United States laws on divorce

Divorce in the United States is a matter of state rather than federal law. In recent years, however, more federal legislation has been enacted affecting the rights and responsibilities of divorcing spouses. For example, federal welfare reform mandated the creation of child support guidelines in all 50 states in the 1980s. ERISA includes provisions for the division of qualified retirement accounts between divorcing spouses. The IRS established rules on the deductibility of alimony, and federal bankruptcy laws prohibit discharging in bankruptcy of alimony and child support obligations. COBRA allows a divorced spouse to obtain and maintain health insurance. The laws of the state(s) of residence at the time of divorce govern, not those of the location where the couple was married. All states recognize divorces granted by any other state. All states impose a minimum time of residence, Nevada currently being the shortest at 6 weeks.

Prior to the latter decades of the 20th century, a spouse seeking divorce had to show a cause such as cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. Even in such cases, a divorce was barred in cases such as the suing spouse's procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination (the suing spouse also being guilty). By the 1960s, however, the use of collusive or deceptive practices to bypass the fault system had become ubiquitous, and there was widespread agreement that something had to change. The no-fault divorce "revolution" began in 1969 in California, and was completed in 1985 (the last holdout was South Dakota). However, New York does impose a mandatory separation period before a divorce can be granted.

Typically, a county court’s family division judges petitions for dissolution of marriages. The National Association of Women Lawyers was instrumental in convincing the American Bar Association to help create a Family Law section in many state courts, and pushed strongly for no-fault divorce law around 1960 (cf. Uniform Divorce Bill). In some states fault grounds remain, but all states except New York now provide other grounds as well, variously termed irreconcilable differences, irremediable breakdown, loss of affection, or similar. For such grounds no fault need be proven and little defense is possible. However, most states require some waiting period, typically a 1 to 2 year separation. Some have argued that the lack of means to contest a no-fault divorce makes a marriage contract the easiest of all contracts to dissolve, and in very recent years some have begun to favor moderate divorce reforms such as requiring mutual consent for no-fault divorce. However, no such laws have been passed as of this writing.

Fault grounds, when available, are sometimes still sought. This may be done where it reduces the waiting period otherwise required, or possibly in hopes of affecting decisions related to a divorce, such as child custody, child support, alimony, and so on. States vary in the admissibility of such evidence for those decisions. In any case, a no-fault divorce can be arranged far more easily, although the terms of the divorce can be and often are contested with respect to child-related matters and finances. Ultimately most cases are settled by the parties before trial.

Mediation is a growing way of resolving divorce issues. It tends to be less adversarial (particularly important for any children), allows the parties greater control and privacy, saves money, and generally achieves similar outcomes to the normal adversarial process. Also, courts will often approve a mediated settlement quickly. A new movement towards Collaborative Law, where both sides are represented by attorneys but commit to negotiating a settlement and refraining from litigation, is also gaining momentum. If the parties and their collaborative law attorneys fail to reach a settlement, the collaborative lawyers are replaced by new counsel on the theory that the first set of lawyers will try harder if they know they will be "fired" if the dispute has to be resolved by a judge. Relatively amicable approaches such as this may reduce the trauma of divorce for all parties. Most experts agree that these methods are not appropriate for all relationships, especially those that included physical or emotional abuse, or an imbalance of power and knowledge about the parties' finances, for example.

Hostile divorces, in contrast, can be expensive both financially and emotionally. Fault grounds can be unpleasant enough when true, and may sometimes be falsely alleged, as may anything else that an unethical spouse can think of. In the 1990s, heated debate arose over accusations of domestic violence and of child sexual abuse arising in the course of hostile divorces. Some found a rapid increase in such charges and in the percentage of them eventually that were found baseless; others found there to be no such problems. It is unlikely the truth will ever be fully known.
States vary in their rules for division of assets in a divorce. Some states are "community property" states, while others are "equitable distribution" states. "Community property" states start with the presumption that assets will be divided equally, whereas "equitable distribution" states presume fairness may dictate more or less than half of the assets will be awarded to one spouse or the other. Attempt is made to assure the welfare of any minor children generally through their 21st birthday. Thus, the spouse given custody (or the spouse with the greater share of residence time in the case of joint custody), may receive assets to compensate their greater child-care expenses. Commonly, assets acquired before marriage are considered individual, and assets acquired after, marital. Depending on the state, an equitable or equal division of assets is then sought.

Alimony, also known as 'maintenance' or 'spousal support' is still being granted in many cases, especially in longer term marriages. Connecticut, for instance grants alimony in over 25% of cases]. Alimony is also likely in cases where a spouse has remedial needs that must be met in order for the spouse to become fully employable, for example that one spouse gave up career opportunities or development in order to devote themselves to the family. Permanent alimony becomes likelier in marriages that exceed 12 years.

