research about divorce law

America Makes It too Hard and Dangerous to Get Divorced

O f the almost 700,000 divorces in the United States each year, 70% of them are initiated by women . In 2021, one of us (Rebecca) became one of those women when she sought a divorce in her home state of North Carolina. But she was surprised to learn that before she could even file, she needed to wait a full year first, as North Carolina is one of a handful of states that mandates a separation period before couples are allowed to file for divorce. Although she was sure of her decision, Rebecca couldn’t do anything but count down the days on the required clock—and stay legally married.

As a former state policy advisor and an investigative journalist, we teamed up to better understand the requirements that can prevent people from leaving unhappy marriages. Together, we researched state-by-state divorce policies and interviewed leaders in advocacy and law in an effort to make information more accessible in what is an intentionally complicated system . What we found was striking: Divorce in the U.S. is governed by an arbitrary constellation of policies that impede the freedom to end a marriage and have a disproportionately harmful impact on women. And as confusing and inconvenient as these laws were for Rebecca, the impact they can have on women in financially unstable or violent relationships is nothing short of devastating. Policies that make people wait to get divorced are paternalistic at best, and dangerous at worst.

Rebecca lives in one of just seven states that require couples to live in separate households before a spouse can file for divorce. North Carolina and South Carolina each require mandatory separation periods of one year, while Delaware , Louisiana , Montana , Vermont , and Virginia mandate a period of six months. And those are just the states that impose pre-filing waiting periods: 35 states require a “cooling-off” period where couples must wait a minimum amount of time after filing for their divorce for it to be finalized. In states like Florida , West Virginia , and Wyoming , that wait can be as brief as 20 days. But if you’re trying to get divorced in Massachusetts , you must wait at least 300 days from when you file for divorce. And, if you’re really unlucky, you might live in a state that requires both a separation period and a cooling-off period.

More from TIME

These required waiting periods can create dangerous situations for the people stuck in them. “The longer it takes to get that court decree, the longer the couple is navigating around the system and having to resolve things for themselves,” Amy Barasch, the Executive Director of Her Justice , a New York-based nonprofit that provides legal services to women in need, told us. “Usually the person for whom that’s the most challenging is the partner who has less power, less money, and is probably more involved in raising the children.” In many heterosexual households, that partner is often the woman.

Read More: The Gift I Gave Myself After My Divorce

Divorce proceedings establish parameters for dividing joint marital assets and responsibilities, like co-parenting. But for couples divorcing in a state with a required separation period, they have six months to a year of marital limbo: while they are required to live apart but stay legally married, the couple is on their own during that time to navigate the ambiguity of finances and other roles that had been shared. This makes women, in particular, vulnerable to exploitation, as only 30% of wives in dual-income homes earn more than their husbands, and the earning penalty for mothers is about $16,000 each year. In states that require a separation period to divorce, there is nothing to stop, say, one spouse from draining a joint bank account or selling marital property amidst a hostile relationship breakdown, all while still legally married.

These complicated laws are a holdover of a fraught American tradition : to make divorce as difficult as possible. Until the 1950s , divorce cases were tried in the traditional legal system that required one spouse to have wronged the other under a specific set of “legitimate” reasons to end the marriage—like adultery or extreme cruelty. The petitioning spouse had to prove fault, a burden that required presenting extensive and often gender-biased evidence to the court. As divorce proceedings began to shift to new, statewide systems of family courts, states enacted no-fault divorce policies wherein married couples could legally split without needing to demonstrate the fault of one spouse. Through the 1970s and onward, no-fault divorce became available nationwide and reduced prohibitive barriers to filing. A rapid rise in divorce rates followed, as, for the first time, individuals had a more accessible way to end unwanted marriages.

Today, filing for no-fault divorce is the only option in 17 states , while couples in the other 33 can choose to file either by citing a fault or with no-fault. If you go the no-fault route, you might avoid the effort and resources it takes to prove your spouse’s wrongdoings in court. But because of separation and cooling-off period requirements, you still might need to wait months—or more than a year—for your divorce to be finalized. Waiting period laws function as a deterrent to divorce that is still reminiscent of the old fault system.

But there’s some hope for change. On April 13, 2023, Rep. Charles Smith , a state representative from North Carolina’s 44th District, filed bipartisan House Bill 604 to help reform the state’s waiting period policy. When Smith spoke with family law experts for their insights as he drafted the bill, he asked whether North Carolina’s one-year separation period came from an antiquated history. “They didn’t really have another reason,” Smith shared with us. “It was just that before deciding if you really want to get divorced, we need you to wait a year to figure out if you’re ready to make that decision. That’s all they gave me.”

The new bill eliminates the required yearlong separation period specifically for victims of domestic violence, a parallel effort to the recently-filed, bipartisan Senate Bill 575 . (Neither bill addresses the cooling-off period after filing.) Women make up 85% of domestic violence victims and face the highest risk of serious injury or death when they try to leave their abusers. But in some states, North Carolina included, victims of domestic violence must still complete mandatory waiting periods without exception prior to filing for divorce.

Rep. Smith started his career as a district attorney specializing in domestic violence cases, where he saw the danger of drawn-out resolutions for victims. “With how cyclical a [domestic violence] relationship is, having that immediate out is important to break the cycle,” he said. “The more time that goes [by], the more influence the abuser has.”

These joint bills in the North Carolina state legislature are a promising, renewed effort that follows a series of failed attempts across multiple states to reduce or eliminate divorce waiting periods. North Carolina’s 2015 attempt to eliminate the yearlong waiting period in cases of one spouse’s felony conviction went nowhere, along with other stymied bills in 2019 and 2021 . Last month, Virginia put forth a bill that died in committee. And because South Carolina’s one-year separation period is written into its constitution, any changes would require voters to approve an amendment—an effort which has failed in the past.

Each of these bills has attempted to chip away at outdated laws that put women at risk. But we need to consider how our society views divorce more broadly. “We’ve got federal policies that affirmatively encourage marriage,” Amy Barasch told us. “We make sure that if you’re low income, the locality can’t charge a fee to get your marriage license. We remove every possible barrier. But then should you choose to end that marriage, barriers pop up in all sorts of ways.” While we found that 38 states have a mandatory waiting period of some kind for even the most straightforward divorces, ranging from 20 to 455 days, only 18 states require any wait to get married—the longest of which is five days.

We need widespread divorce policy reform and the elimination of waiting periods in states that require them. But we also need to reckon with why divorce continues to be one of the most expensive, complicated, and stressful life experiences for American adults. The ability and time it takes to end an unhappy or unsafe marriage should not depend on whether you live in the Carolinas or California. We must make divorce accessible, safer, and more equitable for all.

“We see divorce as a social justice issue,” Barasch said. “Highlighting the impact of ludicrously complicated divorce laws is so important, especially for women.”

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Putin’s Enemies Are Struggling to Unite
• Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control
• What Student Photojournalists Saw at the Campus Protests
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• Boredom Makes Us Human
• John Mulaney Has What Late Night Needs
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Primary tabs

A divorce formally dissolves a legal marriage . While married couples do not possess a constitutional or legal right to divorce, states permit divorces because doing so serves public policy. To ensure that a particular divorce serves public policy interests, some states require a "cooling-off period," which requires spouses seeking to initiate divorce proceedings to wait a specified time period, typically 60 days, after legally separating before a divorce is granted. In the event of a fault divorce , however, this “cooling-off period” may not be required. Issues related to divorce are typically resolved in family court . 

Courts in the United States currently recognize two overarching types of divorces: absolute divorce , known as "divorce a vinculo matrimonii" and limited divorce, known as "divorce a menso et thoro.” An absolute divorce is a judicial termination of a legal marriage and reverts both parties back to the state of single in the eyes of the law. Traditionally, obtaining an absolute divorce required a showing of fault like adultery or domestic abuse on the part of one of the spouses. 

Limited divorces , also referred to as separation decrees, result in termination of the right to cohabitate but the court refrains from officially dissolving the marriage and the parties' statuses remain unchanged. Additionally, some states permit conversion divorce. Conversion divorce transforms a legal separation into a legal divorce after both parties have been separated for a statutorily prescribed period of time.

While originally obtaining an absolute divorce required a showing of fault , all states have since enacted no-fault divorce statutes . A no-fault divorce allows a party to obtain a divorce without establishing any misconduct by the other party. That said, some states still require a party seeking a no-fault divorce to cite the reason why. Typically, this cited reason is “irreconcilable differences.” 

Look to various  state laws  to determine the divorce law within a particular jurisdiction.  The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act  may provide further guidance.

