Does It Really Matter Who Is At Fault?
Attorney
no impact on equitable distribution or the "perception" of the Court.
In fact, the Court will likely perceive the party who is willing to
"admit" fault as being the more reasonable of the two.
Obviously, the approrpriateness of conceding fault is nuanced, and it
might be worthwhile in a contested divorce action to at least appear to
object at the preliminary conference (i.e. first court appearance). But
ultimately, you should at least know that grounds will likely play no
significant part in a typical divorce.
So where might the grounds for divorce play a role? First, the law in
New York: Where there actually exists cruel and inhuman treatment that
is extreme. (Yes, there is a great deal of case law that better defines
that concept). Second, my opinion: Where the underlying allegation of
fault has (i) no impact on fitness as a parent; (ii) leaves no
inference that marital assets have been wasted; and (iii) leaves no
inference that but for the alleged wrongdoing, the aggrieved party
would be in a better economic position (or be psychologically better
prepared to be self supporting). If any, or all of the three exist,
then they should be addressed, but not necessarily with a costly and
time consuming fault trial.
A final thought; if a person will get satisfaction by proving their
case and winning at trial, that is fine. What bring one person
satisfaction, need not be acceptable to everyone. So whether it is
religion, finance, vindictiveness or moral indignation that prompts a
person to engage in a grounds trial, that person should at least make
an informed decision ... and win.