gnition toMexican divorce decrees, which were popular because they could be obtainedafter only one days residence in that country by either spouse. This formalacceptance by the courts of Mexican divorces was a recognition of both thenumber of New York marriages dissolved in Mexico and the unlikelihood of achange in the state divorce laws by the legislature. The system of migratorydivorces was considered by many as discriminatory against the poor, whocould not afford to take up residence in another state or travel to a foreigncountry in order to get a divorce.The third main point is Reform of divorce. A divorce reform movementfinally took place in the early 1970s in Great Britain and the United States. The movement was originally initiated by a group, assembled by thearchbishop of Canterbury, who proposed a single, no-fault ground thatrequired a judge to grant a divorce if he or she finds that the marriage isirretrievably broken. This proposal was accepted by a study commission inCalifornia and enacted by that states legislature. Subsequently, the notion ofirretrievable breakdown was proclaimed in the U.S. by the Uniform Marriageand Divorce Act and appears to be gaining acceptance throughout the nation.The phrasing of the no-fault principle has produced much controversy. Manycritics, pointing out that irretrievable breakdown is a vague concept givingjudges substantial discretion, have argued that enactment of this standard willperpetuate sluggish divorce administration by conservative courts, often at theexpense of the poor and those spouses whose behavior is not consistent withthe values of the judiciary. Others have complained that this standard allowsdivorce by consent and that formal recognition of such easy divorce willeventually undermine the stability of the nuclear family. More than a decadeafter reform began, most observers seem satisfied that these potentialproblems were overestimated. Although the rate of divorce has incr...