Following a divorce, the court must divide any property owned between the spouses. Before legislatures equalized property allocation between both spouses, many divorce statutes substantially favored property allocation to the wage-earning spouse. These statutes disproportionately disadvantaged women because during the 18th, 19th, and early-20th centuries, the participation of women in the workplace was much less than it has become during the latter-half of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century. As these statutes looked strictly at monetary income, they failed to account for the contributions of the spouse as homemaker and child-raiser.

Modern courts recognize two different types of property during property division proceedings - marital property and separate property . Marital property includes any property that the spouses acquire individually or jointly during the course of marriage. Separate property includes any property that one spouse purchased and possessed prior to the marriage and that did not substantially change in value during the course of the marriage because of the efforts of one or both spouses. If the separate property-owning spouse trades the property for other property or sells the property, the newly acquired property or funds in consideration of the sale remain separate property.

Modern division of property statutes strive for an equitable division of the marital assets. An equitable division does not necessarily involve an equal division but rather an allocation that comports with fairness and justice after a consideration of the totality of the circumstances. By dividing the assets equitably, a judge endeavors to enable both parties to start their post-marital lives with some degree of financial self-sufficiency.

While various jurisdictions permit recognition of different factors, most courts at least recognize the following factors in determining an equitable division of marital assets: 

• Contribution to the accumulation of marital property
• The respective parties' liabilities
• Whether one spouse received income-producing property while the other did not
• The duration of the marriage
• The age and health of the respective parties
• The earning capacity and employability of the respective parties
• The value of each party's separate property, the pension and retirement rights of each party
• Whether one party will receive custodial and child support provisions 
• The respective contributions of the spouses as a homemaker and as a parent
• The tax consequences of the allocations
• Whether one spouse's marital misconduct caused the divorce

When assigning property, judges cannot transfer the separate property of one spouse to another spouse without the legislature having previously passed an enabling statute. Whether such an enabling statute exists varies between jurisdictions. 

Additionally, while not property, family courts also regularly resolve child custody issues during a divorce proceeding. Typically, both spouses have joint guardianship over any children and therefore have equal rights to custody of those children. 

As part of a divorce, a court may order one spouse to pay alimony , or payments from one spouse to the other. A court can order one spouse to pay three different types of alimony - permanent alimony, temporary alimony, and rehabilitative alimony. Permanent alimony requires the payer to continue paying either for the rest of the payer's life or until the spouse receiving payments remarries. Temporary alimony requires payments over a short interval of time so that the payment recipient has time to become economically self-sufficient. The period of time covers the length of the property division litigation. Similar to temporary alimony, rehabilitative alimony requires the payer to give the recipient short-term alimony after the property division proceedings have concluded. Rehabilitative alimony endeavors to help a spouse with lesser employability or earning capacity become adjusted to a new post-marital life. 

Courts allocate alimony with the intention of permitting a spouse to maintain the standard of living to which the spouse has become accustomed. Factors affecting whether the court awards alimony include the marriage's length, the length of separation before divorce, the parties' ages, the parties' respective incomes, the parties' future financial prospects, the health of the parties, and the parties' respective faults in causing the marriage's demise.

If a couple had children together while married, a court may require one spouse to pay child support to the spouse with custody. Child support differs from alimony because child support payments are for the benefit of the child while alimony payments are for the benefit of the spouse. 

[Last updated in September of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• LIFE EVENTS
• family & personal matters
• financial events
• statutory interpretation
• civil procedure
• wex articles

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Marriage & Divorce

In a growing share of u.s. marriages, husbands and wives earn about the same.

Among married couples in the United States, women’s financial contributions have grown steadily over the last half century. Even when earnings are similar, husbands spend more time on paid work and leisure, while wives devote more time to caregiving and housework.

About six-in-ten Americans say legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society

College grads in u.s. tend to partner with each other – especially if their parents also graduated from college, rising share of u.s. adults are living without a spouse or partner, sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Among young adults without children, men are more likely than women to say they want to be parents someday

Among adults ages 18 to 34, 69% of those who have never been married say they want to get married one day.

Striking findings from 2023

Here’s a look back at 2023 through some of our most striking research findings.

Across Asia, views of same-sex marriage vary widely

A median of 49% of people in 12 places in Asia say they at least somewhat favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

How people around the world view same-sex marriage

Among the 32 places surveyed, support for legal same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, where 92% of adults favor it, and lowest in Nigeria, where only 2% back it.

Public Has Mixed Views on the Modern American Family

Americans are more pessimistic than optimistic about the institution of marriage and the family. At the same time, the public is fairly accepting of diverse family arrangements, though some are seen as more acceptable than others.

The Modern American Family

Key trends in marriage and family life in the United States.

About 8 in 10 women in opposite-sex marriages say they took their husband’s last name

Younger women, women with a postgraduate degree and Democratic women are more likely to keep their last name after marriage.

A record-high share of 40-year-olds in the U.S. have never been married

As of 2021, 25% of 40-year-olds in the United States had never been married, a significant increase from 20% in 2010.

Single women own more homes than single men in the U.S., but that edge is narrowing

In 2022, single women owned 58% of the nearly 35.2 million homes owned by unmarried Americans, while single men owned 42%.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

No fault divorce: how the new law will reduce family conflict

Senior Lecturer in Law, The Open University

Disclosure statement

Andrew Gilbert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The Open University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

After more than 50 years, the law governing divorce –- the process of legally dissolving a marriage -– is changing in England and Wales. While everyone hopes they won’t have to use divorce law, each year over 100,000 couples do. Yet for half a century the law itself has actually increased conflict between the parties and negatively affected children. The new law is intended to reduce family conflict and enable couples to dissolve their marriages or civil partnerships without the law itself making things worse.

The old law was based on the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which was later incorporated into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 . The 1973 act stated that a petitioner (the spouse seeking a divorce) could only get a divorce when their marriage had irretrievably broken down and they could prove one of five circumstances (“facts”) existed. Three facts were fault-based: adultery, behaviour and desertion for two years. The other facts required two years’ separation if the other spouse consented to the divorce or being separated for five years.

Unless couples were willing to wait two years, the only options were to divorce for adultery or behaviour, which led to some petitioners feeling compelled to exaggerate or distort their accounts of events during the marriage in order to get a divorce. Research by the Nuffield Foundation in 2017 found that only 29% of respondents said that their “fault” reason very closely matched the reason for the divorce. This tells us that most fault-based divorce petitions (the official document requesting a divorce) were not an accurate account of a couple’s experience. About two-thirds of couples who divorced using fault grounds said it made the process more bitter, and around one-fifth said the law made it more difficult to sort out arrangements for their children.

A 1990 report from the law commission found that the law provoked unnecessary hostility and bitterness. The commission found the process made things worse for children because it set the tone for their parents to remain in conflict following divorce.

Further calls for reform came from the supreme court in the high-profile case of Owens v Owens in 2018, which revealed the absurdity and unfairness of the law when Mrs Owens was unable to obtain a divorce. The first judge decided that the 40-year marriage had broken down, but Mrs Owens had failed to show her husband’s behaviour towards her satisfied the legal requirements for a divorce. Despite finding it a “very troubling case”, the court of appeal and supreme court could not overturn that decision because the first judge had applied the law correctly.

A few months later, the government published its proposals to reform the law. The government accepted the many criticisms of the law and moved quickly to introduce a bill that became the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 now coming into effect.

The new law

The new law amends the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (relating to marriage and divorce) and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (relating to civil partnership and dissolution). Irretrievable breakdown remains the sole ground for divorce, but the need to prove any of the five facts has been removed. Couples will no longer have to document past wrongs to end their marriage.

A divorce can be sought by one party –- as before –- or now by both parties jointly based on a statement of irretrievable breakdown. Joint applications will better reflect that divorce is often a mutual decision and encourage cooperation early in the process.

The court must take the statement to be conclusive evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and grant the divorce. It will generally not be possible to contest a divorce application by challenging such a statement.

The divorce process will now take a minimum of 26 weeks to complete, which will be considerably quicker than in some cases under the old system. The government hopes couples will use this period to plan for the future or, in some cases, to provide “a meaningful period of reflection and the chance to reconsider” whether to end the marriage. Civil partnership dissolution will operate in the same way.

The future of divorce

Despite the new divorce process being cheaper to administer and moving online, the Ministry of Justice has no plans to reduce the £593 application fee.

However, by avoiding one party blaming another, the new system might still save couples money in the long run. A more conciliatory, civil approach should make it easier for couples to resolve matters of finances, property and children.

The new law is likely to lead to a short-term surge in divorces, as happened after the last reform in the early 1970s. However, once this increase subsides, the overall number of divorces will probably be much as they would have been without the reforms.

In recent decades, efforts to develop a more constructive and child-focused system of family justice have been compromised by English divorce law itself. The new law will be an improvement and finally bring the law in line with how people live and love in the 21st century.

