kind of academic.
What has happened is because ofthe way it's interpreted and, I
(07:19):
think, the way it was intendedto be.
Sean, can I?
It's hard, it's easy to getdivorced now Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
I want to ask a question about what I think of
as the two most significantdevelopments, if you will, in
terms of the legal process ofdivorce.
Was the adoption of no-faultlegislation as well as community
property, the notion ofcommunity property, and I'm
curious if those developed, ifyou will, on a similar timeline,
(07:47):
did one lean to the other oranything like that.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
No, community property is actually an old
concept and California hadcommunity property for a long
time.
But how community property gotcreated has become much more
liberal now than it was when theconcept was first discussed.
But but basically the idea incalifornia, in any community
property state, is anything thatI create during the marriage by
(08:11):
the sweat of my brow iscommunity property and to share
equally, and the way it has beenapplied has been a way to
really to protect, uh, women,the idea being that you know,
you, the traditional situationwhere you have a man earning all
the money and the woman who'sworking in the home and if
there's a divorce and shedoesn't, or even a death, she
(08:33):
doesn't own half of thecommunity property.
That that's a great injusticeto her.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Was that in place before the adoption?
Of no fault it was.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
It was.
But what no fault did to kindof take it a step further was
okay, we don't have to.
You know, there's nothing badthat's going to happen to you
because you're a bad boy or girlas far as your community
property rights are concerned.
So I mean, the fear was that,you know, a woman would want to
leave the marriage and thehusband said well, you're
(09:04):
abandoning me, You're leavingthe marriage, you're a bad
person, so therefore you shouldnot get community property, and
that's not the law.
The law now is that we don'tlook at fault, we don't think
about whose fault it is that wegot divorced, and so therefore,
community property is going tobe split equally, no matter what
.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
How does equitable division states play into this?
Speaker 1 (09:29):
So some of them still have fault.
And what's interesting is youhave some states that have
there's no state anymore thatdoes not have a no fault option,
and then you have some stateswhere you have both.
You could do a no fault option,you could say it's a
reconcilable differences andthat doesn't really impact the
marital distribution of themarital estate.
Or you can show fault and thenthat would show you know that
(09:54):
would have an impact, therewould be an inequitable
distribution of the maritalassets, and so in those states
you typically have fault assomething that's possible and
and, and there's 33 of the 50states have both options, um,
and there are 17 states thathave no fault as the only option
, california being one of them.
(10:17):
Um, it's interesting, um, andI've actually known people in
different states that you know,they, they, they, no fault was
originally pled as the groundfor divorce, but then one of the
attorneys decides to threatenthe other one by saying well,
I'm going to introduce a motionabout fault because you were
abusive and that means she'sgoing to get more of the money.
(10:37):
But you know, whether you callit community property or just
marital estate or you know theseother terms, the concept is
similar and that is that we havemoney that we accumulated
during the marriage, thismarital property, and there
needs to be some kind of anequitable distribution.
(10:58):
Some states have spousal support, some don't, but, but you know,
the states that don't havespouse support will have some
kind of a way to provide for aspouse who is a lower earner in
the form of an unequaldistribution of the marital
estate.
But yeah, every state'sdifferent.
(11:20):
I mean, that's one thing youhave to remember.
In the United States, eachstate has the right to set their
own rules.
Now, interestingly, we havesome states in the 90s there's
three of them Louisiana, arizonaand Arkansas that adopted this
thing called a covenant marriage, and the idea there was that we
want to give people theopportunity to have a marriage
(11:42):
that's harder to break.
We're going to call it acovenant marriage.
You check a box and maybe youhave to take some extra classes
or some extra counseling beforeyou enter into this marriage,
and then it's going to be harder.
You have to show a highershowing than just irreconcilable
differences in order to be ableto break that marriage.
There's strict exceptions toallow for divorce and there
(12:02):
would be strict counselingrequirements to allow for
divorce.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Do you know, sean, whether, if the couple agreed
that there were irreconcilabledifferences, they didn't have to
jump through those hoops?
Or is it just one party thatwould have to claim that?
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Well, it depends on what box they checked on their
marriage license.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
But even if they checked it, but, now they yeah
if they checked the box.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
From what I understand and I'm not going to
hold myself out as a completeexpert on this, but from what I
understand they check thecovenant marriage box and they
have a covenant marriage quote,unquote, gotcha.
Then they irreconcilabledifferences.
Is not one of the grounds thatyou have to show some kind?
Speaker 2 (12:39):
of, so you can't change your mind later and say,
never mind, correct, got it.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Okay.
Change your mind later and say,never mind.
Correct, got it okay and theidea being this enables you to
have some choice in what kind ofmarriage you're entering into.
That it's gonna be.
You know I want to have amarriage that's harder to break.
You know that's the concept.
You know you can, and you canargue whether that's smart or
not.
So what's interesting?
is recently in the last coupleof years there's been some push
in conservative quarters JDVance, ben Carson, some of those
(13:11):
folks have come out calling forreform of no-fault divorce laws
, saying it's too easy to getdivorced.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
And I think, if I'm remembering correctly, the idea
has been floated, I think, by JDVance, in terms of a federal
action, correct, on a federallevel, I wonder.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Yeah, and that I'm not entirely sure about and I
don't know that the federalgovernment would even have the
right, would even have thestanding to Constitutionally.
That's definitely a federalistconcept of the states being able
to regulate marriage.
And they would say you know,but hang on, we've got decisions
(13:51):
, federal decisions in thecourts, that regulate marriage,
like the Obergefell decision, sowhy not have some kind of
federal regulation?
There is an interstate need tohave federal regulation.
Now you can imagine, theNational Organization for Women
is vehemently opposed to doinganything that would reduce
(14:12):
no-fault divorce and there'svarious arguments.
So I just kind of wanted, aswe're talking here, I kind of
wanted to get perspective ofeach of you and I'll provide the
legal perspective.
But you know, when you'relooking at no fault versus fault
based divorce, you know whatwould be the perspective of a
therapist on this question.
What would be the perspectivefor the financial implications?
(14:35):
You know what does this I mean.
