Letter to the Editor: No-fault

It has been reported that Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, has publicly declared no-fault divorce should be legislated out of existence; that the election of marriage, once established, should remain throughout a lifetime. One presumes that this will require legislative action to reintroduce “cause” for the granting of a divorce.

We don’t call it divorce any longer but “dissolution of marriage,” and it can be done without legal counsel which many, including those of us in the legal profession, find disturbing. It was a significant loss of income for those of us who practice in the area of family law

Having given up family law a number of years ago though, I do still care about others in the legal profession who practice in that area including in what use to be called “divorce” and consequently am in full support of getting rid of this pro se practice of dissolution of marriage and creating business opportunities for my legal brethren.

I do remember fondly the lurid details of divorce court where you had to prove your spouse unfaithful. One could even sue the third party involved in the transgression and receive money damages. It was called alienation of affection. Boy, those were the days. Trials could take days with private investigators, neighbors, and snitches. It would not only be beneficial to the legal profession but the profession of private investigation as well. The money was great; it made good press and the whole town had something to talk and giggle about.

A good divorce lawyer could get a slough of disgruntled, married men and women with an unquenchable new love interest that had to be nurtured and allowed to bloom. And where there is love, there is money to be made; let me tell you, especially where there are kids involved. Nothing like a weeklong trial proving infidelity where there are kids. Presumably the theory will be that it is in the best interest of the children to maintain the marriage even if the parents hate each other and both want the divorce. The kids might even get a chance to testify before the matter is decided; give them a chance to see how a courtroom operates — an educational opportunity.

So, even though it is strictly a matter of self-interest, I’ll have to come down in support of any proposal Vance may make or otherwise promote that would bring back the contested divorce trial. And as I stated above, it will be fun for everyone — hey folks, guess who so-n’-so was doin’! Isn’t that a kill!

Richard E. H. Phelps

Mingo