• Divorce laws
• no-fault divorce
• UK families

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Communications and Engagement Officer, Corporate Finance Property and Sustainability

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Reasons for Divorce and Recollections of Premarital Intervention: Implications for Improving Relationship Education

Shelby b. scott.

Department of Psychology, University of Denver

Galena K. Rhoades

Scott m. stanley, elizabeth s. allen.

Department of Psychology, University of Colorado – Denver

Howard J. Markman

The study presents findings from interviews of 52 divorced individuals who received the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) while engaged to be married. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study sought to understand participant reasons for divorce (including identification of the “final straw”) in order to understand if the program covered these topics effectively. Participants also provided suggestions based on their premarital education experiences so as to improve future relationship education efforts. The most commonly reported major contributors to divorce were lack of commitment, infidelity, and conflict/arguing. The most common “final straw” reasons were infidelity, domestic violence, and substance use. More participants blamed their partners than blamed themselves for the divorce. Recommendations from participants for the improvement of premarital education included receiving relationship education before making a commitment to marry (when it would be easier to break-up), having support for implementing skills outside of the educational setting, and increasing content about the stages of typical marital development. These results provide new insights into the timing and content of premarital and relationship education.

Divorced individuals, compared to their married counterparts, have higher levels of psychological distress, substance abuse, and depression, as well as lower levels of overall health ( Amato, 2000 ; Hughes & Waite, 2009 ). Marital conflict and divorce have also shown to be associated with negative child outcomes including lower academic success ( Frisco, Muller, & Frank, 2007 ; Sun & Li, 2001 ), poorer psychological well-being (Sun & Li, 2002), and increased depression and anxiety ( Strohschein, 2005 ). Given these negative outcomes of marital conflict and divorce, the overarching goal of premarital relationship education has been to provide couples with skills to have healthy marriages.

The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP; Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 2010 ) focuses on teaching appropriate communication and conflict skills, and provides information to help couples evaluate expectations, understand relationship commitment, and enhance positive connections through friendship and fun ( Ragan, Einhorn, Rhoades, Markman, & Stanley, 2009 ). Most research indicates that compared to control groups, PREP helps couples learn to communicate more positively and less negatively (e.g., Laurenceau, Stanley, Olmos-Gallo, Baucom, & Markman, 2004 ; Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993 ), increases satisfaction, and reduces risk for divorce in the years following the program (e.g., Hahlweg, Markman, Thurmaier, Engl, & Eckert, 1998 ; Hahlweg & Richter, 2010 ; Markman & Hahlweg, 1993 ; Stanley, Allen, Markman, Rhoades, & Prentice, 2010 ). A few studies have shown more mixed or moderated results (e.g., Baucom, Hahlweg, Atkins, Engl, & Thurmaier, 2006 ; van Widenfelt, Hosman, Schaap, & van der Staak, 1996 ; Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, & Peterson, in press ). In an evidence-based tradition, the growing knowledge base can and should be used to generate insights about how to refine future efforts ( Stanley & Markman, 1998 ). One methodology that could improve PREP is to interview divorced individuals who participated in the program about their reasons for divorce and premarital education experiences in order to understand if the program covered these topics effectively.

Few studies have directly examined retrospective reports of reasons for divorce, particularly within the past two decades (see Bloom, Niles, & Tatcher, 1985 ; Gigy & Kelly, 1992 ; Kitson & Holmes, 1992 ; Thurnher, Fenn, Melichar, & Chiriboga, 1983 ) and no study, to our knowledge, has examined reasons for divorce in a sample of individuals who participated in the same relationship education program. Within a sample of divorcing parents, Hawkins, Willoughby, and Doherty (2012) found that the most endorsed reasons for divorce from a list of possible choices were growing apart (55%), not being able to talk together (53%), and how one’s spouse handled money (40%). Amato and Previti (2003) found that when divorced individuals were asked open-endedly to provide their reasons for divorce, the most cited reasons were infidelity (21.6%), incompatibility (19.2%), and drinking or drug use (10.6%). A statewide survey in Oklahoma found that the most commonly checked reasons for divorce from a list of choices were lack of commitment (85%), too much conflict or arguing (61%), and/or infidelity or extramarital affairs (58%; C. A. Johnson et al., 2001 ). International studies have found highly endorsed reasons for divorce to be marrying too young, communication problems, incompatibility, spousal abuse, drug and alcohol use, religious differences, failures to get along, lack of love, lack of commitment, and childlessness, to name a few ( Al Gharaibeh & Bromfield, 2012 ; Savaya & Cohen, 2003a , 2003b ; Mbosowo, 1994 ).

In sum, across studies some consistency exists regarding the importance of issues such as communication, incompatibility, and commitment as reasons for divorce, while other issues seem to vary across samples. Thus, it would be helpful to understand the reasons for divorce in former PREP participants in order to highlight specific areas that the program could have addressed better and in order to improve that program’s effectiveness. In addition, no study, to our knowledge, has asked divorced participants who all participated in the same premarital program to provide suggestions for improving relationship education programs based on their own experiences in the program and considering that their marriages ended in divorce. These results could be valuable for practitioners to consider in order to improve the PREP model specifically and relationship education efforts more generally. The current study qualitatively interviewed individuals who had completed PREP and later divorced about their premarital education, including what they wished would have been covered, as well as their marital experiences, particularly regarding their reasons for divorce. Therefore, this study sought to understand both participants’ reasons for divorce as well as how they thought relationship education could have better addressed their needs. The ultimate goal of the current study was to provide new knowledge on potential ways to help relationship education best prevent marital distress and divorce.

Participants

Data were collected from 52 individuals who received PREP premaritally but subsequently divorced at some point in the following 14 years. These individuals were all initially participants of a larger study of the effectiveness of premarital education ( N = 306 couples; Markman et al., 2004 ; Stanley et al., 2001 ). All participants in the current study either received PREP through the religious organization ( n = 24) that performed their weddings or PREP through a university ( n = 28). The sample included 31 women and 21 men. Of these, 18 men and 18 women had been married to each other (we were unable to assess the former spouse of the other 16 individuals). At the first time point of the larger study (i.e., the premarital assessment), these participants were 25.4 years old on average ( SD = 6.67), with a median education of 14 years, and median income of $20,000–29,999. At the time of the post-divorce interview, the average age was 37.2 ( SD = 6.5), the median education level was 16 years, and 32 of the participants (61.5%) had a least one child. The average number of years since premarital intervention to the post-divorce interview was 12.2 years, and the average number of years from finalized divorce to participating in the interview was 5.2 years. The sample was 88.2% Caucasian, 5.9% Native American, 3.9% Black, and 2.0% Asian; 1 participant did not report race. In terms of ethnicity, 84.3% of the sample identified as Non-Hispanic and 15.7% as Hispanic.

Couples ( N = 306) were recruited for the larger study through the religious organizations that would later perform their wedding services. At the initial wave of the study in 1996, participants were required to be planning marriage with someone of the opposite sex and needed to participate as a couple. As mentioned earlier, they were assigned to either receive PREP through the religious organization, PREP at a university, or naturally-occurring services. Throughout the duration of the larger study, participants were asked to complete annual assessments that included questionnaires and videotaped discussions. If a participant expressed that he/she was divorced or currently divorcing throughout the larger study, this information was recorded. From 2010–2012, we attempted to contact all divorced participants ( n = 114 individuals) to ask if they would participate in the current study. Of these individuals, we were unable to contact 35 participants, 18 declined an invitation to participate, and 1 participant was deceased. Participants who divorced and had received naturally-occurring services ( n = 8) were excluded from these analyses because we could not know exactly what premarital services they had received. There were no significant differences between divorced individuals who participated in this study compared to divorced individuals who did not participate across age at marriage, ethnicity, personal income, or relationship adjustment at the premarital assessment ( p s > .05).

All participants completed an individual 30-minute audio-recorded interview over the phone about their divorce and their recollections of their premarital intervention. They received $50 for participating in this interview. All interviews were transcribed verbatim for analyses. All study procedures were approved by a university Institutional Review Board.

Reasons for divorce

Using items from a previous survey on reasons for divorce ( C. A. Johnson et al., 2001 ) participants were asked to indicate whether or not each item on a list of common problems in relationships was a “major contributor to their divorce” (“yes” or “no”). These items included lack of commitment, infidelity/extra-marital affairs, too much arguing or conflict, substance abuse, domestic violence, economic hardship, lack of support from family members, marrying too young, little or no premarital education, and religious differences.

Qualitative feedback on progression of divorce

If participants indicated any of the reasons for divorce, they were subsequently asked to elaborate on how this problem progressed to their eventual divorce by the questions “Considering the problems you were telling me such as [the major reasons for divorce the participant listed], how did they move from problems to actually getting a divorce?” and “You said that [cited reason] was major contributor to the divorce. Can you tell me more about that?” We will only present detailed results from this qualitative feedback on reasons for divorce that were endorsed by at least 20% of participants.

