Arizona Challenge to No-Fault Divorce

Arizona Defendant makes Constitutional Challenge against No-Fault Divorce Law claiming Viewpoint-Discrimination

On April 9, divorce defendant, Andrew Mucha, filed a constitutional challenge against no-fault divorce in Yavapai County, Arizona.  Routinely, the court forces a divorce on any defendant, simply because the plaintiff expresses the view that the marriage is “irretrievably broken” (A.R.S. 25-312(A)(3).

Andrew is arguing that this process is unconstitutional because the laws are only based on petitioner’s viewpoint and are prejudiced toward her, which is impermissible. Previous viewpoint discrimination challenges have been reported by Mary’s Advocates: Pennsylvania (Pankoe)  and Massachusetts (Dallmeyer).

Andy told Mary’s Advocates that both his wife and he entered marriage promising that their marriage was permanent, and expected to be together through both good times, and bad.   He recognizes they had been struggling, though, at the same time, he says he’s confident that with the right kind of relationship coaching, they can have a happy and fulfilling marriage.  However, he sees the involvement of his wife’s lawyer and the civil courts are making this impossible.  Andy says, “The court is driving a wedge between us and making the conflicts much worse.”

Previously, they were seeing a counselor, and Andy says he learned the counselor was undermining their marriage, so Andy looked for somebody else about two years ago.  His wife had stopped seeing that counselor also until very recently, after she filed for divorce. Andy guesses that his wife went back to the counselor to corroborate her viewpoint that the marriage is irretrievably broken. Now, Andy regularly participates in counseling with a marriage friendly therapist, but his wife refuses to join him.

He advises, “There is an invaluable question to ask for any couple seeking counseling professionally. ‘If my spouse says the marriage is the problem, will you advise them to end the marriage as solution?  Who is the client the single person, or the marriage?’”

In Arizona, divorce courts have the option to arrange for parties to participate in conciliation counseling (with the goal of reconciliation).  When Andy asked the judge for this option, the judge stated, ““Ms. Johnson doesn’t want to do conciliation” in a snide and demeaning way, reports Andy.  His response was, “That is because my wife has trauma influencing her every decision.”

We will be watching this case closely and will provide updates as needed.

COURT EVENTS

Feb. 12, 2024 – Wife’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage
April 9, 2024 – Andrew’s Response to Petition for Dissolution
April 9, 2024 – Andrew’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support

Excerpt from “Response to Petition for Dissolution of Marriage”