In a traditional, fault-based divorce, one party to a marriage had to prove that their spouse specifically caused a breakdown so significant that it required dissolution of the marriage. But in 1969, California became the first state to adopt a “no-fault” divorce law, and the concept of no-fault divorce has taken hold in all 50 states since then.
No-fault divorce is exactly what it sounds like — a divorce granted despite a lack of evidence that one or both parties were responsible for an irreparable breakdown in the relationship. Instead, divorce can be granted (in the words of the Texas Family Code) for “discord or conflict of personalities that destroys the legitimate ends of the marital relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation.” Or in layman’s terms: irreconcilable differences. Though Texas still recognizes and grants divorces on fault-based grounds — for reasons ranging from spousal cruelty to adultery to abandonment — couples who can’t prove fault can seek a no-fault divorce simply because the sides grew apart.
There are some significant logistical differences between the two methods of divorce. For one, no-fault divorces typically take less time than fault-based ones because they involve fewer court hearings and more cooperation between the sides. No-fault divorces also tend to be less contentious. That’s largely because fault-based divorces require one party to prove fault on the other’s behalf, which can lead to bitter disagreements, finger-pointing, and outright lying to try to save face. And because neither party in a no-fault divorce is deemed to be responsible for the breakdown in the marriage, property and child custody are usually divided fairly evenly.
Whether the no-fault route is the best option depends largely on individual circumstances. But with every state now recognizing no-fault divorce as valid, unhappy couples no longer have to wait for legal fault to end their marriage.