Final straw

Participants were also asked if there was a “final straw” to their relationship ending, and to expand on that reason if there was one.

Who should have worked harder?

Participants were asked two questions ( C. A. Johnson et al., 2001 ): “Again looking back at your divorce, do you ever wish that you, yourself, had worked harder to save your marriage?” (with response options of “Yes, I wish I had worked harder” or “No, I worked hard enough.”) and “Do you ever wish that your spouse had worked harder to save your marriage?” (with response options of “Yes, I wish my spouse had worked harder.” or “No, my spouse worked hard enough.”)

Qualitative feedback on PREP

Participants were asked to report and elaborate on what they remembered, found difficult, or wished was different about their premarital education experience in an open-ended format. Example questions from the interviews include “What do you remember about the premarital preparation or training you and your ex-spouse took part in?” and “Based on your experience in a marriage that didn’t work out as you planned, do you think there is any kind of information or education that would have made a difference in how things turned out?”

Analytic Approach

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were utilized to address our research questions. For the first phase of analysis, answers were counted for close-ended questions, such as the list of major reasons for divorce (see Table 1 ) and if there was a “final straw” (yes or no). For open-ended questions, we followed a grounded-theory methodology ( Creswell, 2006 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). For the first phase of coding, after repeated readings of the transcripts, two coders, including the first author and a research assistant from the larger project, followed a grounded-theory methodology to generate common themes related to participants’ recollections of their premarital education and reasons for divorce (from open-ended items; Creswell, 2006 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). The two coders then met repeatedly to compare results and to establish consistency. If the coders disagreed across codes, they discussed their codes with the second author to come to a conclusion. Next, axial coding was used to analyze how different codes vary in order to create specific categories of the individual codes ( Creswell, 2006 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). For example, axial coding involved examining how respondent reports of general themes (e.g., communication problems) varied in their presentation (e.g., communication problems throughout the relationship vs. communication problems only at the end of marriage).

List of Major Reasons for Divorce by Individuals and Couples Who Participated in PREP

Note. The individuals column reflects the percentage of individuals in the total sample who said yes to each reason. The couples column reflects the percentage of couples who had at least one partner say yes to each reason. The couple agreement column represents how many couples had both partners cite each reason out of the couples that had a least one partner mention that reason.

The final stage of coding included selective coding in which categories were refined and relationships between concepts were noted, such as how reasons for divorce related to difficulties utilizing PREP skills. Once all codes were determined, the first author and a new coder, another research assistant on the project, coded all transcripts with the established coding system. Codes were counted for all individuals, as well as couples as a whole (partner agreement on the same code) and couples in which only one partner from the relationship reported a specific code (partner disagreement on the same code). The average Cohen’s Kappa (per code) was .71 ( SD = .28) and the median was .80.

Analyses are presented at the individual level by using data from all 52 participants, as well as at the couple level by using data from the 18 couples ( n = 36) in which both partners completed interviews.

Reasons for Divorce

Table 1 presents the “major contributors for divorce” list. Overall, the results indicate that the most often cited reasons for divorce at the individual level were lack of commitment (75.0%), infidelity (59.6%), and too much conflict and arguing (57.7%), followed by marrying too young (45.1%), financial problems (36.7%), substance abuse (34.6%), and domestic violence (23.5%). Other problems, such as religious differences, were endorsed less than 20% of the time. The order of these rankings was essentially identical at the couple level, although rates of endorsement increased because both partners were reporting. The following provides qualitative elaborations by participants on these specific reasons for divorce.

Results indicated that the most common major contributing factor to divorce reported by participants was lack of commitment , reported by 75% of individuals and by at least one person in 94.4% of couples. Of the couples in which at least one partner mentioned commitment as a problem, 70.6% represented couples in which both partners agreed that lack of commitment was a major reason for divorce. Some participants reported that commitment within their relationships gradually eroded until there was not enough commitment to sustain the relationship, while others reported more drastic drops in commitment in response to negative events, such as infidelity.

“I realized it was the lack of commitment on my part because I didn’t really feel romantic towards him. I always had felt more still like he was a friend to me.” “It became insurmountable. It got to a point where it seemed like he was no longer really willing to work [on the relationship]. All of the stresses together and then what seemed to me to be an unwillingness to work through it any longer was the last straw for me.”

The next most often cited major contributing factor to divorce was infidelity , endorsed by 59.6% of individuals and by at least one partner in 88.8% of couples. Of those couples who had a least one partner report infidelity as a reason for divorce, only 31.3% represented couples in which both partners agreed that infidelity was a major contributor to the dissolution of their marriage. Thus, the majority of couples with apparent infidelity in their relationships only had one partner mention it as a contributing factor to their divorce. Overall, infidelity was often cited as a critical turning point in a deteriorating relationship.

“It was the final straw when he actually admitted to cheating on me. I kind of had a feeling about it, but, you know, I guess we all deny [because] we never think that the person you are married to or care about would do that to us.” “He cheated on me […] Then I met somebody else and did the same thing. […] And when he found out about it we both essentially agreed that it wasn’t worth trying to make it work anymore because it just hurt too bad.”

Conflict and arguing

Too much conflict and arguing was endorsed by 57.7% of individuals and 72.2% of couples had at least one partner report that was a major contributor to divorce. Of these couples, 53.8% of couples agreed that too much conflict and arguing was a contributor to divorce. Overall, participants indicated that conflicts were not generally resolved calmly or effectively. Respondents also reported that such communication problems increased in frequency and intensity throughout their marriages, which at times, seemed to coincide with lost feelings of positive connections and mutual support. By the end of the marriage, these respondents indicated that there was a significant lack of effective communication.

“I got frustrated of arguing too much.” “We’d have an argument over something really simple and it would turn into just huge, huge fights […] and so our arguments never got better they only ever got worse.”

Marrying too young

Getting married too young was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by 45.1% of individuals and by at least one partner from 61.1% of couples. Both partners mentioned this reason in 27.3% of these couples. Participants who endorsed this item were an average of 23.3 years old at the time of marriage ( SD = 5.5) and participants who did not endorse this item were 29.2 ( SD = 6.7). In commenting about this issue, some participants reported that they had only known their partners for short periods of time before their marriage and/or that they wished they had dated their partners longer in order to either gain a better perspective on the relationship or to make a more rational decision as to whom they should marry. Additional comments about this issue included reports that participants were too young to make mature objective decisions regarding their marriage decisions.

“The main reason [we divorced] was because of our age. I think that being 19 at the time we got married, it just didn’t take. I think that we didn’t take anything as seriously as we should have.” “I wish that we wouldn’t have […] gotten married so young. I wish we would have waited a little bit longer before we actually got married.”

Financial problems

Financial problems were cited as a major contributor to divorce by 36.7% of participants and by at least one partner from 55.6% of couples. Of couples who had at least one partner endorse financial problems as a contributor to divorce, 50% represented couples in which both partners agreed that financial problems were a major reason for divorce. In elaborating about this issue, some participants indicated that financial difficulties were not the most pertinent reason for their divorce, but instead contributed to increased stress and tension within the relationship. Other participants also expressed that some financial difficulties were linked to other problems (e.g., health problems, substance abuse).

“I had a severe illness for almost a year and I was the only employed person [before that] so obviously money ran very short.” “The stress of trying to figure out the finances became a wedge that was really insurmountable.”

Substance abuse

Substance abuse was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by 34.6% of participants, and by at least one partner in 50% of couples. Of these couples, only 33.3% of partners agreed that substance abuse was a major contributing factor to divorce. Thus, similar to reports of infidelity, the majority of couples who listed substance abuse as a reason for divorce had only one partner cite this reason. Generally, participants expressed that the severity of the substance abuse problem in their relationship was either minimized over the duration of the relationship, or if attempts to address the problem were made, the partner with the substance abuse problem would not improve and/or seek help. After several attempts to address the problem, the relationship finally ended.

“I said ‘absolutely no more bars’ and as soon as I found out he was back in them, I asked for [a divorce].” “He never admitted that he even drank. It wasn’t me against him. It was me against him and the disease.”

Domestic violence

Domestic violence was cited as a contributing factor to divorce by 23.5% of participants and by at least one partner from 27.8% of couples. Of those couples in which one partner listed domestic abuse a major contributor to divorce, 40.0% of partners agreed that it was a major contributor to divorce. Elaborations of this item included descriptions of both physical and emotional abuse. Participants often expressed how the abuse in their relationship developed gradually, with intensified cycles of abuse and contrition, until the severity of the abuse intensified to insurmountable levels.