A decree of divorce will generally not be granted until all questions regarding child care and custody, division of property and assets, and ongoing financial support are resolved. Since the mid 1990s, a few states have enacted covenant marriage laws, which allow couples to voluntarily make a divorce more difficult for themselves to obtain than in the typical no-fault divorce action. For example, couples who choose to undertake a covenant marriage may be required to undergo counseling before a divorce can be granted, or to submit their conflicts to mediation. In states lacking such provisions, some couples sign contracts undertaking the same obligations.

In recent years, a few high-profile court cases have involved children "divorcing" their parents, or being legally declared emancipated minors. Perhaps the best known are those of actor Macaulay Culkin and Olympic gymnast Dominique Moceanu. However, these are not properly "divorce" cases, and different laws apply.

:Divorces obtained by US couples in a different country or jurisdiction

Due to the complex divorce procedures required in many places, especially including many states of the United States, some people seek divorces from other jurisdictions that have easier and quicker processes. Most of these places are commonly referred to negatively as "divorce mills."
There are four main reasons that people look to another jurisdiction for a divorce:

• Many jurisdictions do not allow "irreconcilable differences" as a legal cause for divorce, and without it generally fault is required (often with strict legal requirements) or a separation agreement in force for a year, such as New York State, thus requiring one year from the time the legal separation went into effect unless fault can be proven (possible in some cases just by affadavit however, but the other spouse must not contest the charges otherwise an often lengthy contested divorce is required.)
• Many jurisdictions have complex and long residency requirements as well as paperwork.
• Many jurisdictions take a long time to issue a finalized divorce, anywhere from 3 months to a year or even several in unique circumstances.
• Finally, some people are simply out to get around the financial hardship of a divorce, and get a divorce from a jurisdiction that allows fast uncontested divorces that offer little or no spousal support to the defendant.
Legal fees are not a reason people commonly consider this, as the legal fees alone are equal to or more than in any of the states in the US.

Divorces granted by other countries are generally recognized by the United States as long as no person's rights were infringed upon. The most notable in this situation is the notion of "due process", which is required by the Constitution of the United States and thus is not flexible. This means that the spouse who is the defendant in the case must be notified of the proceedings and be given a certain time frame to respond to the allegations and state their case. This is only the case in a contested divorce, as in an uncontested divorce both spouses agree to the terms and sign off on the divorce; although in almost any if not all of these jurisdiction only one spouse is required to physically visit the country. While a contested divorce where due process was not observed is likely to be ruled invalid by a court in the United States if challenged, it is not illegal, as matrimonial law is private law and not criminal law, and is valid by default unless or until it is challenged (usually in the state or country of residency of either spouse.)
Thus, getting a contested divorce in another country is not likely to achieve the goals of the spouse requesting it, and is possible to even create a larger problem than before. An uncontested divorce is likely to be upheld in a court of law however, regardless of the general validity of contested divorces from these jurisdictions. While a "quick" contested divorce is likely if challenged to be declared invalid, it is, by case law, not considered bigamy if you remarry as long as the obtainer believed the divorce to be valid.

There are 5 major jurisdictions people look towards for a divorce in another state or country:
• The State of Nevada
• Haiti
• Mexico
• The Dominican Republic
• Guam

Haiti, Mexico, and The Dominican Republic are fairly similar in this regard. These countries people typically go to get an overnight/long weekend divorce, or to get a quick and relatively painless contested divorce (which are not valid unless due process has been observed.)

The State of Nevada is commonly used for a few reasons. It only requires a 6-week stay to meet the residency requirements, the lowest in the United States. One easy way to demonstrate that you have met this requirement is by having another resident of Nevada simply sign an affidavit testifying to your residency there. Nevada allows for "irreconcilable differences" as a cause for divorce, the importance of which are mentioned above. Also, it has an extensive and straightforward system for marriage annulment, and attracts people who would prefer an annulment (which declares the marriage wasn't valid in the first place) than a divorce. One major reason this attracts people is it allows for an easy bypassing of the mandatory 50/50 split in community property states, most notably the adjoining State of California. Nevada, however, is also a community property state and hence will follow similar rules in a divorce proceeding.
Guam had (and still has some) very attractive reasons for obtaining a divorce there. Guam is a territory of the United States. Because Guam is a territory of the United States, its courts are United States jurisdictional courts and the divorces it issues are valid in all of the states in the US. Prior to January 1, 2006, Guam allowed for an uncontested divorce without either spouse visiting the territory at all. After being charged as a "divorce mill", including by many in its own government, an agreement was made with the lawyers and other lobbyists who did not want to change the law to now require a 7-day stay in Guam (as opposed to the much longer ones proposed) to obtain a divorce. Guam allows for "irreconcilable differences" as a cause for divorce, and Guam is much quicker to award a finalized divorce than many US states, taking a few weeks at most. Before the law was changed, it was a very attractive alternative for many Americans, as it was also quite affordable. However, due to its location in Southeast Asia, a trip there would be very expensive and not a viable alternative for most Americans.

In the case of disputed custody, almost all lawyers would strongly advise you stay to the jurisdiction applicable to the dispute, i.e. the country or state of you or your spouse's residence. Even if not disputed, the spouse could later dispute it and potentially invalidate another jurisdiction's ruling.