Divorce Bill Fails A Second Time
Rep. Tom Dorr’s second attempt at making divorce in Idaho more difficult was killed in a House committee on Tuesday.
Dorr, R-Post Falls, introduced the bill as a revised version of his earlier legislation to deny irreconcilable differences as grounds for divorce unless both parties consented.
The new bill would have required a one year trial separation. Eight counseling sessions would also be required before a divorce could become final. Both parties would have to demonstrate that attempts had been made at reconciliation in order to actually get the divorce.
Keeping the couple together - even for counseling purposes - could be harmful for victims of domestic violence or abuse, said Glenda Loomis, a Boise psychologist. Just filing for divorce is difficult for abuse victims, she said. Forcing them to attend counseling could put them at greater physical risk from their abusers.
“The situation becomes even more lethal,” said Loomis. “I believe that it is the responsibility of the courts to protect women and children in these types of situations.”
The American Civil Liberties Union also opposed the bill, saying it had technical and practical problems. Stephen Rowley, an ACLU lobbyist, said there are already provisions in Idaho law to request a stay of divorce proceedings.
The legislation could also double or triple the number of cases in domestic violence court, said Rowley. Some divorce cases that would otherwise be filed because of irreconcilable differences could be brought in as domestic violence cases. “It’s called full employment for domestic violence lawyers,” he said.
The bill’s supporters included women who hadn’t wanted their divorces. Sarah Bulmer said she thought there were better ways to solve marital problems than divorce. “I was always taught that it’s better to face problems and solve them rather than running away,” said Bulmer.
Laurie Rice, another divorcee, and sponsor Dorr agreed that laws are written for the person who wants out, not their partner.
, DataTimes