“[There was] continuous sexual abuse and emotional trauma which only got worse over time.” “There were times that I felt very physically threatened. There was a time that there was a bit of shoving. I got an elbow to my nose and I got a nose bleed. Then there was another time that he literally just slid me along the floor. […]We’d work on it. It would happen again.”

Final Straw

After assessing participant major reasons for divorce, we were interested to see if participants indicated a single event or reason that constituted a “final straw” in the process of their marriage dissolution. Overall, 68.6% of participants and at least one partner in 88.9% of couples reported that there was a final straw leading to the end of their marriage. General themes of final straw issues where generated through qualitative methods for participants who reported a final straw. Of the individuals who indicated that there was a final straw involved in ending their marriages, the most common cited reason was infidelity, which was reported by 24% of these participants, followed by domestic violence (21.2%) and substance abuse (12.1%). At the couple level, no couples (0%) had both partners report the same reason for the final straw. Participants expressed that although these final straw events may not have been the first incident of their kind (e.g., the first time they realized their partner had a substance abuse problem) an event involving these behaviors led to the final decision for their relationship to end. Also, there were some situations in which individuals expressed that these three issues may have interacted with one another or other relationship issues.

“[My ex-husband] and I both had substance abuse problems which led to infidelity […] which also led to domestic violence”. “Along with him having alcohol and drug issues as well as infidelity issues [and] the stress, came the physical and verbal abuse.”

Who is to Blame?

Considering that infidelity, domestic violence, and substance abuse were the most often endorsed “final straw” reasons for divorce, we were interested in deciphering which member of the relationship participants saw as responsible for these behaviors. In examining participants’ elaborations of infidelity, substance abuse, and domestic violence, we found that 76.9%, 72.2%, and 77.8%, respectively, described these events in terms of their partner engaging in these negative behaviors, and only 11.5%, 11.1%, and 0%, respectively, volunteered that they engaged in the behavior themselves.

Furthermore, when participants were asked if their partner should have worked harder to save their marriages, 65.8% of men and 73.8% of women believe that their ex-spouse should have worked harder to save their marriages. Conversely, when participants were asked if they, personally, should have worked harder to save their marriages, only 31.6% of men and 33.3% of women expressed that they, personally, should have worked harder. Further, at the couple level, 70.6% of couples showed a pattern in which the women believed their ex-husbands should have worked harder to save their relationships while their ex-husbands did not believe they, themselves, should have worked harder. Only 11.7% agreed that the husband should have worked harder and 11.7% had the husband endorse that he should have worked harder with the wife disagreeing. Conversely, only 35.3% of couples displayed the pattern in which the men blamed their ex-wives for not working harder while their ex-wives, themselves, denied that they should have worked harder. Only 11.7% agreed that the wife should have worked harder and 17.7% had the wife endorsed that she should have worked harder with her husband disagreeing. Further, 35.3% of couples agreed that the wife had not needed to work harder to save the marriage, while only 5.9% of couples agreed that the husband had not needed to work harder. Thus, most participants believed their ex-partners should have worked harder, but at the couple level, there were more couples in which both partners agreed that the wife did not need to work harder than there were couples in which both partners agreed the husband did not need to work harder. When asked who filed for the divorce, 63.5% of participants indicated that the woman filed for divorce and only 25% participants indicated that the man filed for divorce.

Feedback on PREP

Next, we provide the findings on the most commonly cited qualitative feedback reported by participants regarding how to improve premarital education. The following results and percentages refer to counts of qualitative codes created by the research team based on common themes in the interviews.

Learning more about one’s partner

Results show that 42.3% of participants and 77.8% of couples expressed that they wished they had known more about their ex-spouse before they were married. Of these couples, 28.6% of partners agreed. These statements included desires to understand their partner better in order to improve their communication and better prepare for the marriage, or conversely, information that would have led them to never marry one’s partner in the first place. Indeed, 30.8% of participants specifically mentioned that they wished they had recognized “red flags” to leave the relationship before they entered their marriage.

“I think the only information that could have [helped] would’ve been information that might have led me to not marry him.” “I probably wish that we would have had more premarital counseling and had somebody tell us we should not be getting married.”

Participating in the program before constraints to marry

Twenty-five percent (25.0%) of participants specifically reported that they were influenced by constraints to stay in the relationship already in place during the program. Example constraints included having become engaged, set a wedding date, sent out invitations, or purchased a dress, which made it difficult for participants to objectively reconsider if they were marrying the right person through the educational experience. Thus, a large portion of participants expressed that receiving PREP just before marriage made it difficult for them to seriously considered delaying their wedding plans in order to make more objective decisions about the relationship.

“It was one of those things where you’re like, ‘Well, I already have the dress. We’re already getting married. We already have all the people. Everything is already set up and we bought the house.’ And you just kind of think, ‘Well you know I’m sure things will get better.’ You see the red flags but you kind of ignore them.” “I just didn’t have the guts to say, ‘You know what, I understand the dresses have been paid for. The churches have been booked. The invitations have gone out. But I don’t think I want to do this.’”

Improved support for ongoing implementation

Thirty-one percent (30.8%) of individuals and 38.9% of couples had at least one partner express that, although they found PREP skills helpful during the duration of the program, they had difficulty using these skills in their daily lives outside of their premarital education classes. Of these couples, 42.9% of partners agreed that they had difficulty implementing program skills in their marriage. In general, these participants expressed that, in the heat of the moment, it was hard to utilize their communication skills, such as staying calm, actively listening, working toward the problem as a team, or taking “time outs” as suggested in PREP. Other participants simply expressed that it was hard to remember and perfect their skills after the program ended because they did not practice them regularly.

“I think that the techniques […] were helpful. I just think it mattered if you were going to apply the principles or not. And I don’t think a lot of them were applied.” “It helped with discussion and listening tools. I think, it’s just the follow through, you know. We didn’t remember those things when it came down to it.” “He tried to use it at the beginning, but it was just the continual using of the techniques that were given to us.”

Education regarding the realities of marriage

In addition to not knowing enough about one’s partner, 48.1% of participants and 72.2% of couples expressed that they did not know enough about the realities or stages of marriage after participating in the program. Of these couples, 38.5% of partners agreed. These comments included surprise that their partners changed over the course of the marriage, as well as trouble facing new problems when they emerged (e.g., lack of attraction/connection, decreases in commitment and satisfaction, and new abuse problems).

“Premarital counseling teaches you how you get along, and that you should communicate, but it doesn’t really talk about the phases of a marriage over time.” “[I wish I had learned] that the biggest area in life in an ongoing relationship is knowing that things are going to come up that aren’t perfect. That after the wedding day, and the build up to the wedding day, real life is going to kick in and you have to really have some tools to deal with it.”

The goal of this study was to increase understanding of divorced individuals’ perspectives on whether their premarital education prepared them for marriage and how relationship education could be modified to better address couples’ needs. Thus, among individuals who received PREP premaritally and later divorced, this study addressed reasons for divorce as well as ideas for what else would have been helpful in relationship education. It is the first study to qualitatively assess divorced participants’ recommendations for relationship education services. Given the small sample and qualitative nature of the reports, the implications discussed below ought to be considered preliminary.

We asked about reasons for divorce to know whether PREP addressed the kinds of problems that couples who went on to divorce tended to experience. The most commonly cited reason for divorce was lack of commitment, followed by infidelity and too much conflict and arguing. These top rated major reasons for divorce noted here are similar to those found in large random surveys of divorced participants (cf. C. A. Johnson et al., 2001 ; Hawkins, Willoughby et al., 2012 ). Overall, these findings support the importance of covering communication and commitment in premarital education programs to help foster successful marriages; however, in light of participant feedback on PREP, the program may have been able to cover these and other topics more effectively.

Whereas issues like communication and commitment overlap with core content in PREP and other programs (see Markman & Rhoades, 2012 ), a substantial portion of responses suggested that, although the skills taught in PREP may been helpful, they did not implement them in real-life situations, particularly during heated discussions. Research indicates that commitment and conflict management are related in that commitment helps partners inhibit negative behaviors and engage in more positive behaviors at critical moments ( Slotter et al., 2012 ); thus, the issues of commitment and conflict management are likely intertwined in important ways. Further, consistent with other research on a German version of PREP ( Hahlweg & Richter, 2010 ), participants also reported that they forgot some of the communication skills over time.

These findings highlight a key question for the couple research field regarding how to enhance couples’ ability to use beneficial strategies when they are most needed. One solution could be to increase the time couples spend in premarital education in order for them to master essential skills and to help them become more likely to constructively derail negative processes as they emerge. At the same time, the version of PREP that these couples received was 12 hours long, which is both on the long end of what most couples receive in premarital education ( Mdn = 8 hours; Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006 ) and in the range of what tends to be the most effective dose ( Hawkins, Stanley, Blanchard, & Albright, 2012 ). Longer curricula do not seem to lead to stronger effects ( Hawkins, Stanley et al., 2012 ), but future random-assignment studies could address this question better.

