Are there any advantages to making a divorce adversarial, i.e., using fault when no-fault might be used?

Let’s look at that. Suppose Rhonda has "the goods" on Rufus and his adultery.

Alleging fault makes Rhonda feel better because the energy of the fight makes for a battle and the moral vindication that comes with winning. By the time the war is over, the landscape of the marriage looks like the Western Front at the end of the World War I, but there is no doubt the marriage is over.

The disadvantages, to continue the analogy of the World War I, is that when Rufus and Rhonda become belligerents, fighting extended legal battles, they move themselves closer to bankruptcy, end the war with lasting hatred, and like the parties of war, sign a peace treaty imposed by a court that the loser is less likely to honor.

One veteran Pennsylvania divorce lawyer likens fault divorce to trench warfare fought with hand grenades and hatchets -- two weapons which when used are very likely to inflict injury on the person who uses them or innocent bystanders, who often happen to be children.

Running up the battle flag of fault, Rhonda may threaten Rufus with financial emasculation and Rufus may promise her destitution and both may threaten the other with the children; but by the last shot is fired, the "loser" will be crushed and the "winner" finds victory leaves the taste of ashes. An adversarial divorce can make of anger and hurt that lasts a lifetime.