Vermont’s divorce process is often viewed as progressive, emphasizing mediation and a no-fault framework. However, as a practicing family law attorney, I encounter several systemic and procedural flaws that can undermine fairness, create financial hardship, and prolong emotional distress for families.
1. The Illusion of Simplicity in “No-Fault” and Unpredictable Outcomes
Vermont is a pure no-fault state, requiring only that the court find the parties have lived separate and apart for six consecutive months or that “irreconcilable differences” have caused the breakdown of the marriage. While this reduces overt conflict over grounds, it creates a significant flaw: the complete exclusion of marital misconduct from financial considerations. Vermont courts are statutorily barred from considering fault, such as financial dissipation, domestic abuse, or adultery, when dividing property or awarding maintenance. This can lead to profoundly unjust outcomes where one spouse bears the full financial consequence of the other’s destructive behavior without any legal recourse, making the concept of “equitable” distribution feel arbitrary and unfair to the wronged party.
2. The “Equitable Distribution” Standard: Excessive Judicial Discretion
Vermont is an “equitable distribution” state, dividing marital property in a manner the court deems fair, not necessarily equal. The flaw lies in the exceptionally broad discretion granted to judges and the subjective nature of the statutory factors. Courts consider elements like the length of the marriage, each party’s economic circumstances, and their contributions to the marital estate. Without clear benchmarks, outcomes are highly unpredictable. This ambiguity discourages settlement, as parties cannot confidently assess the risk of trial. The result is often increased litigation costs as couples essentially gamble on a particular judge’s personal interpretation of “fairness”, leading to inconsistent rulings across different counties.
3. The Financial Burden of the Mandatory Parent Education Program
For divorcing parents with minor children, Vermont mandates attendance at a parent education program. While intended to serve children’s best interests, this requirement is a flawed, one-size-fits-all mandate. It imposes an additional financial cost and time burden on families already under strain, often delivering generic content irrelevant to high-conflict situations involving abuse or alienation. More critically, it can create a false sense of procedural fairness, where completion of the course is mistaken for substantive resolution of parenting disputes, potentially delaying necessary, individualized psychological evaluations or specialized interventions.
4. Overburdened Courts and the Paradox of "Pro Se" Accessibility
Vermont’s family courts are severely overburdened, leading to lengthy delays for hearings, especially for motions related to temporary orders or enforcement. This flaw is exacerbated by a well-intentioned but problematic push for pro se (self-represented) accessibility. While forms and guides are available, the complexity of financial disclosures, parenting plan creation, and tax implications often traps unrepresented parties in procedural errors or disadvantageous settlements. The system’s design assumes a level of legal and financial literacy that most individuals lack, and the overburdened judiciary has limited resources to guide them. This can result in final orders that are procedurally sound but substantively inequitable, with little opportunity for correction.
Conclusion: A System in Need of Refinement
Vermont’s divorce framework aims for amicable resolution but is hindered by flaws including rigid no-fault rules that ignore misconduct, unpredictable property division, inflexible mandatory programs, and court delays that strain self-represented litigants. These imperfections underscore the importance of securing knowledgeable legal counsel. An experienced attorney is essential to navigate judicial discretion, protect against the system’s one-size-fits-all pitfalls, and advocate for a truly equitable outcome within an imperfect structure.
Top comments (0)