Does Adultery still Matter? 5 Reasons Why it Does.

Besides the obvious issues that adultery presents for a marriage, does it still matter in a divorce?

As a divorce attorney and mediator, I often see divorce cases where one party or the other has moved on and begun an affair. As suggested by fellow attorney, Gabriel Cheong, on his blog on this issue, I don't think this is as often the cause of divorce as it is a sign that the marriage was already over. So does adultery matter in a divorce case?

Regardless of whether adultery is a cause of the divorce or just the nail in the coffin, it can still have a major effect on how the divorce case proceeds in 5 different ways:

1. THE FIRST IMPRESSION: Adultery is still at base an emotionally charged issue. Most people's first reaction to hearing of one party cheating on the other, is to side with the "victim." This feeling is based on our own immediate reaction to the thought of being cheated on ourselves. This impression is not based on all the facts, and is an emotional, not rational, reaction. But because first impressions matter, adultery can have an impact on how a case begins which can often set the tone. It can sometimes be difficult to overcome this first impression and focus on how to move a case forward.

2. THE MORAL IMPACT - APPORTIONING FAULT: Adultery is still considered morally abhorrent conduct, even if it somewhat common. Therefore, discovery of adultery is often the moment when a party accepts that their marriage is irreparable. In addition, conduct is one of the factors in M.G.L. c. 208 s 34, the statute which directs the court in how to divide property and/or award spousal support. However, it is important to note that "conduct" is not necessarily weighed as heavily as the other factors and may not result in any major impact on the division of assets or award of support. Adultery is also still available as a cause for filing a Fault-based divorce. However, filing a case under the adultery statute is usually more trouble than its worth given the availability (and lower cost/ease of use) of the No-Fault grounds.

3. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT: While the conduct factor itself may not be weighed heavily in today's courts, any finances misdirected for use in an affair could directly affect the division of property. In fact, any funds spent directly on an affair (such as funds used for gifts, vacations, hotels, etc.) should arguably be replaced, or credited against the offender's share of the assets.

4. THE CRIME: That's right. Adultery in Massachusetts is still a crime. M.G.L. c. 272 s. 14 prohibits adultery and provides for both jail time and/or a $500 fine. Although a case hasn't been prosecuted since 1983 (Commonwealth v. Stowell) the statute is still in effect. This has certain unintended consequences, such as being able to use the 5th Amendment in a deposition if asked about the affair (i.e. invoking your right not to incriminate yourself in a crime). In most cases, the criminal aspect has a minimal impact on how the divorce proceeds.

5. THE DELAY: The biggest impact adultery has on a divorce case is usually the delay it causes in resolving the case because of the impact the affair has on the "victimized" spouse. The specific facts of the affair can have a major impact on how upset the other spouse is, as described in this recent NY Times Article about Adultery in the Martial Bed. The only way to avoid a trial in a divorce case is when both parties are ready to settle, and the hurt and anger that an affair causes can prevent the affected spouse from being ready to settle.

It's a Mad, Mad World: Uncomfortable Praise for the Evolution of Divorce Law in the United States

Mad Men Season 3 Episode Photos
Mad Men Season 3 Episode Photos Photo Gallery
Don Draper (Jon Hamm) in Episode 13

One of television's most popular shows, Mad Men (season five premieres on March 25 on AMC), is set in the early to mid 1960s New York, and features the troubled marriage and eventual divorce of two of its main characters. The show has earned praise for its efforts to remain historically accurate, and as such, gives divorce practitioners a chance to view the dissolution of a marriage as if it were in a time capsule.

The show's main character, Don Draper, is a professionally successful advertising executive with a lifestyle which includes a serious drinking problem and many extra-marital affairs. His wife, Betty, had been a model, but stopped working to care for their children after their oldest was born. After discovering one of Don's affairs, and finding out that he was actually living under someone else's name, and that he had previously been divorced in California, she went to her father's estate attorney to ask about her options regarding a divorce. The following is the dialogue between Betty and the attorney, fictionally set in 1963 (from the season finale of Season 3):

Attorney: "What do you want to do? Do you want a divorce? In New York State you need to prove adultery. Can you?"
Betty: "Maybe."
Attorney: "I mean prove it in a court of law. That's hard to do, unless he wants out, but you're not going to get anything. You won't even be able to buy [your brother] out of [your father's] house, so you'll have to sell it. And, he can take the children. That's my legal advice. You want the rest of it? Are you afraid of him?"
Betty: "No."
Attorney: "Is he a good provider?"
Betty: "Well, he is but that's not the point. It's a lie so big, Milton. I feel like I've been in some dream since I found out. Just saying it out loud to you is ... the first time I'm realizing it's true."
Attorney: "You have three small children together. At least, go home. Give it a try. That's what I'd tell my own daughter."

At the time of this fictional dialogue, No-Fault divorce had not yet become available in most states. New York became the last state to allow for No-Fault divorce in 2010. Massachusetts, by contrast, has had No-Fault divorce for over thirty years.

No-Fault divorce makes proving a wrong, such as adultery, unnecessary in a divorce proceeding. Since No-Fault divorce became common, divorce cases have shifted their focus from what a husband or wife has done wrong to accepting that individuals should have the ability to exit a marriage if they feel that it has irretrievably broken down, and figuring out how to sever some of the ties that bind a couple.

Other than the procedural requirement that something fault-based be proven in court, the two points that the attorney makes that are diametrically opposed to modern divorce law is the idea that Betty would not get anything, and that Don would get the kids. Modern divorce law is designed to (it doesn't always work out this way, but it is designed to) minimize the transition for any children in the midst of a divorce. Judges like to keep children in as stable position as possible. The idea of having three young children taken away from their stay-at-home mother to reside primarily with their father and his long hours and drinking problem, without much evidence that the children would be better off with him than with their mother, is unlikely in a modern divorce. Further, the revolution (and evolution) of alimony, property division, and child support within the context of a modern divorce would make it very unlikely that Betty would be left without many assets or support from Don to continue their upper middle class lifestyle.