Number one is there anything tothe argument?
Do you think that no-faultdivorce has actually increased
the rate of divorce?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
I don't think so.
Well, actually I want to say itthis way it may, but I don't
think that's the issue.
I don't think that makingdivorce more difficult leads to
healthier marriages, and that,to me, is really the question,
and what I wish you know thesystem, if you will, was
(15:18):
thinking about is so what arethe things that can be done to
help couples do the kind of workand to incentivize couples
doing the kind of work that isgoing to allow them to have
healthier relationships, that'sgoing to allow them to more
fully really understand whythey're struggling with what
they're struggling with and whatcould be done about it, and
(15:39):
that ultimately requires thatboth partners be motivated to do
the work.
And I say this to people all thetime when they're contacting me
for couples therapy.
I tell them that I believethere are really healthy and
appropriate reasons for couplesto end a marriage and to end
their marriage in a healthy andcollaborative way.
(16:00):
But I also believe that mostdivorces happen way before the
partners have done the kind ofwork necessary to understand why
they're struggling and what thepotential for positive change
is between them, and I thinkthat divorce that happens in
advance of that work,prematurely.
I think that's tragic for awhole host of reasons,
(16:23):
especially when children areinvolved.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Now I've said that I have seen that I've had people
come in and they tell me whattheir reasons are for getting
divorced.
It's not relevant as far as thecourt's concerned, but it's an
interesting conversation andit's happened a lot where I'm
like you know, the issues thatyou're describing sound like
they're imminently fixable, andwouldn't you want to meet with a
therapist or a counselor orsomething Right?
(16:46):
And so I think, when thatdoesn't happen.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
I think that's really unfortunate and sad for a whole
host of reasons, for all thestakeholders.
But I don't believe that makingdivorce harder, having it be
fault-based, incentivizes peopleto do the work I mean that is,
you know, my anecdotal gut feel,based on 30 plus years of doing
(17:14):
this work.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
The thought that jumps into my head is, you know,
perhaps a requirement to do alittle more work before people
decide to tie the knot Beforegetting married in the first
place?
Yes, Thinking about, you know,doing this counseling before and
understanding what is involved,especially for younger people
(17:36):
who have perhaps not been in.
We see a lot of divorces fromfolks who are in their 30s and
40s who, perhaps you know,married in their 20s and have
become different persons overthe 10 or 20 year period and you
wonder if they could havebenefited for some sort of
(17:58):
therapy or counseling prior toentering into the marriage or
counseling prior to enteringinto the marriage.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
You know I absolutely agree, mark, and you know one
of the things that I think isoften said we were talking about
it as we were prepping for thisthat it is sad that it's much
harder to get a driver's licensethan it is a marriage license,
which is not to say that gettinga marriage license should be
(18:25):
hard, but let me say it this wayMarriage, I think, is one of
the most important humaninstitution, and the preparation
and the responsibility and thestewardship that's required in
order to have a healthy marriageis something that people should
(18:46):
be not just exposed to buttrained in prior to getting
married.
When couples are struggling, howdo you incentivize and
(19:06):
encourage them to to to do thework necessary to see whether or
not healthy changes can be made?
That that's where I wish thefocus were, and I don't think
getting away with no fault, noslop, no fault provisions,
removing them and going back toa fault-based system is not
going to accomplish that.
I think it's just actuallygoing to increase the pain that
(19:27):
people experience in an unhappymarriage.
That would be my fear.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Well, what specifically would happen?
Do you think I mean?
What would increase the painthat people feel as a result of
a fault-based system?
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Well, it's interesting that I think that a
fault-based system incentivizesconflict.
It incentivizes polarity, right.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
And blame Peter.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Absolutely, absolutely.
It's your fault.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
It's your fault, this divorce?
No, it's not, it's your fault.
And that puts people furtherapart and less likely to be
willing to compromise to resolvethe dispute.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
I think this is a general statement, but most
people going into a divorceprocess on some level there
already is this tremendousmistrust that the other person
does not have their interests,their best interests, at heart.
Going to a fault-based systemis going to amplify that.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
I want to be careful.
I do think there is a bit of afalse binary that some people
I'm not saying you, pete, I'mjust saying that some people
have when they analyze thisquestion, and that is it's
either fault or it's no fault,right.
But you know, like we mentionedbefore, 33 states have both,
and so it's not an either or itcan be a mix.
(20:57):
I do get concerned, though,when I think about what would
happen if there was a statewhere no fault was abolished,
right, like it wasn't even anoption, right.
I think there's all kinds ofproblems with that.
Well one is is like how do youdetermine who really is at fault
, like when you deal with arelationship.
(21:18):
Okay, he had an affair, whosefault was that?
Okay, he had an affair, whosefault was that?
And, and I mean you might, thesimplistic answer would be well,
the guy that had the affair.
It's his fault, but whatdynamic in the marriage led to
him having an affair?
Or the woman having an affair?
It's not just I'm not trying tomake this gender bias it could
(21:39):
be the woman had an affair too.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
I do a lot of work with couples where infidelity is
the issue that gets them intotherapy and what I talk to them
about is that all couplesco-create a relationship, which
is, you know, it's not aboutascribing percentages of blame,
but it is about both partnersrealizing that they have
(22:02):
co-created something.
They've co-created this verybig picture and an affair is
part of that picture, andunderstanding that in the
context of the bigger pictureand what was working or not
working for both partners.
That's part of the work part ofthe work.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
So the question becomes are the courts in a
position to be able to examinethat big picture and ascribe
fault?
I would doubt.
I mean, we know judges and weknow how overburdened they feel.
In a no fault system, how wouldit be where, basically, I would
imagine a lot, much higherpercentage would actually go to
(22:49):
trial?
Because if I'm accused of faultand I feel that the end of the
marriage was not purely as aresult of my behavior, but but
that the other my spouse had arole in it too, aren't I going
to accuse?
Just, I mean you accusesomebody of something.
(23:11):
They often come right back atyou and accuse you of something,
so it's going to polarizepeople, which, from a financial
standpoint, is not going to makedivorce cheaper, it's not going
to make divorce quicker andit's probably not going to help
with co-parenting of childrenpost-divorce.
