Another day, another celebrity marriage breaking up because so-and-so cheated, squandered money, etc., etc. That's a basis for divorce, right?
Celebrity lawyers point to these transgressions as “the basis” for a divorce. Talking about them at length makes for great television, but it is misleading. In most states, there is no need to prove a “basis” for divorce, other than that the marriage is irretrievably broken. That is, one spouse need not prove the other spouse cheated or is otherwise at fault for the marriage’s breakdown. Divorce in the United States is almost exclusively no-fault, and in those few states that consider “fault” as a basis for divorce, fault is more a formality than the be-all-end-all of the case.
Parties are often confused about the part fault plays in a divorce. Each state has different rules, and you should consult a lawyer in your state for the rules specific to your case. In general, however, fault is a mere formality for obtaining a divorce. In Michigan, where I practice, for example, the party filing for divorce must only allege that there has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the extent the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood of reconciliation.
Period.
Nothing more.
In fact, most judges will not even let the parties testify about who was “more at fault” for this breakdown to grant the divorce.
This is not to say that fault is completely irrelevant. Most states will consider fault when dividing property and ordering child custody. In Michigan, for example, fault is relevant if the fault is related to marital property (e.g., one spouse secretly incurred debt to fuel a gambling addiction). Fault is also relevant if it reflects on parenting (e.g., one spouse deserted the children for a lover).