With most premarital education services, including PREP, couples are not provided opportunities to practice new skills or receive coaching while they are upset or experiencing a difficult disagreement. A group or workshop format likely inhibits such real-world discussions. It could be that couples would benefit from new program content that helps them practice their skills better when they are having trouble. Couples may also benefit from additional opportunities to perfect the use of program strategies after the intervention has ended, such as through booster classes or individual meetings with coaches. Research indicates that such boosters may be effective ( Braukhaus, Hahlweg, Kroeger, Groth, & Fehm-Wolfsdorf, 2003 ). New technologies now offer innovative ways to deliver such boosters, such as through online training or smart phone applications.

Content Considerations for Premarital Education

Introducing new content on the issues that participants identified as final straws in their marriages may also be beneficial. These issues were infidelity, aggression or emotional abuse, and substance use. Addressing these behaviors directly in relationship education raises some questions regarding which couples relationship education providers might seek to help stay together as opposed to help break-up. We believe premarital education should serve as a prevention effort to help healthy and happy couples stay that way and that keeping distressed, abusive, or otherwise unhealthy couples together would not be a positive outcome. Research on the development of these “final straw” behaviors seems particularly important in the future. A limitation of the current study is that the pre-intervention assessment did not include the kinds of measures necessary to determine the extent to which couples in this study presented with these problems before marriage. Thus, future research is needed to investigate whether premarital education can help prevent couples from developing some of these “final straw” behaviors and whether it may help some couples with problems such as aggression or substance abuse either get the additional help they will need to change these behaviors or break up. We discuss preliminary ideas about whether/how premarital education might cover each of these final straw issues below.

Over half of all participants cited infidelity as a major reason for divorce and infidelity was the most often endorsed “final straw” reason. Infidelity is not a major focus in PREP, though the curriculum does address the importance of commitment, including protecting one’s relationship from attraction to others. Based on participants’ reports from this study, it may be that premarital programs could be improved by more directly addressing how to reduce the potential for extramarital involvement.

If providers or programs choose to address infidelity explicitly, Markman (2005) provides useful guidelines for covering the topic. These recommendations include informing participants that there are specific situations and developmental time periods within relationships with increased risks for engaging in extramarital relationships (e.g., transition to parenthood, close relationships with attractive alternatives, significant drinking). Furthermore, participants could be informed that the risk for extramarital relationships may increase during stressful times—such as when partners are separated for long periods by work demands or experiencing low marital satisfaction—and this information could be shared with participants. Partners could also be given structure to talk with each other about expectations for fidelity, management of relationships with friends or co-workers who could be attractive alternatives, and boundaries for their relationship. However, one barrier to increasing a focus on the prevention of infidelity in premarital education is that relationship commitment and satisfaction is highest right before marriage ( Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2006 ), so engaged couples may not be receptive or eager to directly address the possibility of future extramarital affairs during this time ( Allen et al., 2005 ).

Substance abuse also appeared to be a prevalent problem at least for half of divorced couples in this sample. Overall, reports indicate that although substance abuse problems may have developed gradually throughout these relationships, this issue constituted the final straw to end the relationship for a number of individuals once the situation was perceived as insurmountable. Substance abuse is not currently addressed in PREP except that all couples attending PREP are provided with information on how to get more help for a range of problems, including substance abuse.

Premarital programs may benefit from educating participants on how substance abuse is not uncommon as a reason for divorce in an effort to encourage participants to address substance abuse problems as early as possible. Such program additions could also include how to recognize and get help for substance abuse and could encourage partners to discuss their expectations for substance use in the relationship. Partners may also benefit from discussing how to support each other in seeking help, should the need ever arise. Furthermore, couples could be taught that if a substance abuse develops in the relationship, there is often a discrepancy between partners regarding perspectives on the extent of the problem, which is evident by this study’s findings.

Domestic violence was cited by over a quarter of couples as a reason for divorce. When asked to elaborate, some described verbal abuse, while others described physical aggression. Often participants explained that they initially believed they could work through the problem, but later found it unbearable, as some participants considered an act of physical aggression as the final straw in their relationship. As others have suggested ( Halford, Markman, Kline, & Stanley, 2003 ), premarital education programs may benefit from teaching participants about recognizing, preventing, and getting help for aggression in relationships. In current models of PREP, all participants learn that aggression is unacceptable and they all receive basic information on ways to get help (e.g., through shelters), as to not put particular couples or individuals in awkward or unsafe circumstances in class. Still, more could be done.

The field continues to debate how to best address this issue, as different types of violence and couples of varying risk may warrant different approaches. M. P. Johnson (1995) distinguishes between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. Specifically, situational couple violence tends to be much more common and represents aggression that comes out of conflict. It is typically initiated by either partner while intimate terrorism encompasses more controlling, threatening behavior, typically by the male partner.

With 36% of unmarried couples having experienced some form of physical aggression in the last year ( Rhoades, Stanley, Kelmer, & Markman, 2010 ), relationship education programs should take care not to scare couples who have experienced aggression away from seeking help. As is done routinely in PREP, it seems necessary in relationship education that providers and program content emphasize to all participants that any aggression is unacceptable and also suggest specific, local ways to seek help for problems with aggression. To develop further content, an understanding of the literature on aggression and violence, including men’s vs. women’s roles, and the different type of violence, is likely particularly important, as recommendations may be different for different kinds of problems. For example, recommendations for situational couple violence might include couple and/or individual therapy focused on intensive skills to help better manage negative affect and conflict effectively whereas intimate terrorism would most likely call for referrals to shelters or law enforcement. For further recommendations regarding domestic violence and relationship education, see suggestions by Derrington, Johnson, Menard, Ooms, and Stanley (2010) .

Financial hardship

Financial hardship was cited as a major reason for divorce that provided stress on their relationship by over half the sample. Although PREP helps couples learn communication skills to discuss stressful topics in general, it is worth considering whether specific content on money and economic stress is warranted. Participants could be asked to more directly share expectations about finances and learn coping skills for times of significant financial strain. They could also be provided with appropriate community resources to improve or stabilize their financial situations or these resources could be incorporated into relationship education efforts.

Marriage expectations

Almost half of interviewees commented that they did not know enough about the typical course of events in marriage. PREP typically addresses expectations by encouraging participants to recognize and discuss their own expectations for marriage ( Markman et al., 2010 ), but it does not provide explicit information about how marriages and families tend to develop over time. More content on normal marital development could be helpful. For example, information could be provided about how satisfaction typically drops and conflict tends to increase during the transition to parenthood (e.g., Doss, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009b ) and about the course of attraction and sexual desire in relationships.

Previous research has shown that couples who develop serious difficulties, and eventually seek help, usually do so long after the problems have become deeply entrenched ( Doss, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009a ). Thus, relationship education programs may benefit from providing guidelines regarding when to seek professional help and even have couples practice these difficult conversations to encourage them to seek help early and at times when changes are easiest to make. There is survey evidence that premarital education is associated with being more likely to use services later in the marriage ( Williamson, Karney, Trail, & Bradbury, 2012 ), but more direct content on how and when to seek help may be warranted.

This point about seeking help early is complicated by the fact that the majority of participants saw their partner as primarily responsible for participating in the “final straw” behaviors (infidelity, domestic violence, and substance use) and for not working hard enough to save the marriage. Most participants also believed that they, personally, should not have worked harder to save their marriages. Therefore, premarital education may need to focus on encouraging help seeking behaviors in couples with the understanding that most individuals may see their partners as primarily responsible for their difficulties, and therefore, may not feel personally responsible. In addition, the majority of couples displayed a pattern in which the women blamed their ex-husbands while their ex-husbands did not see themselves as responsible. Interestingly, as has been found elsewhere ( Amato & Previti, 2003 ; C. A. Johnson et al., 2001 ), women in this sample were also more likely to eventually file for divorce than men. Thus, it may be especially important that husbands and wives develop realistic expectations about seeking help together, so that they later do not disagree about what circumstances might constitute a need for help.

The Timing of Premarital Education

Our findings show that a considerable number of participants wished that they had known more about their partner before marriage, saying they would have either learned how to handle differences better or left the relationship. Many others believed they had married too young. Also, a portion of participants mentioned that they participated in PREP during a time when the constraints of wedding plans made it more likely for them to ignore factors that may have otherwise ended their relationship. These participant comments highlight the difference between when couples might ideally benefit from premarital education compared to when couples typically seek it. One of the potential benefits of relationship education is that is can help some couples on an ill-advised or premature path toward marriage to reconsider their plans (see Stanley, 2001 ); however, couples typically participate in these programs close to their wedding dates, a time when ending the relationship may be especially difficult.

