Definition
Incestuous adultery is a compound offense combining two distinct wrongs in a single act: a married person engages in sexual intercourse with someone to whom they are related within the legally prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity. Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously — the defendant must be married (making the act adulterous) and the partner must be a prohibited relative (making the act incestuous). The offense thus carries the aggravated character of adultery while also implicating the separate moral and legal prohibitions that undergird incest law.
---
Common Confusion
Incestuous adultery should not be confused with either adultery or incest standing alone. Adultery requires marriage but imposes no condition on the relationship between the parties. Incest requires a prohibited familial relationship but does not require that either party be married to a third person. Incestuous adultery is the narrow intersection: both elements must be present in the same act. A researcher encountering the term in a historical source should resist treating it as a synonym for either parent offense — courts and legislatures sometimes attached distinct legal consequences to the compound form, particularly in the context of divorce grounds and criminal sentencing.
---
Core Elements
Black's Law Dictionary identifies two elements:
1. The defendant is married to a person other than the one with whom the act occurs. This establishes the adultery component and presupposes a valid, subsisting marriage at the time of the act.
2. The other party to the act is related to the defendant within the prohibited degrees of relationship. The prohibited degrees are defined by statute and vary by jurisdiction, but typically encompass lineal ancestors and descendants and close collateral relatives such as siblings, and may extend to relationships by affinity (marriage) as well as consanguinity (blood).
Both elements must coexist. An act that satisfies only one is either adultery or incest, not incestuous adultery.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is predominantly a creature of fault-based divorce law and, to a lesser extent, historical criminal law. Its primary practical significance in the Law Mind corpus is as an aggravated ground for divorce: many nineteenth- and early twentieth-century divorce statutes enumerated incestuous adultery as a separate ground, distinct from simple adultery, and courts applying those statutes sometimes required proof of both components independently. Researchers working in divorce case law from this period should not assume that proof of adultery alone would satisfy a pleading or verdict grounded specifically on incestuous adultery.
The term largely disappears from legal writing as no-fault divorce reforms swept through American jurisdictions from the 1970s onward. Where it survives, it is typically as a statutory relic in states that retain fault grounds alongside no-fault alternatives. Researchers should check whether a state's divorce statute uses the compound term, because the elements and burdens of proof may differ from a general adultery ground.
Cross-referencing hazard: historical sources sometimes use "incestuous adultery" loosely to describe any sexual misconduct involving relatives, without strict attention to whether the defendant was married. Read historical judicial opinions carefully to determine whether the court was applying a formal two-element test or using the phrase descriptively.
The term also occasionally surfaces in criminal law sources, particularly in jurisdictions where adultery and incest were separately codified offenses and prosecutorial charging practice combined them. The Law Mind Family Law Encyclopedia entry on fault-based divorce grounds is the natural starting point for understanding how this term operated in the divorce context.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary supplies the only historical dictionary entry in the source set, and it is terse: the offense requires that a married defendant has sexual intercourse with a person related within the prohibited degrees. The entry cites Georgia authority, signaling that the compound term had concrete statutory footing in at least some American jurisdictions rather than being purely a judicial construction.
What Black's does not address is how courts resolved conflicts between the two component offenses when the underlying incest or adultery statute imposed different evidentiary standards, or how the compound ground interacted with defenses available to simple adultery (such as condonation or recrimination). Researchers should not assume that the elements collapsed into each other procedurally simply because they appeared in a single charge or ground. The historical record on this point is thin, and Black's entry offers no guidance beyond the bare elements.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The prohibited degrees of relationship differ by state, meaning the incest component of this offense is not uniform. A relationship that satisfies the incest element in one jurisdiction may not qualify in another, particularly for relationships by affinity. Researchers working across jurisdictions should verify the applicable prohibited-degrees statute before assuming that a factual record establishing relationship is sufficient.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Divorce — Fault-Based Grounds (Adultery, Cruelty, Desertion, Imprisonment), The Law Mind Family Law Encyclopedia
---