Introduction of no-fault divorce ‘reduces domestic violence and female suicides’

The introduction of no-fault divorce reduces domestic violence and female suicides, according to “consistent” research quoted yesterday by family law expert Ruth Farrugia during a University debate.

She gave an overview of the different types of divorce around the world, showing that most countries that used to have a fault-based divorce system had since moved into this direction. New York became the last US state to introduce no-fault divorce last year.

No-fault divorce means that a person who seeks divorce does not need to cite a specific reason except that the marriage has broken down irrevocably. The divorce Bill being proposed in Malta also offers a no-fault divorce in the case of people who have been legally separated for at least four years.

During the debate, organised by the newly-formed Law Debating Society and intended to focus on the common good versus individual rights, the issue of no-fault divorce kept cropping up.

Pro-divorce campaigner Deborah Schembri said no-fault divorce was a “good” thing because it meant there would be less conflict, the hardest part of marital breakdown for children.

She added that if couples had already dealt with the issues of fault at separation stage, it would be nonsensical to reopen old wounds and force partners to find an adequate fault to get a divorce. In Malta, no-fault separation already existed because people could cite irreconcilable differences, Dr Schembri said. Divorce would have no new effects on society that were not already present with annulment, she added.

Alternattiva Demokratika spokesman Arnold Cassola pointed out that while the anti-divorce lobby seemed scared of a no-fault divorce, it was also against divorce in cases of domestic abuse, where the fault was evident and most justified.

He recalled when anti-divorce campaigner Andrè Camilleri had said that if battered wives got divorced, their husbands would be free to remarry and start beating up their new wives.

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott and Kenneth Wain debated the concepts of common good versus individual rights.

Fr Serracino Inglott said if divorce were a fundamental human right, there would be no need for a debate on the issue. But since it had not been declared as such, it had to be debated in terms of its impact on society.

However, he warned against talking of the common good as “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Rather, it should be seen as the “collective good”; what was best for society as a whole. For example, if divorce reduced the number of children being born out of wedlock or the number of cohabiting couples, it should be introduced. But if divorce went against the collective good, such as if it made the situation worse for children, it should not.

Prof. Wain said the common good argument being made by the anti-divorce lobby was dangerous and ran contrary to the idea of fundamental human rights. He said this was an issue of tolerance since in a pluralistic country there were divergent views on the definition of common good.

Speaking on behalf of the Marriage Without Divorce organisation, constitutional lawyer Austin Bencini said divorce was not a minority right because being single, married or separated was simply a status that changed over one’s lifetime.

The debate was organised in conjunction with law student organisations GħSL and Else and was chaired by David Friggieri, lecturer in the Department of European and Comparative Law.