A potentially stronger overall prevention strategy is to reach people earlier in their relationships, before constraints to marry are in place, or even before individuals enter relationships ( Rhoades & Stanley, 2009 ). Early, individual-oriented relationship education can help individuals develop and practice healthy relationship skills and also help them end unsafe or unhealthy relationships ( Rhoades & Stanley, 2011 ). One recently-developed relationship education curriculum designed for individuals, Within My Reach ( Pearson, Stanley, & Rhoades, 2008 ), has shown success in teaching these skills and helping individuals reach their personal relationship goals ( Antle, Karam, Christensen, Barbee, & Sar, 2011 ). Thus, future research may wish to consider how to encourage individuals and/or couples who have yet to make commitments to marry to participate in relationship education programs, as well as how and when these programs should advise individuals to leave damaging relationships.

Conclusions and Limitations

This study provides new information regarding the reasons for divorce and possible improvements to relationship education programs based on feedback from divorced individuals who participated in PREP premaritally. Although the study focuses on improving the PREP model specifically, relationship education programs working with premarital populations may also find value in our findings, particularly regarding how to cover specific topics deemed important by our participants. Other programs may also benefit from suggestions to provide relationship education earlier and to provide services to help couples master their skill development over time.

This study also has several limitations that warrant discussion. First, respondent reports of their progression toward divorce and premarital education experiences were retrospective and may therefore be biased by the passing of time. Future studies may wish to evaluate relationship problems and reasons for divorce closer to the couple’s decision to divorce. Second, the sample was mostly White and only included participants in heterosexual relationships who married within mostly Christian-based religious organizations. Therefore, future studies are needed to examine whether these findings would be replicated with other groups or cultures. A third limitation is the lack of a comparison group of couples who participated in PREP but did not divorce. As a result, it is not clear whether or not the problems and recommendations these participants identified are specific to this divorced sample, or would translate to couples who remain married. Finally, all participants in this study received PREP when they were engaged to be married so research is needed to evaluate reasons for relationship dissolution and how to improve programs that target individuals and couples in different relationship stages (e.g. dating or married). Nevertheless, this study provides new insight in potential improvements to the content and timing of relationship education.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by award number R01HD053314 from the Eunice Kennedy Shrivner National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shrivner National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or National Institutes of Health.

Contributor Information

Shelby B. Scott, Department of Psychology, University of Denver.

Galena K. Rhoades, Department of Psychology, University of Denver.

Scott M. Stanley, Department of Psychology, University of Denver.

Elizabeth S. Allen, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado – Denver.

Howard J. Markman, Department of Psychology, University of Denver.

• Al Gharaibeh F, Bromfield N. An analysis of divorce cases in the United Arab Emirates: A rising trend. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2012; 53 (6):436–452. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2012.682896. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen ES, Atkins DC, Baucom DH, Snyder DK, Gordon KC, Glass SP. Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2005; 12 (2):101–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 2000; 62 (4):1269–1287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR, Previti D. People’s reasons for divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and adjustment. Journal of Family Issues. 2003; 24 (5):602–626. doi: 10.1177/0192513X03024005002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antle BF, Karam E, Christensen DN, Barbee AP, Sar BK. An evaluation of healthy relationship education to reduce intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Social Work. 2011; 14 :387–406. doi: 10.1080/10522158.2011.616482. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom BL, Niles RL, Tatcher MA. Sources of marital dissatisfaction among newly separated persons. Journal of Family Issues. 1985; 6 :359–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baucom DH, Hahlweg K, Atkins DC, Engl J, Thurmaier F. Long-term prediction of marital quality following a relationship education program: Being positive in a constructive way. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 (3):448–455. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.448. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braukhaus C, Hahlweg K, Kroeger C, Groth T, Fehm-Wolfsdorf G. The effects of adding booster sessions to a prevention training program for committed couples. Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2003; 31 (3):325–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Derrington R, Johnson M, Menard A, Ooms T, Stanley SM, editors. Making distinctions among different types of intimate partner violence: A preliminary guide. Fairfax, VA: The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doss BD, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Marital therapy, retreats, and books: The who, what, when, and why of relationship help-seeking. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2009a; 35 (1):18–29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doss BD, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology. 2009b; 96 (3):601–619. doi: 10.1037/a0013969. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frisco ML, Muller C, Frank K. Parents’ union dissolution and adolescents’ school performance: Comparing methodological approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007; 69 (3):721–741. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigy L, Kelly JB. Reasons for divorce: Perspectives of divorcing men and women. Journal Of Divorce & Remarriage. 1992; 18 (1–2):169–187. doi: 10.1300/J087v18n01_08. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hahlweg K, Markman HJ, Thurmaier F, Engl J, Eckert V. Prevention of marital distress: Results of a German prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998; 12 (4):543–556. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hahlweg K, Richter D. Prevention of marital instability and distress. Results of an 11-year longitudinal follow-up study. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2010; 48 (5):377–383. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.12.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halford WK, Markman HJ, Kline GH, Stanley SM. Best practice in couple relationship education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2003; 29 (3):385–406. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawkins AJ, Stanley SM, Blanchard VL, Albright M. Exploring programmatic moderators of the effectiveness of marriage and relationship education programs: A meta-analytic study. Behavior Therapy 2012 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawkins AJ, Willoughby BJ, Doherty WJ. Reasons for divorce and openness to marital reconciliation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2012; 53 (6):453–463. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2012.682898. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes ME, Waite LJ. Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2009; 50 (3):344–358. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson CA, Stanley SM, Glenn ND, Amato PR, Nock SL, Markman HJ, et al. Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 Baseline Statewide Survey on Marriage and Divorce: OSU Bureau for Social Research. Oklahoma State University; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson MP. Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1995; 57 :283–294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitson GC, Holmes W. Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital breakdown. New York, NY US: Guilford Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurenceau JP, Stanley SM, Olmos-Gallo A, Baucom B, Markman HJ. Community-based prevention of marital dysfunction: Multilevel modeling of a randomized effectiveness study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004; 72 (6):933–943. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman HJ. The prevention of extramarital involvement: Steps toward ‘affair proofing’ marriage. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2005; 12 (2):134–138. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman HJ, Hahlweg K. The prediction and prevention of marital distress: An international perspective. Clinical Psychology Review. 1993; 13 :29–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman HJ, Renick M, Floyd FJ, Stanley SM, Clements M. Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology. 1993; 61 (1):70–77. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.70. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman HJ, Rhoades GK. Relationship education research: Current status and future directions. Journal of Marital And Family Therapy. 2012; 38 (1):169–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00247.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman HJ, Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Peterson KM. A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of premarital intervention: Moderators of divorce outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology in press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman HJ, Stanley SM, Blumberg SL. Fighting for your marriage: A deluxe revised edition of the classic best-seller for enhancing marriage and preventing divorce. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman HJ, Whitton SW, Kline GH, Stanley SM, Thompson H, Peters MS, et al. Use of an empirically based marriage education program by religious organizations: Results of a dissemination trial. Family Relations. 2004; 53 (5):504–512. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mbosowo D. The extent and rate of divorce in Plateau State, Nigeria 1980 to 1988. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 1994; 21 (3–4):147–169. doi: 10.1300/J087v21n03_08. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson M, Stanley SM, Rhoades GK. Within My Reach Instructor Manual. Denver, CO: PREP, Inc; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragan EP, Einhorn LA, Rhoades GK, Markman HJ, Stanley SM. Relationship education programs: Current trends and future directions. In: Bray JH, Stanton M, editors. Handbook of family psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. pp. 450–462. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades GK, Stanley SM. Relationship education for individuals: The benefits and challenges of intervening early. In: Benson H, Callan S, editors. What works in relationship education: Lessons from academics and service deliverers in the United States and Europe. Doha, Qatar: Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development; 2009. pp. 45–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades GK, Stanley SM. Using individual-oriented relationship education to prevent family violence. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy. 2011; 10 :185–200. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Kelmer G, Markman HJ. Physical aggression in unmarried relationships: The roles of commitment and constraints. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010; 24 :678–687. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Pre-engagement cohabitation and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 :553–560. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savaya R, Cohen O. Divorce among Moslem Arabs living in Israel: Comparison for reasons before and after the actualization of the marriage. Journal of Family Issues. 2003a; 24 (3):338–351. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02250889. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savaya R, Cohen O. Divorce among ‘unmarried’ Muslim Arabs in Israel: Women’s reasons for the dissolution of unactualized marriages. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2003b; 40 (1–2):93–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slotter EB, Finkel EJ, DeWall CN, Pond RS, Lambert NM, Bodenhausen GV, et al. Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012; 102 (2):291–305. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley SM, Allen ES, Markman HJ, Rhoades GK, Prentice DL. Decreasing divorce in army couples: Results from a randomized controlled trial using PREP for Strong Bonds. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy. 2010; 9 (2):149–160. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley SM, Amato PR, Johnson CA, Markman HJ. Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 (1):117–126. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Acting on what we know: The hope of prevention. In: Ooms T, editor. Strategies to strengthen marriage: What we know, what we need to know. Washington, D.C: The Family Impact Seminar; 1998. pp. 37–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley SM. Making a case for premarital education. Family Relations. 2001; 50 (3):272–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanley SM, Markman HJ, Prado LM, Olmos-Gallo PA, Tonelli L, St Peters M, et al. Community-based premarital prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations. 2001; 50 (1):67–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2. London: Sage Publications; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohschein L. Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 (5):1286–1300. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun Y, Li Y. Marital disruption, parental investment, and children’s academic achievement: A prospective analysis. Journal of Family Issues. 2001; 22 (1):27–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thurnher M, Fenn CB, Melichar J, Chiriboga DA. Sociodemographic perspectives on reasons for divorce. Journal of Divorce. 1983; 6 (4):25–35. doi: 10.1300/J279v06n04_02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Widenfelt B, Hosman C, Schaap C, van der Staak C. The prevention of relationship distress for couples at risk: A controlled evaluation with nine-month and two-year follow-ups. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 1996; 45 (2):156–165. doi: 10.2307/585286. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williamson HC, Karney BR, Trail TE, Bradbury TN. Do the couples most in need of help receive couples therapy?. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies; National Harbor, MD. 2012. Nov, [ Google Scholar ]

