NY may be last in US to approve no-fault divorce

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE: There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

ALSO NOTE: Derisive name-calling of an individual or group will result in the entire comment being deleted. This includes the terms "stupid" and "idiot" and similar references.

Welcome to our new online comments feature. Before you can join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address.

Once you do, your comments will post after they have been reviewed by a moderator.

We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified, at the newspaper’s discretion, for a number of reasons. Here are some typical practices to avoid in trying to get your comment printed:

There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

Don’t state as a fact something that is unsubstantiated or that our editors wouldn't know to be true.

Don’t presume someone’s guilt in a case when it hasn't been established by a court.

Don’t assail or impugn an identifiable individual or group. If you have that kind of criticism, sign your name and submit it as a Letter to the Editor. (There is some leeway on this in connection with public officials, but it is not unconditional.)

Don’t use profanity. This includes the term “tea bagger.”

Don’t be incendiary or tasteless. Those qualities are subjective, of course, and our editors will be the arbiters.

Do not identify yourself in the main content area of the article content form. Only by enforcing this rule can the moderators prevent unscrupulous commenters from falsely identifying themselves as someone they are not.

Don't type in all caps. It is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

In sports articles, do not criticize officiating.

Remember, moderators are not allowed to edit any article comments. If an article comment fails any of the above criteria, the entire comment will be deleted.

We monitor comments Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Approval of comments outside these times may be delayed.

comments powered by Disqus

June 21, 2010

By MICHAEL VIRTANEN Associated Press Mon Jun 21, 2010, 07:11 AM EDT

ALBANY — Julie Chang left her husband after 13 years and two children and filed for divorce, claiming cruelty. New York courts let her out of the marriage seven years later, minus $40,000 and after suffering what she called judge-sanctioned harassment.

"The process of trying to prove fault made an already bad relationship worse," Chang said. "This whole seven-year process was simply about grounds."

While every other state allows what's called no-fault divorce, New York judges under a 1966 law can grant divorce only on grounds of cruelty, adultery, abandonment or getting sent to prison for at least three years. They also can grant a divorce one year after a couple file a separation agreement when both sides consent.

Chang stood last week in support of state senators who pushed for a bill to allow one spouse to unilaterally opt out of marriage after swearing under oath that the relationship has broken down irretrievably for at least six months. Property division, alimony, child custody and support would have to be resolved first.

"The requirement of finding fault is often unfair to children and horrendous for victims of domestic violence trapped in abusive marriages with no way out without the consent of the abuser," said Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Bronx Democrat who sponsored the no-fault bill.

"Women disproportionately are losers under current law," said Sen. Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who had to go to Ohio to get a 1989 no-fault divorce.

But the effort faces an unlikely and decisive battle in the Assembly as this year's legislative session heads toward its conclusion. Advocates for victims of domestic violence find themselves opposed to advocates for women's' rights, creating a bind of powerful progressive forces in the Democratic chamber. Lawmakers, still struggling to pass a budget, are expected to adjourn June 28.

The state chapter of the National Organization for Women, in an unusual union of interests with the Catholic church, argues the bill would make it easier for judges to ignore documented cruelty and also leave more New York women impoverished by making it easier for moneyed husbands to hide assets and end marriages.

"Our concern is primarily for the message that this sends to society, to young people in particular," said Kathleen Gallagher, spokeswoman for the Catholic Conference, which represents the church's New York bishops on public policy. "It says marriage is disposable. It's just like contact lenses and diapers. You can throw it away if it doesn't work for you."

While acknowledging that not every marriage can be permanent, the Catholic conference says the change would hurt families and children.

NOW's state chapter president, Marcia Pappas, said women are disproportionately losers because New York judges tend to have a gender bias. The problem with the no-fault provision is husbands, typically with more money, could opt for that, driving the court process and leaving their wives with little money or legal recourse, she said.

Pappas said to address problems with cruel and inhuman treatment, that provision should be changed to define it better and make sure judges apply that definition in court. Chang alleged emotional and psychological cruelty. At the first divorce trial, the judge dismissed her case.

Divorce hits thousands of families each year. New York recorded 127,056 marriages and 52,619 divorces in 2008, according to the state Health Department's most recent data.

After a 32-29 win in the Democrat-led Senate last week, the bill faces an uncertain future in the Assembly.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said he favors the concept but didn't promise they'll pass it, saying he would talk to members of his Democratic Conference to see how they can get it done. Gov. David Paterson says that although he likes the concept, he's not sure he would sign a bill into law if the Assembly passes it.

In Chang's case, she said there was no money to contest, and after she got full custody of their two sons and an order of protection against her husband, it still took several years and a second trial to get free. She recalled one judge granting her husband's requests for her urine and hair samples for drug tests, a physical, a mental evaluation and examination of her laptop's hard drive.

"There was nothing. I felt completely violated," she said.

Attorney Ellen Schell of The Legal Project, which took Chang's case after she ran out of money, said divorcing spouses already hide their assets and in practice, serving abusive husbands with legal notice specifying the abuse is dangerous. "I call that poking a stick in a hornets' nest," she said.

"All I wanted was out," Chang said.

-----

Associated Press writer Michael Gormley contributed to this report.