If there is a contract between two parties but at any time and for any reason, one of the parties can just decide to destroy the contract, what is the point of the contract in the first place? Does the contract have any value whatsoever?
When getting married, both parties stated that they would be with each other until one of them dies. They made their vows in front of their family, friends, and, if they’re religious, God. Shouldn’t this vow be upheld?
On April 6th, 2022, no-fault divorce was introduced in the UK. Due to this, either party can obtain a divorce without needing to prove any kind of fault or wrongdoing, making it much easier, faster, and cheaper to get a divorce. What advocates of no-fault divorce miss is that divorces aren’t meant to be easy, fast, or cheap. Divorces are meant to be ugly.
The huge problem with no-fault divorce is that it will incentivize people to get a divorce rather than work on their marriages. If neither party has done anything terribly wrong, the marriage can always be saved, and it should always be saved. If the couple has children, the dissolution of a marriage has a negative effect on any kids that the couple may have. Even if the couple doesn’t have children, having a divorce has been shown to be a point of regret for many people.
Advocates of no-fault divorce claim that if a person does not want to be in a relationship anymore, they should be allowed to leave it because individual freedom is the most important thing. While pretty much everyone agrees that individual freedom is incredibly important and that people should be able to leave the majority of their relationships, there is a difference when a contract has been signed. If an employer signed a contract with an employee to give them a certain amount of severance pay, due to individual freedom, should the employer be allowed to choose not to pay the employee after firing them? Individual freedom is important until it affects someone else. Commitments should be upheld because breaking that commitment has an effect on the other party. This also holds true for marriage.
The divorce law in the UK before the introduction of no-fault divorce was rather extreme. Before no-fault divorce was introduced couples had to either assign blame to one of the individuals or separate for a period of 5 years before being granted a divorce. This was also the case when both individuals wanted to divorce. While divorce is certainly a terrible option that should be looked down upon, there is no reason why the law should prevent two individuals from undergoing a divorce if both partners agree to it. However, the current no-fault divorce laws means that an individual can cheat on their spouse and still get 50% of the money. There is definitely something completely wrong about that.
An optimal divorce system would be one where a divorce is allowed under either of the following two circumstances: both parties agree to it or one party is to blame. In the scenario where a party is to blame for the irreparable breakdown of the marriage, the other party should get 100% of the assets and the party that is to blame should get none of the assets.
Some people may object to this because physical or emotional abuse can fail to be proven – forcing the victim of the abuse to have to stay with their spouse. While that is certainly a terrible situation, situations where abuse is difficult to prove are incredibly unlikely to occur.
Marriage is a commitment to stick with someone for life and that commitment should only be broken under extreme circumstances such as infidelity and abuse. In cases where a divorce must occur, the individual responsible for the breakdown should bear the full cost and the victim should get all of the assets.