If the process creates moreanimosity than it already does,
(23:35):
which can be significant and ano fault.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I mean the reason you have a legal remedy.
So like, if I go up to you onthe street, mark, and I punch
you in the face, there is alegal remedy for that Right.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I battered you, unless it was my fault in the
first place because I upset youand my behavior was so
outrageous that a punch in theface was the only thing that
rectified it.
Well, that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
I'm sorry, I'm being facetious, but that's the
problem with, you know,ascribing fault in divorce,
right, but I mean there's alegal remedy that's clearly
defined.
I walk up to you, I punch you.
You've now been hurt, you'vebeen assaulted and battered,
probably because you saw mecoming to punch you and you
would have a legal remedyagainst me for a intentional
tort.
But in family law, you know,with no fault, I think the
(24:27):
effect that's happened is youhave some people that feel very
wronged.
There's some that would arguethat the emotional toll is as
damaging as if somebody wouldhave hit them in the face, and
so these folks are looking for aremedy in the law.
And unfortunately, when youhave no fault, a pure no fault
(24:48):
system, there is no remedy forbad behavior, and so and
sometimes you feel perhaps thereshould be, and sometimes you
feel like there ought to be youknow, I've had those cases where
you're like geez that guy was ajerk or that woman was awful.
Cases where you're like, geez,that guy was a jerk or that
woman was awful, you know, but I, you know, I don't know how I
(25:10):
come back to.
Well, how does the court assignthe liability for just being a
jerk or just being?
Now there is something you knowwe're noticing in the DV
statutes with domestic violence,that fault is being introduced
back into marital negotiationsas a way to have a financial
(25:30):
impact and also an impact oncustody.
So if I, if I'm married to awoman and I abuse her and she
gets a domestic violencerestraining order, the history
of domestic violence and abusein the marriage can be a factor
in making me pay more alimony,or maybe it means she doesn't
(25:51):
have to pay me alimony.
The other thing is that itbecomes, at least in the state
of California, if you're foundto have committed domestic
violence, there is a presumptionthat you are not the good
parent for the kids to be with.
That's a rebuttable presumption, but it's a presumption
nonetheless and it has an impact.
And so fault has kind ofcreeped in through the domestic
(26:12):
violence statutes.
And what's interesting is, inCalifornia as well, we've
changed the definition, we'veexpanded the definition of what
it means to commit domesticviolence.
Before it used to be, there hadto be some kind of physical
thing that happened.
I hit you, you hit me, I keptyou from leaving the house, I
stole your phone, you know I didsomething to you.
That's physical, that we canshow.
(26:33):
And now we have expanded thatto include concepts of, you know
, emotional abuse, like coercivecontrol and other forms of
emotional abuse.
And I do find that it's makingit harder for the judges to be
able to navigate just outcomes.
(26:54):
You know, how do I know?
How do we prove that somebodywas emotionally abused?
Not to say that people aren't.
I think people absolutely areemotionally abused, but a lot of
times you have people thataren't really emotionally abused
and this lately I've noticedthere's been an environment
where everything's abuse.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
I think back to what you said before, Sean, where you
talked about that in a faultsituation, where you talked
about that in a fault situation,there may be an issue with
co-parenting, for you knowsomebody who's been, for example
, a result of domestic violence.
There's only two remedies thatthe courts have.
(27:34):
One is restricting access tothe children and two is
financial, and we often seepeople coming into divorce
totally financially motivatedcan I can I add there's one, one
other remedy and and that is amandated treatment.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Yeah, for the perpetrator got you and for the
family in the dv situation?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
yeah, yeah, understood, but, jen, but often,
you know, I meet with peoplesometimes just talking to one
side and it's all financial.
The only thing they're talkingabout is how they can either pay
less or receive more fault thatbeing abused to those ends.
(28:26):
In other words, people willlook for things to prove fault
for financial reasons, notnecessarily because the fault
during the marriage caused harm.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Well, and unfortunately we're seeing it in
some of our domestic violencestatutes, or at least the
application of it.
Again, I don't want to speakill of people that actually have
abuse, but I have seen caseswhere people have attorneys are
saying oh yeah, you just need tofile for domestic violence, say
, emotionally abused you, andthen that'll help you get more
support, whether it's happeningor not.
(28:57):
You know, and it's a tactic.
Or you know, get a domesticviolence restraining order and
then that'll give you anadvantage in custody.
So just just make something up,just make it happen.
You know he surely he calledyou a bad name sometime.
That must have been abuse, youknow, and and I I think number
one those people that do thatare doing a great disservice to
the actual victims that are outthere that really do need
(29:19):
protection.
Number one and number two um,it's, it's.
It makes things fine trying tofind the words.
It's just it's making it messyto a point where it's hard to
know what's real and what isn't.
And I think for the people thatare actual victims, what we
really need to know is what isreal here so that we can protect
(29:41):
people, and I think what'shappening is actual victims
aren't being believed becausethere are bad actors out there
that are using this as apretense.
I'm probably going to getletters now.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's Sean Weber
talking.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
But this is.
It feels to me like it makesthings more challenging, which
may be the purpose of themovement to create it and to
keep people in marriages, nomatter what.
And I know it'll make our workmore challenging.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
That's the part, and maybe this has been part of the
people that are advocating forthe doing away with no-fault
divorce.
Maybe this has been part oftheir position, but I haven't
heard it.
The thing that is missing, asfar as I can tell from that
(30:46):
argument, is them talking aboutwhy they believe doing that is
going to create healthiermarriages.
People staying together is notthe same thing as creating
healthier marriages, and that,to me, should be the goal and
the objective.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
I think that's a really valid point.
And also you know when you lookat what's good for children and
what's bad for children.
You know I'm as big of a familyvalues guy as anybody, right,
but I have five kids of my ownand been married for almost 30
years.
But you know, I don'tnecessarily think that divorce
(31:23):
is what hurts kids, right?
What hurts kids and this is Imean we know this from the
research what hurts kids is, um,the conflict, and and when
children are are exposed toconflict, we know that's harmful
to them, and so is locking themin a marriage that is filled
(31:46):
with conflict really better forchildren?
