No Fault Divorce and the Divorce Rate: the Nebraska Experience—An Interrupted Time Series Analysis and Commentary Alan H
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nebraska Law Review Volume 58 | Issue 1 Article 2 1978 No Fault Divorce and the Divorce Rate: The Nebraska Experience—An Interrupted Time Series Analysis and Commentary Alan H. Frank University of Nebraska College of Law John J. Berman University of Nebraska Stanley F. Mazur-Hart Saginaw Valley State College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Alan H. Frank, John J. Berman, and Stanley F. Mazur-Hart, No Fault Divorce and the Divorce Rate: The Nebraska Experience—An Interrupted Time Series Analysis and Commentary, 58 Neb. L. Rev. 1 (1979) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol58/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. By Alan H. Frank,* John J. Berman** Stanley F. Mazur-Hart*** No Fault Divorce and the Divorce Rate: The Nebraska Experience- An Interrupted Time Series Analysis and Commentary ARTICLE OUTLINE L INTRODUCTION I. THE DIVORCE RATE IEL AN INTERRUPTED TIME SERIES ANALYSIS OF NEBRASKA DIVORCES A. Subgroups B. Method C. Time Series Analysis D. Results IV. PRIOR RESEARCH V. WHY MARRIAGES ARE BREAKING UP VI. THE LAW OF DIVORCE-THEN AND NOW A. "What therefore God has put together, let not man put asunder." B. "A Divorce... must be grounded on a legal fault within the grounds enu- merated in the statutes .... It is not for this court to do what it deems best for the parties." C. "Legislative divorce policy of an era before Nebraska became a state... may not reflect her modem mood." D. "Dissolution of marriage shall mean the termination of a marriage by decree of a court of competent jurisdiction upon a finding that the marriage is irre- trievably broken." 1. Does the IrretrievableBreakdown StandardReduce the Animos- ity of Divorce? 2. How Closely Are MarriagesScrutinized in Order to Determine Whether They Are IrretrievablyBroken? 3. Does No Fault Divorce Permit Divorce by Consent? 4. Does No Fault Divorce Permit Divorce upon Unilateral De- mand? 5. Are More Objective Standards for Irretrievable Breakdown Needed? • Associate Professor of Law, University of Nebraska. A.B. 1966, Duke University; J.D. 1971, University of Wisconsin. •* Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska. BA. 1968, Xavier University; M.S. 1970, Ph.D. 1972, Northwestern University. •** Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Saginaw Valley State College. BA 1967, San Luis Rey College; MA. 1971, San Jose State College; Ph.D. 1976, University of Nebraska. NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 58:1 E. "No decree shall be entered. unless the court finds that every reasonable effort to effect reconciliation has been made." 1. Waiting Periods 2. Reconciliation Attempts F. "It is the intent of the legislature that a spouse who has been handicapped socially or economically by his or her contribution to a marriage shall be compensated for such contribution at the termination of the marriage .... VII. CONCLUSION Purpose (1) It is the intent of the legislature to emphasize the present and future needs of the parties to actions affecting marriage and of their children, if any; to move away from as- signing blame for a marriage failure; and to promote the set- tlement of financial and custodial issues in a way which will meet the real needs of all concerned persons as nearly as pos- sible. (4) This act is not intended to make a divorce, annulment or legal separation easier to obtain. -1977 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 1001 I. INTRODUCTION With the addition of Wisconsin in February, 1978, there are now seventeen American jurisdictions 2 that permit a marriage to be dissolved exclusively because the marriage has become irretriev- ably broken,3 because irreconcilable differences have caused the irremedial breakdown of the marriage,4 or because the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.5 Fifteen states have added similar "no fault" grounds to pre-existing other 6 fault bases for divorce. 1. Act of Oct. 15, 1977, ch. 105, § 1, 1977 Wis. Laws 560. 2. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25-312(3) (Supp. 1977); CAL. CrV. CODE § 4506 (West 1970) (incurable insanity is a second ground); COLO. REV. STAT. § 14-10- 106(1) (a) (1) (1973); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, § 1505 (Supp. 1977) (a period of separation must be shown to prove breakdown); FLA. STAT. ANN. § 61.052(1) (West Supp. 1978) (mental incompetence is a second ground); IOWA CODE ANN. § 598.17 (West Supp. 1978); Ky. REV. STAT. ANN. § 403.140(1) (c) (Baldwin 1973); MICH. Comp. LAws ANN. § 552.6(1) (Supp. 1978); MINN. STAT. ANN. § 518.06 (West Supp. 1978) (breakdown is proven by showing the existence of more traditional grounds); Mo. ANN. STAT. § 452.305 (Vernon 1977) &Mo. ANN. STAT. § 452.320 (Vernon Supp. 1978) (if contested, breakdown can be found only by showing the respondent to be at fault or that the parties lived apart for a prescribed period); MONT. REV. CODES ANN. § 48-316(1) (b) (Cum. Supp. 1977); NEB. REV. STAT. § 42-347(1) (Reissue 1974); OI. REV. STAT. § 107.025(1) (1977); V. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 104 (Supp. 1977); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 26.09.030 (Supp. 1977); Wis. STAT. ANN. § 247.07(2) (West Supp. 1978); WYo. STAT. § 20-2-104 (Interim Supp. 1977) (incurable insanity is a second ground). See also UNIFORM MARRIAGE AND DiVORCE ACT § 302. 3. E.g., NEB. REV. STAT. § 42-347(l) (Reissue 1974). 4. E.g., CAI. Civ. CODE § 4506 (West 1970). 5. E.g., IOWA CODE ANN. § 598.17 (West Supp. 1978). 6. AI.A. CODE tit. 34, § 20(a) (9) (Supp. 1973); CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 46-32(c) (West 1978); GA. CODE ANN. § 30-102(13) (Supp. 1978); HAw. REV. STAT. § 580- 19781 NO FAULT DIVORCE When, in 1972, the Nebraska Legislature passed L.B. 820, "an act ' 7 ... to provide procedures for the dissolution of marriage, Ne- braska became one of the first states to adopt an exclusively no fault divorce proceeding.8 Previously a divorce was ostensibly available only to a party who could prove that his or her spouse had committed acts ranging from adultery to extreme mental cru- elty,9 provided that the complaining spouse had not himself or her- 41 (1976); IDAHo CODE § 32-616 (Supp. 1978); IND. CODE ANN. § 31-1-11.5-3 (Supp. 1978); ME. REV. STAr.tit. 19, § 691 (Supp. 1977); MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 208, § 1 (West Supp. 1978); Miss. CODE ANN. § 93-5-2 (Supp. 1977); N. REv. STAT. ANN.§ 458:7-a (Supp. 1977); ND. CENT. CODE § 14-05-09.1 (1971); Omo REV. CODE ANN.§§ 3105.61 to .65 (Page Supp. 1977); R.L GEN. LAWS § 15- 5-3.1 (Supp. 1977); TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-801(11) (Supp. 1978); TEXAS FAm. CODE ANN.§ 3.01 (Vernon 1975). 7. Act of April 8, 1972, LB. 820, 1972 Neb. Laws 246 (effective July 6, 1972) (codi- fied at NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 42-347 to 379 (Reissue 1974)). 8. The first was California in 1969. The law became operative on January 1,1970. Family Law Act, ch. 1608, § 8,1969 Cal. Stats. 3314 (codified at CAL. Civ. CODE §§ 4000-5138 (West 1970)). 9. Divorce; grounds. A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the district court of the county where the parties, or one of them, reside, on application by the petition of the aggrieved party, (1) when adultery has been committed by any husband or wife; (2) when one of the parties was physically incompetent at the time of the marriage; (3) when one of the parties has been sentenced to im- prisonment in any prison, jail or house of correction for three years or more; and no pardon granted, after a divorce for that cause, shall restore such party to his or her conjugal rights; (4) when either party shall willfully abandon the other without just cause for the term of two years; (5) when the husband or wife shall have become an habit- ual drunkard, (6) when either party shall be sentenced to imprison- ment for life, and no pardon shall affect a decree of divorce for that cause rendered, or (7) when one of the parties is incurably insane and has been legally confined in a hospital or asylum for the insane for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition for divorce, and this ground shall be avail- able where the insanity existed wholly or partially before the pas- sage of this act as well as where it accrues entirely subsequent thereto. Act of April 12, 1945, ch. 101, § 1, 1945 Neb. Laws 329 (most recently codified at NEB. REV. STAT. § 42-301 (Reissue 1968)) (repealed 1972). Divorce; grounds, extreme cruelty. A divorce from the bonds of mat- rimony, or from bed and board, may be decreed for the cause of ex- treme cruelty, whether practiced by using personal violence, or by other means; or for utter desertion of either party for the term of two years. A like divorce may be decreed, on complaint of the wife, when the husband, being of sufficient ability to provide suitable mainte- nance for her, shall grossly or wantonly and cruelly refuse or neglect so to do. Act of Jan. 26, 1856, ch. 52, § 7, 1856 Neb. Laws 277 (most recently codified at NEB. REV. STAT. § 42-302 (Reissue 1968)) (repealed 1972). The previous law was not entirely fault based.