A Texas lawyer explains what eliminating no-fault divorce would mean for families
Getting a peaceful divorce could soon become much more difficult for married couples in Texas
Conservative lawmakers are pushing to end no-fault divorce laws, which allow couples to divorce without having to prove that one party is to blame.
The Texas Republican Party, former Texas House representative Matt Krause and political commentator Steven Crowder are among leading conservatives advocating for the repeal. In 2017, Krause introduced a bill to abolish no-fault divorce in Texas, but it didn’t pass.
Critics of the no-fault divorce law claim that it makes it too simple for couples to end their marriages without taking proper steps to reconcile.
A number of red states are joining Texas in the movement to end no fault divorce, including Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
Vice president-elect JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson have also shared their criticism of divorce laws over the years
In the days following Trump’s re-election victory, some women took to social media to encourage other in unhappy marriages to take action.
“If you are a woman in the US and you think there is any chance of your marriage ending in divorce you should pull that trigger now before they take away no fault divorce,”a November 7th post on X said.
Another post on Threads warned: “No fault divorce. Project 2025 will end it, more women will stay in abusive situations or die now. The battle begins on women’s bodies.”
Christian F. Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women, told the Associated Press that she is “extremely worried” about the Trump administration’s potential removal of no-fault divorce.
“With so many states focusing on a misogynistic legislative agenda, this will turn back the clocks on women’s rights even more,” Nunes said in a statement. “This is why removing ‘no fault’ divorce is another way for the government to control women, their bodies, and their lives.”
Though ending no-fault divorce is a hot topic right now, even its advocates claim they don’t anticipate immediate changes nationally, since divorce is governed by state law in America, rather than federal law.
What about no-fault divorces in Texas?
The Star-Telegram spoke with Turner Thornton, a Texas divorce attorney and partner at the Southlake location of Varghese Summersett, about how likely it is that the law will be repealed, and the potential impact it could have on married Texans.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Star Telegram: What was the landscape for divorce and marriage before no-fault divorce?
Thornton: The late ‘60s is when everything shifted from you having to prove some sort of fault grounds, be it adultery or what we call “cruel treatment,” which is potentially all encompassing — abandonment, things of that nature. That’s when we shifted to, if you want to file for “no-fault divorce,” you could.
Texas, technically speaking, uses the word “insupportability,” which I always tell my clients is just fancy legal speak for “it didn’t work out.”
Star Telegram: What are your thoughts on the movement to end no-fault divorce?
Thornton: I genuinely think that the no-fault divorce is a good umbrella catch-all, because the reality is, in my opinion, if you were to remove that catch-all, it’s going to force people to create conflict where there wouldn’t otherwise be conflict.
Obviously, if you’re getting a divorce, there had to have been some sort of disagreement that led to that decision, but by including some sort of fault ground, you’re creating a record of it that you may not want your kids to ever know surrounding what had happened with your the downfall of your marriage.
Star Telegram: Some Republicans, like Matt Krause, have said no-fault divorce devalues the meaning of marriage and ending it will help keep families together. Conservative host Steve Crowder has also claimed that the law disproportionately impacts men. What are your thoughts on that?
Thornton: I don’t think that it necessarily undermines marriage or harms men disproportionately.
I also think regardless of male or female, it doesn’t make practical sense to lock either party in a relationship that the other party doesn’t want to be a part of. The reality is, to me, it affects more than just the two people. I’m married myself. I have two kids with my wife, and it is not to say that I don’t value that, but at the same time, I also don’t think [eliminating no-fault divorce] is fair to folks of domestic violence or all sorts of different abuse claims.
And it’s not always male and female, which I think is a common misconception. I think a lot of folks assume that men are always the ones that are going to be affected disproportionately. I just I fundamentally disagree with that. I’ve been doing this for over a decade, and that’s not what I see.
Star Telegram: If no-fault divorce were to end in Texas, how could it impact families?
Thornton: I think by requiring [proving fault in a] divorce, it’s going to end up running fees because now you’ve got folks saying, “Well, they’re accusing me of doing blah, blah, blah,” and that in turn is going to have to be proven, which is going to require discovery, which is going to potentially run up costs on the process and create further problems where there didn’t need to be problems.
I’ve had plenty of cases in which one party has committed adultery against the other, but the party who was not the adulterer doesn’t want to claim that as part of the divorce process because they don’t want their children to think of their other parent in a negative light. Essentially, it creates a connotation whether the system wants it to or not.
And let’s say, in that example, if it’s proven to be untrue, the spouse making the allegation is going to be called a liar. It’s going to create a lot of animosity from a co-parenting relationship moving forward that maybe didn’t otherwise need to be there.
Star Telegram: How likely is it that no-fault divorce will be banned?
Thornton: I would genuinely be surprised if it happens anytime soon.
I mean, I understand the movement. I think it may come from a good place if the underlying thought is, “We’re trying to protect the covenant of marriage,” from a practical standpoint. That makes sense to me.
However, I think when you look at it from a micro stance, as to what that would look like for individual families, it would showcase the reality that you can’t put these all-encompassing terms like, “We’re going to get rid of no-fault divorce,” without looking at the net effects downstream of what that really means.
So when these things are proposed by legislators or the government, I think they’re good talking points for them to make to their base.
But what that may end up creating is more problems. I mean, some of the worst things imaginable come from good intentions, and I think that’s what this potentially could create.