Speaker 2 (31:49):
Or creating the environment in which you have to
accuse somebody and so increaseconflict.
Is that going to help Right?
Speaker 1 (32:00):
right.
So now I know that I'm going toget an advantage if I can show
that this other person was bad.
Yes, and so, therefore, I'mgoing to create a pretense.
Or I'm going to create, or it'sjust I'm going to the
temptation I'm going to put thefocus on.
I'm going to put the focus onthe negative is what it does
when maybe I would have beenable to leave it be yeah, but
now that it has something to dowith my finances and I know a
(32:22):
lot of this comes from Christiancircles, and I don't mean, you
know, christians are not all thesame, that's for sure.
There's different varieties ofChristians, as various as the
sands of the ocean.
To what extent is it moreChrist-like to want to blame
someone or to want to find fault?
Speaker 2 (32:54):
How is that necessarily Christian professor?
I would say basically it's OldTestament more than what I
understand to be New Testamentinterpretation of the Word of
God right.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Well, I think of the story of Jesus with the woman
taken in adultery and who'sgoing to cast the first stone?
You know, to stone her to death.
And there was no one.
That was without fault of theirown, yeah, yeah.
And the teaching there was it'sreally not up for us to find
fault in one another.
(33:31):
The teaching is to leave thatto God and to basically just
simply love one anotherunconditionally.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
And forgive.
And to forgive just simply loveone another unconditionally and
forgive and to forgive, and,and if we think about successful
divorces that we have done, Imean, it's often aspirational
and we don't get there, but whenyou see forgiveness occur, you
know it.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
It's a powerful thing and this would decrease it so
if, if I can circle back, Ithink that there are two parts
of this that we as a societyshould be looking at, and that
is what is it that we can do toencourage people and support
couples to have healthymarriages, and what is it that
(34:17):
we can do to encourage peopleand support people to have
healthy divorces when they,together, for the right reasons,
have decided that that's whatthey need to do?
Speaker 1 (34:32):
I think that's an excellent point.
And just from a policystandpoint, I often wonder, like
, why is the state involved inour marriages anyway?
But that's a whole otherconversation.
Yeah, you know, but but maybelet's let me take care of my
relationship and we'll leave thestate out of it.
Thank you very much.
Well, this has been a verythought-provoking discussion,
(35:00):
gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Yeah, and I'd hate for this to be the final answer
on the topic, like Well, thishas been a very
thought-provoking discussion.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Gentlemen, yeah, and I'd hate for this to be the
final answer on the topic.
If folks have comments on this,please share them with us,
because we're learning together,and I would want to say that my
views on the subject would besomething that would be movable,
based on evidence and based onthoughtful discussion.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
Well, we've done this again.
Yeah, people actually listenedthis time too.
Can you believe that?
Speaker 1 (35:32):
No, and we know you're out there.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
That was always my aspiration that people would
listen to this.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
We know you're out there.
We appreciate you.
We do Thank you.
We look forward to having moreconversations as, sean, you're
out there.
We appreciate you.
We do Thank you.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
We look forward to having more conversations and
love, as Sean just said, love tohave your comments.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Yeah, love to hear from you Like us, please.
All right, very good, well,let's do it again next time.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the Three Wisemen of
Divorce Money, psych and Law.
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe, leave us a
(36:07):
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
(36:35):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
So like, if I go up to you on the street, mark, and
I punch you in the face, there'sa legal remedy for that right.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I battered you, unless it was my fault in the
first place, because I upset youand my behavior was so
outrageous that a punch in theface was the only thing that
rectified it.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Welcome to the Three Wise Men of Divorce Money, psych
and Law podcast.
The Three Wise Men of DivorceMoney, psych and Law podcast Sit
down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,psychologist Scott Weiner and
attorney Sean Weber for a frankand casual conversation about
divorce, separation,co-parenting and the difficult
(00:40):
decisions real people like youface during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 70 years in divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting, divorce,
(01:04):
separation and co-parenting.
Okay, gentlemen, it's, uh, aninteresting political time and,
and whenever you have aninteresting political time,
there are interesting politicalquestions that are raised, and
some of them are policy thatimpact what we do in our divorce
work, and what we havescheduled to talk about today is
(01:28):
no fault divorce versus faultbased divorce and the impact on
families and society, and one ofthe reasons it's kind of in
vogue to talk about right now isthere's actually some people
that are agitating for variouslevels of abolishing the concept
of no-fault divorce, and Ithought it would be useful to
(01:52):
kind of we all did that it wouldbe useful to talk about.
You know, what impact does thatreally have?
What are states actually doingwith fault divorce versus
no-fault divorce?
What is it even, so that ourlisteners can kind of have an
idea and be able to make theirown informed choices?
Now we realize that this topiccan be sensitive.
(02:12):
I didn't realize when I startedkind of researching this topic
and thinking about it for thispodcast how polarizing it could
be as far as the gender concernsare.
You know it implicates conceptsof patriarchy and you have
(02:33):
women's groups that have verystrong feelings about this and
men's groups on other sides thathave other strong feelings.
And I realize here we aresitting here as three men, the
three wise men of divorce.
We don't have a wise woman here, and so we're going to try our
(02:57):
best to be as very neutral onthis topic, without necessarily
you might get to see what ourbias is, but if there is ever an
implication that we've saidsomething that sounds like it
might be discriminatory in anyway, it's not our intention.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Do you guys agree with that?
Yeah, absolutely.
Now there's a historicalperspective here, because we
used to have fault divorce,didn't we, sean?
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Yeah, so the way it used to be back in the old days
is you had to show a ground fordivorce, and the grounds for
divorce could be things likeadultery or abuse, abandonment,
sometimes cruelty, and everystate had their own list of
(03:38):
grounds for divorce that youcould go for.
If you weren't able to show oneof those grounds, then you
couldn't get divorced.
So this concept ofirreconcilable differences was
not a thing.