Lastly, and this might be more the issue of a Hollywood script than a historically accurate portrayal of how attorneys spoke to potential clients about divorce fifty years ago, it is inappropriate for an attorney to try and convince a potential client to either obtain or refrain from obtaining a divorce. That is a personal decision that should be made only by the individual.

What is considered "fair" is fluid. Views on politics, ethics, gender relations, and many more issues vary over the course of time, and vary among different cultures within the same time. From this divorce practitioner's viewpoint, the modern divorce is generally "fair" given what that term carries in early twenty-first century Massachusetts, at least far more than what it was fifty years ago.

Is No-Fault Divorce a Good Thing? It may soon be the law in all 50 states.

According to a New York Times article, the New York State legislature recently approved legislation that would allow No-Fault divorces in New York. The state of New York is the last state that still requires one spouse to have committed a wrong (or at least to take the blame) for the dissolution of a marriage.

Many, including the Roman Catholic Church, oppose the change because they believe it will raise the divorce rates in New York. Interestingly, the divorce rates in New York, though low compared to all 50 states (ranking 33rd), are still higher than a state like Massachusetts where No-Fault Divorce has been the law for more than thirty years (3.4 per 1000 people per year in New York vs. 2.5 per 1000 people per year in Massachusetts according to StateMaster.com).

If No-Fault divorce doesn't cause a rise in divorce rates, then what is the impact?

According to a New York Times op-ed column, there are potential advantages a. The advantages include an 8-16% reduction in wife's suicide rates and a 30% reduction in domestic violence (according to a University of Pennsylvania report by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers). In addition, the ability of one participant to end the marriage can change the bargaining power in the relationship causing both partners to change how they view the marital relationship. This could cause either party to invest less in the marriage, or could cause both parties to be more attentive to unhappiness in the marriage.

A valuable impact of allowing no-fault divorce, though, can be the ability of more couples to use mediation. Because neither party needs to accept fault, they are more likely to try and work out their differences with a mediator than litigate their case. Increasing the number of mediations could be the single-most positive impact of no-fault divorce, because, as one study found, mediation increases the likelihood of settlement, improved co-parenting relationships between parents, and improved the relationship of non-custodial parents and their children.

Sounds like it's about time New York joined the other 49 states in offering a No-Fault option.

Since we have No-Fault Divorce, how about No-Fault Custody?

A recent Op-ed article in the New York times, entitled No Fault of Their Own, suggests that we should change the way custody decisions are made to minimize litigation and fighting over children. The author notes that custody battles, that leave the issue of what is in "the best interest of the child" to the Judge to decide, often result in trials over who is the "better" parent.

This is a valid point. The damage that these types of battles can cause to children warrants a different approach to family law than to the practice of other types of law. While zealous advocacy for a corporate client whose vendor screwed them on a contract might necessitate a trial or dictate destructive cross-examination, in family law this type of litigious approach hurts children.

I often explain to my clients that it is not constructive when they form their view or their goals in a divorce case with a negative comment about their ex-spouse. I want my clients to tell me what their life looks like in five years, so together we can figure out how to get them to that goal, not what they "deserve" to receive from their ex-spouse. I believe this is the point of no-fault divorce.

Similarly, I like the concept of No-Fault custody. I want my clients to tell me what is best for their children, by telling me about their children's schedules, and activities and friends. Telling me what a bad parent the other person is, doesn't describe what is best for the child. In fact it's simply a waste of time unless that parent is so bad that they are unfit.

The author of the op-ed article concludes that mandatory mediation or amendments to the way child support is calculated could help move the system towards No-Fault custody. I believe that regardless of whether couples mediate, or what the child support is, common-sense is the key to resolving custody battles. 99% of custody disputes can be solved by parents, and attorneys, who are willing to set aside the fight, participating in an open an honest four-way conference (with or without a mediator) about what is actually best for the child with reference to the child's needs and activities and schedule.

I don't know if No-Fault Custody is something the state can legislate due to the need for the law to protect against the truly un-fit parents. But I do know that less children would be harmed by divorce if more attorneys and more parents would practice No-Fault Custody.

For more information about proposed resolutions of co-parenting issues, please read our Custody page and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts brochure: Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart.

And It's All Your Fault! MA "Fault" Based Divorce #2: Desertion

Desertion is one of two "fault"-based grounds for divorce that is used with some regularity in Massachusetts (the other being cruel and abusive treatment). In order to prove desertion, you need to be able to show that your spouse voluntarily left home without justification at least one year prior to filing the complaint for divorce, and has no intention of returning home. The spouse seeking a divorce needs to be able to testify that, during the one year period after his or her spouse left the marital home, there was hope of reconciliation.

Service of the complaint where personal service by a constable is impossible (because the location of the deserting spouse is unknown to the deserted spouse) is accomplished by publishing notice of the divorce case in a newspaper located in the location where the now-missing spouse was last known to reside.

The advantage of pleading "desertion" over a "no fault" divorce is that the act of deserting could warrant an unequal distribution of the assets. If successful, you have convinced a judge that your ex-spouse did not have justification for leaving, but left anyway, and that could result in the Judge awarding you property that they deserted as well.

The disadvantage is that proving desertion is somewhat more complicated than a "no fault" divorce. You must prove the elements of desertion to be divorced on those grounds, and if you fail to prove that the deserting spouse left without good reason, for example, then the Judge could deny your divorce. "No-Fault" divorce is much easier to prove because the evidentiary burden is met when one spouse simply tells the court that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down with no hope of reconciliation.