June 24, 2018


Looking for PR & Finance Directors -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Elections 2016-2017 -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Why the ERA Failed: Comfort Over Content in the Fight for Women’s Rights -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

The Extent to Which Parents Should Regulate Their Children’s Abortions -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Human Rights in a Reclusive Context: North Korea -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Separation without Justification: Parental Rights of Pregnant Juveniles in Correctional Facilities -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

U.S. Asylum after September 11: Failures of the PATRIOT and ID Acts -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Genomicare: The Affordable Care Act of 2023 -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

“Social Worker with a Gun:” The Role of Policing in Harm Reduction Among Addicts -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Pulling Principles Out of Thick Air: The Incorporation of Customary International Law Under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 After Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Schuette v. BAMN: Moving Toward a Colorblind Constitution -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

American Women in Combat: What Israel and Canada Can Teach the United States About Integration -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Now Accepting Submissions! -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Join WULR! -

Monday, April 25, 2016

The Intersection of Lawlessness and Justice: Police Misconduct -

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

A Recommendation for Eliminating Lifetime Tenure for Federal Judges -

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Admissions Panel A Great Success! -

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Law School Admissions Panel -

Monday, November 3, 2014

VICTORY OF THE MINORITY: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Fight for Constitutional Rights -

Monday, June 30, 2014

VACATING CONVICTIONS: The Efficacy of One Form of Relief from the Consequences of Conviction -

Monday, June 30, 2014


Article submissions are now open for the Journal! Deadline: December 19!

LOSING THE BLAME GAME TO WIN FOR THE FAMILY: The Continued Benefits of the No-Fault Divorce Movement, 1969 to Today

Fall 2013 : Volume VII : Issue 1

*Author: Elizabeth Kramer, Carnegie Mellon University

This paper analyzes the legal roots and historical background that established the Fault divorce movement in the context of United States, and how this background juxtaposed to the climate of the late 1960’s that brought the no-fault divorce revolution. The no-fault revolution drastically changed the laws regarding divorce process in an attempt to create structure that would lessen emotional distress for families. Though the goals of a more “objective” court system may have fallen short of ideals due to continued reliance on judge’s subjective opinion, this paper explains that the no-fault model definition of “need” and “equality” for which judges base their subjective assessment of each individual family determine, judge’s methods of allowing evidence and testimonies, determining asset allocation, and deciding child custody. The no-fault judge’s oversight over these realms has created reformed divorce processes for divorced families. These claims are made under the framework of Pennsylvania’s No- Fault laws and are supported with various nationwide research studies and first-hand expert accounts.

To continue reading this article please refer to our “Ordering” tab and purchase your hard copy of this publication, or download an online copy from our “Issues” tab. Thank you.

Leave A Comment