It was just you had to show oneof these grounds, and so people
will be kind of stuck in amarriage that they didn't want
(04:00):
to be in, and you would actuallysometimes have people you know
I heard of stories of in newyork of people all right, I'll
be the person at fault, we'llhire it, we'll hire a prostitute
, I'll go into the hotel roomwith the prostitute, you take
pictures and then we'll showthat to the court, and then
we'll be able to get divorcedyou know stuff like that.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
People would make up a pretense for fault and you see
all the old black and whitemovies with the private
detective with the flash outsidethe hotel window.
That's.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
That's the yeah, that kind of image that jumps out to
me.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Yeah, and then?
And then what had happened?
Since World War Two, divorcehas been increasing
significantly in this country,and there's various reasons for
that.
A big part of that is thewomen's movement, that women
have become more independent andnot necessarily interested in
continuing the patriarchal orderof things that we've all been a
(04:59):
part of for the lastgenerations of time.
And so there has been a pushwhere women were feeling like,
geez, I am trapped in a marriagethat is awful, and because I
can't point to some particularground for divorce, I'm stuck, I
can't get a divorce.
And so there was a movement inthe 60s towards eliminating the
(05:24):
need to show fault to getdivorced.
And, interestingly, the firststate to actually have a pure
no-fault system was California.
And that's where the phraseirreconcilable differences comes
from, meaning I don't have toshow that somebody committed
adultery or that somebody wasabusive or cruel or whatever.
I just have to show that wehave irreconcilable differences.
(05:48):
And Ronald Reagan, theconservative lion himself, was
the governor at the time andsigned that into law.
Now there is some argument Iread papers on this before that
if you had the right kind ofjudges right meaning
subjectively the judges thatwould come up with this outcome.
If they look at the wordirreconcilable and try to define
(06:11):
that, what does that actuallymean?
Like, what is an irreconcilabledifference?
And the way the courts havetreated it since, you know, the
60s when this came into being,since Reagan was governor has
been to just make it very easyto get a divorce.
All you have to do is say, well, I want a divorce, and then you
get a divorce.
I have irreconcilabledifferences and you don't have
to really prove that they'reactually irreconcilable.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
And only one side has to say that.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
And only one side has to say it and the judge is fine
with it.
And I've had cases in my careerwhere attorneys some attorney
has attempted to oppose theground for divorce of a
reconcilable difference and say,well, actually our differences
are quite reconcilable and weshould just go to court and I'd
like to have the court orderthat we go to therapy and
(06:59):
counseling and stuff, and then Ithink it would save our
marriage.
And you know, if you had judgesthat kind, judges that kind of
interpreted in a more strictsense of what irreconcilable
means, it might actually beharder to get divorced in
California than it was before.
Because what doesirreconcilable really mean?
But that's kind of academic.
What has happened is because ofthe way it's interpreted and, I
(07:19):
think, the way it was intendedto be.
Sean, can I?
It's hard, it's easy to getdivorced now Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
I want to ask a question about what I think of
as the two most significantdevelopments, if you will, in
terms of the legal process ofdivorce.
Was the adoption of no-faultlegislation as well as community
property, the notion ofcommunity property, and I'm
curious if those developed, ifyou will, on a similar timeline,
(07:47):
did one lean to the other oranything like that.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
No, community property is actually an old
concept and California hadcommunity property for a long
time.
But how community property gotcreated has become much more
liberal now than it was when theconcept was first discussed.
But but basically the idea incalifornia, in any community
property state, is anything thatI create during the marriage by
(08:11):
the sweat of my brow iscommunity property and to share
equally, and the way it has beenapplied has been a way to
really to protect, uh, women,the idea being that you know,
you, the traditional situationwhere you have a man earning all
the money and the woman who'sworking in the home and if
there's a divorce and shedoesn't, or even a death, she
(08:33):
doesn't own half of thecommunity property.
That that's a great injusticeto her.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Was that in place before the adoption?
Of no fault it was.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
It was.
But what no fault did to kindof take it a step further was
okay, we don't have to.
You know, there's nothing badthat's going to happen to you
because you're a bad boy or girlas far as your community
property rights are concerned.
So I mean, the fear was that,you know, a woman would want to
leave the marriage and thehusband said well, you're
(09:04):
abandoning me, You're leavingthe marriage, you're a bad
person, so therefore you shouldnot get community property, and
that's not the law.
The law now is that we don'tlook at fault, we don't think
about whose fault it is that wegot divorced, and so therefore,
community property is going tobe split equally, no matter what
.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
How does equitable division states play into this?
Speaker 1 (09:29):
So some of them still have fault.
And what's interesting is youhave some states that have
there's no state anymore thatdoes not have a no fault option,
and then you have some stateswhere you have both.
You could do a no fault option,you could say it's a
reconcilable differences andthat doesn't really impact the
marital distribution of themarital estate.
Or you can show fault and thenthat would show you know that
(09:54):
would have an impact, therewould be an inequitable
distribution of the maritalassets, and so in those states
you typically have fault assomething that's possible and
and, and there's 33 of the 50states have both options, um,
and there are 17 states thathave no fault as the only option
, california being one of them.
(10:17):
Um, it's interesting, um, andI've actually known people in
different states that you know,they, they, they, no fault was
originally pled as the groundfor divorce, but then one of the
attorneys decides to threatenthe other one by saying well,
I'm going to introduce a motionabout fault because you were
abusive and that means she'sgoing to get more of the money.
(10:37):
But you know, whether you callit community property or just
marital estate or you know theseother terms, the concept is
similar and that is that we havemoney that we accumulated
during the marriage, thismarital property, and there
needs to be some kind of anequitable distribution.
(10:58):
Some states have spousal support, some don't, but, but you know,
the states that don't havespouse support will have some
kind of a way to provide for aspouse who is a lower earner in
the form of an unequaldistribution of the marital
estate.
But yeah, every state'sdifferent.
(11:20):
I mean, that's one thing youhave to remember.
In the United States, eachstate has the right to set their
own rules.
Now, interestingly, we havesome states in the 90s there's
three of them Louisiana, arizonaand Arkansas that adopted this
thing called a covenant marriage, and the idea there was that we
want to give people theopportunity to have a marriage
(11:42):
that's harder to break.
