Background:
The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) Project
In 1965, a little-known organization called the Uniform Law Commission announced a new initiative to draft a uniform marriage and divorce law—intended as a model for states to adopt.
This Commission, a spin-off of the American Bar Association (ABA), serves as the ABA’s “drafting arm” to create model laws for state legislatures. It is composed of lawyers from each state, appointed by their governors, who gather every summer at a meeting called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).
While most people assume that state legislators write the laws in their states, very few have heard of this Commission—sometimes described as a “shadow super-legislature.” After drafting a new law, Commissioners return to their home states to promote its adoption.
In 1967, the Commission secured funding to launch the UMDA Project. Initially focused solely on divorce law, the scope later expanded to include marriage regulation. The Commission appointed Robert J. Levy, a young law professor from the University of Minnesota, as the lead Reporter for the project. Herma Hill Kay, a professor at Berkeley Law, served as the Associate Reporter. Their responsibility was to guide the project and prepare early drafts of the proposed law.
At the same time, Professor Kay was helping to draft California’s landmark Family Law Act. Members of the ABA Section on Family Law were invited to serve as advisors to the UMDA Project, and additional professionals participated as consultants.
The first draft of the model law was presented at the 1969 NCCUSL annual meeting—and it was highly controversial. The draft introduced a new standard for divorce: “Irretrievable Breakdown”—but without providing a clear definition.
Some Commissioners embraced this new concept, while others were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a legal standard lacking any clear boundaries. Transcripts from the 1969, 1970, and 1973 NCCUSL meetings reveal intense debates. At least one Commissioner gave a lengthy objection to the proposed law.
As part of the reimagining of divorce proceedings, the legal terminology was also altered:
- Plaintiff became Petitioner
- Defendant became Respondent
- The case was now a Petition for Divorce, not a Lawsuit
However, in reality, it was still very much a lawsuit. The judge retained control over the parties through the state’s police power, including the authority to issue contempt charges to compel compliance and bring about a specific outcome.
This new form of lawsuit had no cause of action (accusation), and no viable defenses to contest it. In other words, once filed, it was impossible to stop—like placing a tame animal in a fenced enclosure and then shooting it. (See the bear story for a related parallels.)
But you be the judge.
Was the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act an innocent project aimed at helping individuals, families, and society—or was it one of the biggest legal and social scams in U.S. history?
Timeline
The Uniform Law Commission announced a new initiative to draft a uniform marriage and divorce law. This Commission, composed of lawyers appointed by state governors, met annually to draft model laws for state legislatures. Few people knew of its influence, yet it played a major role in shaping state-level legislation across the country.
The Commission secured funding to begin the UMDA Project. The original focus was divorce law, later expanded to include marriage. Law professor Robert J. Levy was hired as the lead Reporter, with Herma Hill Kay as Associate Reporter. Both were responsible for preparing draft laws. ABA family law experts and consultants joined to assist with the national effort.
At the NCCUSL annual meeting, the first draft of the model law was introduced. It proposed a new and undefined standard for divorce—“Irretrievable Breakdown.” The change sparked heated debates among Commissioners. Legal terms were restructured, redefining roles (plaintiff to petitioner, lawsuit to petition), but the process remained firmly under judicial control, with no cause of action or defenses available to resist it.