216 DIVorCe wItH DeCenCY
but it seems to have had many unanticipated and negative effects
for society in general, and especially for women. The end result is
that, in many respects, divorced women are worse off today than
they were in the past.
The origins of no-fault divorce. This was not the original plan. In
1970 the California legislature introduced no-fault divorce during
a wave of goodwill. Conservatives and liberals alike hailed the
reform as a bulwark to the family and a relief from the adversar-
ial scourge of fault finding into which divorce cases had turned.
(This had generally taken the form of a parade of nasty accusa-
tions in order to up the ante in a settlement.)
Under no-fault, no one was to be found innocent or guilty of
such grounds as cruelty, adultery, or desertion. Irreconcilable dif-
ferences, even if claimed by only one spouse, was now sufficient
cause for divorce.
Sayonara to sexism? In that egalitarian spirit, sexism was to be
removed from property settlements and replaced by a gender-
neutral distribution of marital assets. Alimony, supposedly obvi-
ated by the rise of the “new working woman,” was replaced by
short-term rehabilitative maintenance (two to four years). In fact,
alimony was often dispensed with altogether. Maritally owned
property was to be divided fifty-fifty, rather than according to its
title. Marriage had finally shaken itself free of its ball and chain,
and the sexes were put on equal footing, or so it seemed.
Theory vs. practice. But the theory has fallen short in practice.
“Right across the board, women are not doing well,” states celeb-
rity divorce lawyer Raoul Felder. He cites the loss of alimony (pre-
viously awarded until death or remarriage) as a classic example.
Perhaps the single largest change has been in the custody arena.
Nowadays, the judicial trend nationwide is toward joint custody
awards. After all, we have entered the age of the diaper-changing
father. Says Felder: “Under the old laws you had to show a woman
wasn’t fit for her to lose her children. Today, children are up for
grabs. It opens doors to blackmail and coercion. You can tell a
woman there’s not the slightest chance she’ll lose and she’ll say,
‘I’ll take less money rather than risk it.’”
Reforming the reforms. In response, the earlier idealistic reforms
are being rethought. Task force reports around the country have