Chapter IV
GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
A note of caution: Changes in divorce law are constant and can occur at any time either through new legislation or new state or federal court decisions. Each year, many such changes will occur. Your best and most current information will come from a lawyer who is competent in divorce practice and who keeps abreast of such changes and who is familiar with your own particular marital history.
| Atty/Client | Married? | Jurisdiction | Contents | Children | Sep Prop | Mar Estate | Alimony |
| Fees | Extrajuris | Procedure | Settlement | Trial | Misc | Shortcut | Moving On |
Objective importance Subjective importance
Twelve "grounds" (legally sufficient reasons) for divorce are stated in the Oklahoma Statutes:
abandonment for one year
adultery
impotency when wife at time of marriage is pregnant by another
extreme cruelty
fraudulent contract
habitual drunkenness
gross neglect of duty
felony imprisonment when the divorce action is filed
procurement of divorce not recognized in Oklahoma in another state
insanity for a period of five years
incompatibility
Since "incompatibility" became a ground for divorce in 1953, it has become the typical ground of choice. Although the Legislature did not define the term, Oklahoma appellate courts have filled the void by stating that incompatibility means the existence of such a conflict of personalities as to destroy the legitimate ends of marriage and the possibility of reconciliation, whatever that means.
In practical effect, it means this - if one spouse insists on ending the marriage, divorce will occur.
This is true even though, technically, divorce is not a matter of right under current law and it remains legally possible that a court might refuse to grant a divorce. Such a refusal is virtually unheard of in contemporary times. The practical truth is that courts are not requiring persons to remain married, if either marital partner does not want to be. A party who does not want to be divorced may be able to delay the entry of the divorce but cannot prevent its eventual occurrence. Even though that fact may be a difficult for a spouse to accept, it is reality just the same.
Objective Importance Top of Chapter
On paper, the legal reason for the failed marriage (incompatibility, extreme cruelty, adultery, etc.) has little, if anything, to do with resolving the practical issues of the case (property division, etc.). According to decisions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, "fault" has nothing to do with division of the property and debt of the marriage; it should have nothing to do with determining child support; it should probably have nothing to do with support alimony issues (although some older Supreme Court decisions approved consideration of fault as an alimony factor); and, unless the fault has to do with a parenting trait, it should have nothing to do with child custody or visitation. For practical purposes, objective Oklahoma divorce law has effectively become "no-fault" in its orientation.
Subjective Importance Top of Chapter
Given the very substantial latitude of the trial judge in making decisions, and given the absence of objective standards for making most of those decisions, and given that a trial judge is, like the rest of us, possessed in some degree with biases and prejudices which may (or may not) influence his/her decisions, the practical effect of "fault" is less clear. Upon occasion a spouse or a lawyer will attempt to exploit any possible biases/prejudices by introducing a substantial amount of testimony concerning "fault," particularly in egregious fault situations. Trial courts typically deny that such evidence will have an effect upon the other decisions of the case. Usually, but not always, experience verifies the truth of such trial court disclaimers.
In the minds of clients, however, it may be different. "Outraged" spouses may be eager to display such evidence. "Guilty" ones may be fearful of it. Either spouse may strongly encourage his/her lawyer to make settlement and tactical decisions based upon his/her emotional position.
If the object of the legal representation is to obtain the best possible practical results for the client, it would be serious error for decisions to be overly influenced either by outrage or by guilt, regardless of how strongly either may be felt. For the client's benefit, it is especially important in these emotionally sensitive areas to listen to and be guided by the lawyer's counsel.
Top of Chapter Detailed Contents