We're going to call it acovenant marriage.
You check a box and maybe youhave to take some extra classes
or some extra counseling beforeyou enter into this marriage,
and then it's going to be harder.
You have to show a highershowing than just irreconcilable
differences in order to be ableto break that marriage.
There's strict exceptions toallow for divorce and there
(12:02):
would be strict counselingrequirements to allow for
divorce.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Do you know, sean, whether, if the couple agreed
that there were irreconcilabledifferences, they didn't have to
jump through those hoops?
Or is it just one party thatwould have to claim that?
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Well, it depends on what box they checked on their
marriage license.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
But even if they checked it, but, now they yeah
if they checked the box.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
From what I understand and I'm not going to
hold myself out as a completeexpert on this, but from what I
understand they check thecovenant marriage box and they
have a covenant marriage quote,unquote, gotcha.
Then they irreconcilabledifferences.
Is not one of the grounds thatyou have to show some kind?
Speaker 2 (12:39):
of, so you can't change your mind later and say,
never mind, correct, got it.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Okay.
Change your mind later and say,never mind.
Correct, got it okay and theidea being this enables you to
have some choice in what kind ofmarriage you're entering into.
That it's gonna be.
You know I want to have amarriage that's harder to break.
You know that's the concept.
You know you can, and you canargue whether that's smart or
not.
So what's interesting?
is recently in the last coupleof years there's been some push
in conservative quarters JDVance, ben Carson, some of those
(13:11):
folks have come out calling forreform of no-fault divorce laws
, saying it's too easy to getdivorced.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
And I think, if I'm remembering correctly, the idea
has been floated, I think, by JDVance, in terms of a federal
action, correct, on a federallevel, I wonder.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Yeah, and that I'm not entirely sure about and I
don't know that the federalgovernment would even have the
right, would even have thestanding to Constitutionally.
That's definitely a federalistconcept of the states being able
to regulate marriage.
And they would say you know,but hang on, we've got decisions
(13:51):
, federal decisions in thecourts, that regulate marriage,
like the Obergefell decision, sowhy not have some kind of
federal regulation?
There is an interstate need tohave federal regulation.
Now you can imagine, theNational Organization for Women
is vehemently opposed to doinganything that would reduce
(14:12):
no-fault divorce and there'svarious arguments.
So I just kind of wanted, aswe're talking here, I kind of
wanted to get perspective ofeach of you and I'll provide the
legal perspective.
But you know, when you'relooking at no fault versus fault
based divorce, you know whatwould be the perspective of a
therapist on this question.
What would be the perspectivefor the financial implications?
(14:35):
You know what does this I mean.
Number one is there anything tothe argument?
Do you think that no-faultdivorce has actually increased
the rate of divorce?
Speaker 3 (14:55):
I don't think so.
Well, actually I want to say itthis way it may, but I don't
think that's the issue.
I don't think that makingdivorce more difficult leads to
healthier marriages, and that,to me, is really the question,
and what I wish you know thesystem, if you will, was
(15:18):
thinking about is so what arethe things that can be done to
help couples do the kind of workand to incentivize couples
doing the kind of work that isgoing to allow them to have
healthier relationships, that'sgoing to allow them to more
fully really understand whythey're struggling with what
they're struggling with and whatcould be done about it, and
(15:39):
that ultimately requires thatboth partners be motivated to do
the work.
And I say this to people all thetime when they're contacting me
for couples therapy.
I tell them that I believethere are really healthy and
appropriate reasons for couplesto end a marriage and to end
their marriage in a healthy andcollaborative way.
(16:00):
But I also believe that mostdivorces happen way before the
partners have done the kind ofwork necessary to understand why
they're struggling and what thepotential for positive change
is between them, and I thinkthat divorce that happens in
advance of that work,prematurely.
I think that's tragic for awhole host of reasons,
(16:23):
especially when children areinvolved.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Now I've said that I have seen that I've had people
come in and they tell me whattheir reasons are for getting
divorced.
It's not relevant as far as thecourt's concerned, but it's an
interesting conversation andit's happened a lot where I'm
like you know, the issues thatyou're describing sound like
they're imminently fixable, andwouldn't you want to meet with a
therapist or a counselor orsomething Right?
(16:46):
And so I think, when thatdoesn't happen.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
I think that's really unfortunate and sad for a whole
host of reasons, for all thestakeholders.
But I don't believe that makingdivorce harder, having it be
fault-based, incentivizes peopleto do the work I mean that is,
you know, my anecdotal gut feel,based on 30 plus years of doing
(17:14):
this work.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
The thought that jumps into my head is, you know,
perhaps a requirement to do alittle more work before people
decide to tie the knot Beforegetting married in the first
place?
Yes, Thinking about, you know,doing this counseling before and
understanding what is involved,especially for younger people
(17:36):
who have perhaps not been in.
We see a lot of divorces fromfolks who are in their 30s and
40s who, perhaps you know,married in their 20s and have
become different persons overthe 10 or 20 year period and you
wonder if they could havebenefited for some sort of
(17:58):
therapy or counseling prior toentering into the marriage or
counseling prior to enteringinto the marriage.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
You know I absolutely agree, mark, and you know one
of the things that I think isoften said we were talking about
it as we were prepping for thisthat it is sad that it's much
harder to get a driver's licensethan it is a marriage license,
which is not to say that gettinga marriage license should be
(18:25):
hard, but let me say it this wayMarriage, I think, is one of
the most important humaninstitution, and the preparation
and the responsibility and thestewardship that's required in
order to have a healthy marriageis something that people should
(18:46):
be not just exposed to buttrained in prior to getting
married.
When couples are struggling, howdo you incentivize and
(19:06):
encourage them to to to do thework necessary to see whether or
not healthy changes can be made?
That that's where I wish thefocus were, and I don't think
getting away with no fault, noslop, no fault provisions,
removing them and going back toa fault-based system is not
going to accomplish that.
I think it's just actuallygoing to increase the pain that
(19:27):
people experience in an unhappymarriage.
That would be my fear.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Well, what specifically would happen?
Do you think I mean?
What would increase the painthat people feel as a result of
a fault-based system?
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Well, it's interesting that I think that a
fault-based system incentivizesconflict.
It incentivizes polarity, right.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
And blame Peter.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Absolutely, absolutely.
It's your fault.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
It's your fault, this divorce?
No, it's not, it's your fault.
And that puts people furtherapart and less likely to be
willing to compromise to resolvethe dispute.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
I think this is a general statement, but most
people going into a divorceprocess on some level there
already is this tremendousmistrust that the other person
does not have their interests,their best interests, at heart.
Going to a fault-based systemis going to amplify that.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
I want to be careful.
I do think there is a bit of afalse binary that some people
I'm not saying you, pete, I'mjust saying that some people
have when they analyze thisquestion, and that is it's
either fault or it's no fault,right.
But you know, like we mentionedbefore, 33 states have both,
and so it's not an either or itcan be a mix.
(20:57):
I do get concerned, though,when I think about what would
happen if there was a statewhere no fault was abolished,
right, like it wasn't even anoption, right.
I think there's all kinds ofproblems with that.
Well one is is like how do youdetermine who really is at fault
, like when you deal with arelationship.
(21:18):
Okay, he had an affair, whosefault was that?
Okay, he had an affair, whosefault was that?
And, and I mean you might, thesimplistic answer would be well,
the guy that had the affair.
It's his fault, but whatdynamic in the marriage led to
him having an affair?
Or the woman having an affair?
It's not just I'm not trying tomake this gender bias it could
(21:39):
be the woman had an affair too.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
I do a lot of work with couples where infidelity is
the issue that gets them intotherapy and what I talk to them
about is that all couplesco-create a relationship, which
is, you know, it's not aboutascribing percentages of blame,
but it is about both partnersrealizing that they have
(22:02):
co-created something.
They've co-created this verybig picture and an affair is
part of that picture, andunderstanding that in the
context of the bigger pictureand what was working or not
working for both partners.
That's part of the work part ofthe work.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
So the question becomes are the courts in a
position to be able to examinethat big picture and ascribe
fault?
I would doubt.
I mean, we know judges and weknow how overburdened they feel.
In a no fault system, how wouldit be where, basically, I would
imagine a lot, much higherpercentage would actually go to
(22:49):
trial?
Because if I'm accused of faultand I feel that the end of the
marriage was not purely as aresult of my behavior, but but
that the other my spouse had arole in it too, aren't I going
to accuse?
Just, I mean you accusesomebody of something.
(23:11):
They often come right back atyou and accuse you of something,
so it's going to polarizepeople, which, from a financial
standpoint, is not going to makedivorce cheaper, it's not going
to make divorce quicker andit's probably not going to help
with co-parenting of childrenpost-divorce.
If the process creates moreanimosity than it already does,
(23:35):
which can be significant and ano fault.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I mean the reason you have a legal remedy.
So like, if I go up to you onthe street, mark, and I punch
you in the face, there is alegal remedy for that Right.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I battered you, unless it was my fault in the
first place because I upset youand my behavior was so
outrageous that a punch in theface was the only thing that
rectified it.
Well, that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
I'm sorry, I'm being facetious, but that's the
problem with, you know,ascribing fault in divorce,
right, but I mean there's alegal remedy that's clearly
defined.
I walk up to you, I punch you.
You've now been hurt, you'vebeen assaulted and battered,
probably because you saw mecoming to punch you and you
would have a legal remedyagainst me for a intentional
tort.
But in family law, you know,with no fault, I think the
(24:27):
effect that's happened is youhave some people that feel very
wronged.
There's some that would arguethat the emotional toll is as
damaging as if somebody wouldhave hit them in the face, and
so these folks are looking for aremedy in the law.
And unfortunately, when youhave no fault, a pure no fault
(24:48):
system, there is no remedy forbad behavior, and so and
sometimes you feel perhaps thereshould be, and sometimes you
feel like there ought to be youknow, I've had those cases where
you're like geez that guy was ajerk or that woman was awful.
Cases where you're like, geez,that guy was a jerk or that
woman was awful, you know, but I, you know, I don't know how I
(25:10):
come back to.
Well, how does the court assignthe liability for just being a
jerk or just being?
Now there is something you knowwe're noticing in the DV
statutes with domestic violence,that fault is being introduced
back into marital negotiationsas a way to have a financial
(25:30):
impact and also an impact oncustody.
So if I, if I'm married to awoman and I abuse her and she
gets a domestic violencerestraining order, the history
of domestic violence and abusein the marriage can be a factor
in making me pay more alimony,or maybe it means she doesn't
(25:51):
have to pay me alimony.
The other thing is that itbecomes, at least in the state
of California, if you're foundto have committed domestic
violence, there is a presumptionthat you are not the good
parent for the kids to be with.
That's a rebuttable presumption, but it's a presumption
nonetheless and it has an impact.
And so fault has kind ofcreeped in through the domestic
(26:12):
violence statutes.
And what's interesting is, inCalifornia as well, we've
changed the definition, we'veexpanded the definition of what
it means to commit domesticviolence.
Before it used to be, there hadto be some kind of physical
thing that happened.
I hit you, you hit me, I keptyou from leaving the house, I
stole your phone, you know I didsomething to you.
That's physical, that we canshow.
(26:33):
And now we have expanded thatto include concepts of, you know
, emotional abuse, like coercivecontrol and other forms of
emotional abuse.
And I do find that it's makingit harder for the judges to be
able to navigate just outcomes.
(26:54):
You know, how do I know?
How do we prove that somebodywas emotionally abused?
Not to say that people aren't.
I think people absolutely areemotionally abused, but a lot of
times you have people thataren't really emotionally abused
and this lately I've noticedthere's been an environment
where everything's abuse.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
I think back to what you said before, Sean, where you
talked about that in a faultsituation, where you talked
about that in a fault situation,there may be an issue with
co-parenting, for you knowsomebody who's been, for example
, a result of domestic violence.
There's only two remedies thatthe courts have.