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Pregnant women in Missouri can't get divorced. Critics say it fuels domestic violence

Katia Riddle

Missouri law requires women seeking divorce to disclose whether they're pregnant — and state judges won't finalize divorces during a pregnancy. Darya Komarova/Getty Images hide caption

Missouri law requires women seeking divorce to disclose whether they're pregnant — and state judges won't finalize divorces during a pregnancy.

The turning point for Destonee was a car ride.

She describes a scene of emotional abuse: Pregnant with her third child, her husband yelled at her while her older two kids listened in the car. "He would call me awful things in front of them," she says. "And soon my son would call me those names too."

She made up her mind to leave him, but when she went to a lawyer to file for divorce, she was told to come back when she was no longer pregnant.

Destonee requested she be identified by only her first name. She says she still lives with abusive threats from her ex-husband. She couldn't end her marriage because Missouri law requires women seeking divorce to disclose whether they're pregnant — and state judges won't finalize divorces during a pregnancy. Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.

Advocates in Missouri are now pushing to change this law, arguing that it's being weaponized against victims of domestic violence and contributes to the contraction of women's reproductive freedoms in a post- Roe v. Wade landscape.

"In Missouri, it feels as though they have really closed down every door in terms of reproductive autonomy," says Kristen Marinaccio, an attorney and expert in divorce law who has examined these kinds of laws in Missouri and other states. She says beyond the legal and financial ties of marriage, there is powerful emotional weight to legally terminating a marriage. "You might just think, well, it's a piece of paper," she says, "but that piece of paper that tells you you're no longer in this horrible marriage is really freeing for a lot of clients."

After hearing stories about survivors unable to leave marriages, state Rep. Ashley Aune introduced House Bill 2402. It would allow pregnant women to finalize divorce in Missouri.

Aune says that the law has gone unexamined for too long and that policymakers need to give women the right to leave a dangerous or even life-threatening situation. "How can you look that person in the eye and say, 'No, I think you should stay with that person,'" says Aune, a Democrat. "That's wild to me."

Another survivor of domestic violence who asked to be identified by only her initial, L. — because she says she's still in hiding from her ex-husband — describes her encounter with the legal system when she tried to end her marriage. She had been holding onto the idea of filing for divorce as an emotional life raft for her and her child. When she finally pursued it, she says, her lawyer told her it wasn't possible due to her pregnancy. "I felt absolutely defeated in that moment," she recalls.

L. returned to her abusive marriage to wait out her pregnancy. She says she slept on a tile floor in the basement the night before she gave birth because "it was the only room in the house where there was a lock."

Texas and Arkansas have similar laws. It's impossible to know how often women are unable to leave marriages due to pregnancy. Some people may not even try to file for divorce because of the law; as in Destonee's case, lawyers might simply tell them to come back when they're not pregnant.

Advocates in Missouri who work with domestic violence victims say they consistently see pregnant women who want to leave but can't, and they warn that it isn't as simple as just waiting out the pregnancy. "When they do make that decision, it's a really big deal," says Meghann Kosman, an advocate for victims at an organization called North Star Advocacy Center, north of Kansas City, Missouri.

Kosman says it takes her clients a lot of courage and sometimes multiple attempts to leave.

"We have to honor that and respect that," she says, and "work with them because they're ready in that moment to make that change." The opportunity might not present itself again.

Reproductive restrictions as weapons

Another reason advocates say divorce laws like Missouri's need to change: The law enables a form of abuse called reproductive coercion. "The abusive partner utilizes pregnancy and children as a way to control their partner," explains Christina Cherry, a program manager at a domestic violence housing program with a Kansas City-based organization called Synergy Services.

Christina Cherry works for Synergy Services, a Kansas City, Mo., organization that works with survivors of domestic violence. She says Missouri's law enables a form of abuse called reproductive coercion, where "the abusive partner utilizes pregnancy and children as a way to control their partner." Dominick Williams for NPR hide caption

Christina Cherry works for Synergy Services, a Kansas City, Mo., organization that works with survivors of domestic violence. She says Missouri's law enables a form of abuse called reproductive coercion, where "the abusive partner utilizes pregnancy and children as a way to control their partner."

After turning away too many families that needed shelter, Synergy Services decided to create its own housing. The group's administrative offices are pictured. Dominick Williams for NPR hide caption

After turning away too many families that needed shelter, Synergy Services decided to create its own housing. The group's administrative offices are pictured.

On this day, Cherry stands inside an old Kansas City school that her organization is renovating to provide housing for survivors of domestic violence. "These units will be our four-bedroom units," she says, gesturing to the vaulted ceiling in what was formerly the school's gymnasium. They will house families of eight. Cherry says they could potentially receive even bigger families.

The organization decided to create its own housing after turning away too many families that needed housing, especially large families due to pregnancies forced on women by their abusers. "They continue having children, but they can't afford to house them. They remain in poverty," Cherry explains.

Leaving the marriage, she says, becomes nearly impossible.

Cherry says when she heard that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, she immediately felt dread for her clients who would now have even less ability to control their pregnancies. Her organization and others like it report turning away nearly 3,000 people who needed shelter last year in the Kansas City area.

This old Kansas City school is being renovating by Synergy Services to provide housing for survivors of domestic violence. Dominick Williams for NPR hide caption

This old Kansas City school is being renovating by Synergy Services to provide housing for survivors of domestic violence.

There's a particular need to provide housing for large families due to pregnancies forced on women by their abusers, according to Christina Cherry of Synergy Services. Parts of the old school building will eventually house families of eight. Dominick Williams for NPR hide caption

There's a particular need to provide housing for large families due to pregnancies forced on women by their abusers, according to Christina Cherry of Synergy Services. Parts of the old school building will eventually house families of eight.

Missouri isn't the only place struggling with this issue in a post- Roe world. "We're seeing lots more people citing reproductive coercion, sexual coercion, reproductive abuse or pregnancy coercion as part of their experience," says Marium Durrani, vice president of policy for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Her organization reports a nearly 100% increase in hotline calls across the U.S. in the year after the Supreme Court ended the federal right to abortion. "I mean, we are getting calls that are very explicitly like 'I am pregnant.' 'I am trying to escape.' 'I cannot get resources where I am or in my state or my locality,'" Durrani says.

Bill that would abolish Missouri's divorce rule isn't certain to pass

In Missouri, it's not clear whether Aune's legislation will pass, despite international media attention. "I don't honestly feel very hopeful," says Aune, who notes that passing any kind of legislation is difficult for Democrats in Missouri's Republican-dominated statehouse.

Aune is more optimistic about the useful conversation she says she recently had with Missouri judges, who she hopes will be more aware of the dynamics around abuse when making decisions involving divorce and pregnancy. The bill's passage, she says, is still possible in a future legislative session.

It took Destonee three months after her baby was born to leave her husband. Her ex still has partial custody of the children, an arrangement she says is still very difficult to navigate. But her overwhelming feeling, she says, is of being free. She's proud of herself and of the person who was "so strong and didn't even know it at the time."

So strong, she says, she saved herself and her children even without the support of her state.

• Supreme Court
• domestic violence
• Abortion rights
• Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization