Introduction: When Neutral Laws Create Non-Neutral Outcomes
This article is part of the “Robbed in Plain Sight” series.
See the full series here: Robbed in Plain Sight!
No-fault divorce was introduced with humane intentions.
It promised to lower conflict, reduce legal warfare, and spare children from prolonged battles. By removing the need to prove wrongdoing, it claimed to replace blame with fairness.
But when fault disappears entirely, so does accountability.
And when accountability disappears, systems begin to reward behavior they were never meant to encourage—while quietly punishing those who continue to act responsibly.
This article examines how no-fault divorce laws, as applied, can destabilize children, exhaust faithful spouses, and even harm the one who leaves—without ever naming a single person as “at fault.”
What No-Fault Divorce Claims to Do
In theory, no-fault divorce:
- simplifies separation
- reduces hostility
- treats spouses neutrally
- prioritizes the “best interest of the child”
It reframes divorce as an administrative transition rather than a moral rupture.
The problem is not the intention.
The problem is the incentives that follow.
The Incentive Problem No One Talks About
When a legal system no longer distinguishes between:
- the spouse who remains committed
- and the spouse who abandons the marriage
it sends an unspoken message:
Conduct does not matter. Timing does.
Under no-fault divorce:
- betrayal does not reduce leverage
- abandonment does not reduce access to assets
- destabilizing choices often gain advantage if made first
This is not neutrality.
It is a silent incentive structure.
When Faithfulness Offers No Protection
In my case, there was:
- no finding of abuse
- no finding of abandonment
- no finding of misconduct
I remained faithful.
I continued parenting.
I complied with court orders.
I absorbed logistical burdens quietly.
Yet none of this provided protection.
Faithfulness did not shield stability.
Compliance did not preserve continuity.
Responsibility became a liability.
Not because the court declared it so—but because the system had no mechanism to value it.
Pressure Replaces Consent
One of the least visible injustices in no-fault divorce is settlement pressure.
Even when property is clearly non-marital, the cost, delay, and emotional strain of prolonged litigation can force outcomes no court formally orders.
What results is not agreement—but exhaustion.
- clarity is replaced by compromise
- rights are exchanged for survival
- consent is shaped by fear
This is how wealth and stability move—not by judgment, but by attrition.
Children Learn What Permanence Means by Watching It Break
Courts speak often of “the best interest of the child.”
But children do not experience divorce as a policy outcome.
They experience it as loss of continuity.
- loss of home
- loss of routine
- loss of the sense that commitments endure
At first, change may feel like novelty.
Later, it reveals itself as instability.
Children absorb the lesson quietly:
things that matter can disappear without consequence.
That lesson lasts far longer than any custody order.
The Pain the System Cannot See—On Any Side
A system without accountability does not heal anyone.
The faithful spouse often emerges depleted—not only financially, but existentially—having learned that doing the right thing offers no protection.
Children carry confusion they cannot name until adulthood.
And the spouse who leaves is not spared either.
Without accountability, one unstable exit often leads to another. New relationships promise relief but frequently replicate harm. What was framed as freedom becomes repetition.
No one is restored by a system that refuses to name responsibility.
What Is Quietly Transferred
No-fault divorce often results in transfer, not resolution.
- transfer of housing stability
- transfer of financial resilience
- transfer of long-term security
Not based on contribution or conduct,
but on leverage, timing, and endurance.
The faithful spouse absorbs the loss.
The children absorb the instability.
The system moves on, unchanged.
Why This Is Not About Blame
This is not a call to return to public shaming or endless litigation.
It is a call to recognize a basic truth:
When law refuses to distinguish between responsibility and rupture, injustice becomes procedural.
Children need continuity.
Marriage requires accountability.
Justice demands moral distinctions—even when they are uncomfortable.
A Question Worth Asking
If a system:
- does not protect children’s stability
- does not value faithfulness
- and does not discourage destructive choices
what is it actually preserving?
And who bears the cost of that preservation?
Next in this series:
Screwed in Fresno: Utilities, Monopolies, and Regional Extraction
Newsletter
Please sign up for my newsletter if you wish to be updated!
Thanks!