This lecture addresses the core legal framework surrounding divorce and separation, beginning with an overview of fault-based versus no-fault grounds. Historically, many states required one spouse to prove misconduct such as adultery, cruelty, or desertion for a divorce to be granted. Over time, however, most have transitioned to no-fault statutes, where asserting “irreconcilable differences” or an “irretrievably broken” marriage often suffices. Although some jurisdictions continue to permit fault allegations, particularly if that misconduct affects property division or spousal support, the broader trend emphasizes the end of a marital relationship rather than the attribution of blame.
A key topic follows: spousal support, often referred to as alimony. In older systems, permanent alimony was common, reflecting the idea that one spouse, typically the homemaker, needed indefinite financial stability. Modern approaches now favor rehabilitative, temporary, or transitional support, designed to help the lower-earning spouse adjust or acquire education and job skills. Nevertheless, some states still grant permanent support if the marriage was long-lasting or one spouse cannot reenter the workforce. Courts usually evaluate factors including the duration of the marriage, each spouse’s age and health, earning capacity, and contributions to the household. Where fault remains relevant, serious misconduct by one spouse sometimes influences the amount or duration of support—though no-fault laws mean personal wrongdoing is increasingly less central to spousal support awards.
Property division varies across the nation. In community property states, property acquired during marriage is presumed jointly owned, with each spouse entitled to roughly half upon divorce. By contrast, equitable distribution states employ a broader, factor-based standard. Judges in these jurisdictions look at each spouse’s monetary and nonmonetary contributions, the length of the marriage, the financial status of both parties, and more. Although an even split may result, the ultimate goal is fairness, not necessarily strict equality. Complexities can arise over what counts as marital property—assets gained before marriage or received as a gift or inheritance usually remain separate. Commingling separate and marital funds, however, may transmute formerly separate items into marital property, thus opening the door to division.
Child support is governed by guidelines that aim to replicate the standard of living a child would have if the parents stayed together. Most states use an income-shares model, combining parental incomes to set a baseline support amount, then allocating it proportionally. Another approach might involve setting support as a percentage of the noncustodial parent’s income. Parenting time, day care, health care costs, and special needs all factor into adjusting the final figure. Crucially, parents cannot contract away child support obligations; courts uphold the child’s right to adequate support above any arrangement the adults might prefer.
Another focus is jurisdictional and enforcement complexities, particularly under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). When parents move across state lines, the original state issuing the support order usually keeps “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,” so no other state may unilaterally modify it unless conditions specified by UIFSA are met. This consistency ensures that an obligor parent cannot evade child support by relocating. Additionally, modifications require a substantial change in circumstances, such as job loss or a medical crisis affecting the child’s or a parent’s finances. Courts will review whether such alterations genuinely warrant adjusting the order.
The lecture therefore highlights how contemporary divorce law handles the breakdown of a marital relationship: from minimal fault requirements in many states to evolving spousal support principles and thorough guidelines for property d