(27:34):
One is restricting access tothe children and two is
financial, and we often seepeople coming into divorce
totally financially motivatedcan I can I add there's one, one
other remedy and and that is amandated treatment.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
Yeah, for the perpetrator got you and for the
family in the dv situation?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
yeah, yeah, understood, but, jen, but often,
you know, I meet with peoplesometimes just talking to one
side and it's all financial.
The only thing they're talkingabout is how they can either pay
less or receive more fault thatbeing abused to those ends.
(28:26):
In other words, people willlook for things to prove fault
for financial reasons, notnecessarily because the fault
during the marriage caused harm.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Well, and unfortunately we're seeing it in
some of our domestic violencestatutes, or at least the
application of it.
Again, I don't want to speakill of people that actually have
abuse, but I have seen caseswhere people have attorneys are
saying oh yeah, you just need tofile for domestic violence, say
, emotionally abused you, andthen that'll help you get more
support, whether it's happeningor not.
(28:57):
You know, and it's a tactic.
Or you know, get a domesticviolence restraining order and
then that'll give you anadvantage in custody.
So just just make something up,just make it happen.
You know he surely he calledyou a bad name sometime.
That must have been abuse, youknow, and and I I think number
one those people that do thatare doing a great disservice to
the actual victims that are outthere that really do need
(29:19):
protection.
Number one and number two um,it's, it's.
It makes things fine trying tofind the words.
It's just it's making it messyto a point where it's hard to
know what's real and what isn't.
And I think for the people thatare actual victims, what we
really need to know is what isreal here so that we can protect
(29:41):
people, and I think what'shappening is actual victims
aren't being believed becausethere are bad actors out there
that are using this as apretense.
I'm probably going to getletters now.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's Sean Weber
talking.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
But this is.
It feels to me like it makesthings more challenging, which
may be the purpose of themovement to create it and to
keep people in marriages, nomatter what.
And I know it'll make our workmore challenging.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
That's the part, and maybe this has been part of the
people that are advocating forthe doing away with no-fault
divorce.
Maybe this has been part oftheir position, but I haven't
heard it.
The thing that is missing, asfar as I can tell from that
(30:46):
argument, is them talking aboutwhy they believe doing that is
going to create healthiermarriages.
People staying together is notthe same thing as creating
healthier marriages, and that,to me, should be the goal and
the objective.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
I think that's a really valid point.
And also you know when you lookat what's good for children and
what's bad for children.
You know I'm as big of a familyvalues guy as anybody, right,
but I have five kids of my ownand been married for almost 30
years.
But you know, I don'tnecessarily think that divorce
(31:23):
is what hurts kids, right?
What hurts kids and this is Imean we know this from the
research what hurts kids is, um,the conflict, and and when
children are are exposed toconflict, we know that's harmful
to them, and so is locking themin a marriage that is filled
(31:46):
with conflict really better forchildren?
Speaker 2 (31:49):
Or creating the environment in which you have to
accuse somebody and so increaseconflict.
Is that going to help Right?
Speaker 1 (32:00):
right.
So now I know that I'm going toget an advantage if I can show
that this other person was bad.
Yes, and so, therefore, I'mgoing to create a pretense.
Or I'm going to create, or it'sjust I'm going to the
temptation I'm going to put thefocus on.
I'm going to put the focus onthe negative is what it does
when maybe I would have beenable to leave it be yeah, but
now that it has something to dowith my finances and I know a
(32:22):
lot of this comes from Christiancircles, and I don't mean, you
know, christians are not all thesame, that's for sure.
There's different varieties ofChristians, as various as the
sands of the ocean.
To what extent is it moreChrist-like to want to blame
someone or to want to find fault?
Speaker 2 (32:54):
How is that necessarily Christian professor?
I would say basically it's OldTestament more than what I
understand to be New Testamentinterpretation of the Word of
God right.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Well, I think of the story of Jesus with the woman
taken in adultery and who'sgoing to cast the first stone?
You know, to stone her to death.
And there was no one.
That was without fault of theirown, yeah, yeah.
And the teaching there was it'sreally not up for us to find
fault in one another.
(33:31):
The teaching is to leave thatto God and to basically just
simply love one anotherunconditionally.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
And forgive.
And to forgive just simply loveone another unconditionally and
forgive and to forgive, and,and if we think about successful
divorces that we have done, Imean, it's often aspirational
and we don't get there, but whenyou see forgiveness occur, you
know it.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
It's a powerful thing and this would decrease it so
if, if I can circle back, Ithink that there are two parts
of this that we as a societyshould be looking at, and that
is what is it that we can do toencourage people and support
couples to have healthymarriages, and what is it that
(34:17):
we can do to encourage peopleand support people to have
healthy divorces when they,together, for the right reasons,
have decided that that's whatthey need to do?
Speaker 1 (34:32):
I think that's an excellent point.
And just from a policystandpoint, I often wonder, like
, why is the state involved inour marriages anyway?
But that's a whole otherconversation.
Yeah, you know, but but maybelet's let me take care of my
relationship and we'll leave thestate out of it.
Thank you very much.
Well, this has been a verythought-provoking discussion,
(35:00):
gentlemen.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Yeah, and I'd hate for this to be the final answer
on the topic, like Well, thishas been a very
thought-provoking discussion.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Gentlemen, yeah, and I'd hate for this to be the
final answer on the topic.
If folks have comments on this,please share them with us,
because we're learning together,and I would want to say that my
views on the subject would besomething that would be movable,
based on evidence and based onthoughtful discussion.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
Well, we've done this again.
Yeah, people actually listenedthis time too.
Can you believe that?
Speaker 1 (35:32):
No, and we know you're out there.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
That was always my aspiration that people would
listen to this.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
We know you're out there.
We appreciate you.
We do Thank you.
We look forward to having moreconversations as, sean, you're
out there.
We appreciate you.
We do Thank you.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
We look forward to having more conversations and
love, as Sean just said, love tohave your comments.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Yeah, love to hear from you Like us, please.
All right, very good, well,let's do it again next time.
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the Three Wisemen of
Divorce Money, psych and Law.
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe, leave us a
(36:07):
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
positive, bright future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
(36:35):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com