france
At-fault divorce: almost surely no
Does Nate have strong grounds to divorce Connie with no penalties...
Nate cannot prevail on an action for at-fault divorce. The standard for that would be article 242 of the civil code
Le divorce peut être demandé par l'un des époux lorsque des faits constitutifs d'une violation grave ou renouvelée des devoirs et obligations du mariage sont imputables à son conjoint et rendent intolérable le maintien de la vie commune.
Divorce can be asked by either spouse when the other violated the duty and obligation of marriage in a grave or repeated fashion and made intolerable the continuation of common life.
Nate will almost surely lose both prongs of the test (violation of duty or obligation + common life becomes impossible):
- "being naturally pretty" or "having pretty kids" is not a duty or obligation of marriage (those are stuff like feeding and hosting your unemployed spouse); neither is being entirely truthful about one’s past;
- Nate and Connie have been living together for quite a long time by this point, and Nate had no issues so far; Nate would need to argue that Connie took steps during the marriage to dissimulate her previous surgery, and that this is such a betrayal of trust that he cannot live with her any longer.
Nullity of marriage: probably not either
Nate's better legal theory is not divorce, but rather nullity of marriage. The relevant statute is code civil, article 180:
S'il y a eu erreur dans la personne, ou sur des qualités essentielles de la personne, l'autre époux peut demander la nullité du mariage.
If there was an error of person, or of essential qualities of the person, the other spouse may ask the marriage to be annulled.
One might wonder what an "essential quality" may be. Well, the jurisprudence is not very predictable. That is clearly a norm that follows changes in society’s morality.
The best-known case is possibly a 2008 case. A spouse asked for the nullity of marriage because the other spouse lied about being a virgin. (No points for guessing the genders.) The other spouse does not contest (nullity actions need to go before a judge, even if both spouses agree). The court grants the nullity (predictably - the parties agree). A media firestorm ensues. (No points for guessing the religion of the parties.) The prosecutor’s office, at the instruction of the justice minister, appeals. (Yes, the prosecutor’s office can appeal certain civil cases.) The appelate judgment is Cour d'appel de Douai, 17 novembre 2008, 08/03786. It reverses the lower instance court and holds
- that the appreciation of "essential qualities" under article 180 cannot be left to parties (there are public order concerns, inter alia discrimination between men and women).
- that virginity is not an "essential quality" of a nature to compromise marital life
The appellee argued that the problem was not so much virginity rather than truthfulness. The court rejected that argument on a lack of factual basis, but also added that "in any case, lying about a non-essential quality does not constitute grounds for nullity". It is not clear to me whether this obiter dictum actually claims an absolute principle (i.e. "lying is never grounds for nullity", as opposed to "this sort of lying is not grounds for nullity, but another instance may be").
On the other hand, one’s inability or difficulty to have children can be considered an "essential quality" (see e.g. TGI Dinan, 4 avril 2006, n°05-00135).
Coming back to the hypothetical case, first, Nate must ask based on Connie’s qualities, not her children’s; so he must make the case that he wanted a "naturally pretty" wife so that they had pretty children. Already, we can see factual difficulties - Nate needs to prove that he married not just to have children, but to have beautiful children; furthermore, that he based his choice of partner on the expectation of the heritability of attractiveness (rather than general attraction to, you know, the wife - "nullify because too much makeup" is not a thing).
Second, there will be the public order test - is Nate "entitled" (in the sense of article 180) to have his wishes retroactively enforced by nullifying the marriage? While it is difficult to predict which exact social norms will be applied by a court, I do find it unlikely. The court may very well hold that "having beautiful children" (again, as opposed to "having children") is not a reasonable expectation out of marriage (I would say, in fact, that the social expectation is that you will love your children no matter how crooked they are).
Other divorce options
Nate and Connie could divorce by mutual consent. If they agree on the terms, the divorce convention must be notarized but no court ruling is necessary.
If they do not agree on the terms, but they agree the marriage is untenable, they may still ask for an "accepted divorce" (articles 233-234 of the civil code), where the court rules on the consequences.
Finally, if Nate has not been living with Connie for at least one year, he may ask for divorce based on "irreparable alteration of the marital link", even over Connie’s objections. In practice, if Connie is adamant she does not want to divorce, Nate should move out and sue one year later.
Misc questions
I'd like to know the answer in the case the kid wasn't in the equation as well
The existence of an actual child does not change the equation much, although the child’s presence will greatly impact the result of further proceedings for custody etc.
and perhaps even sue her for fraud/damages?
Nope. There are no damages for entering a void marriage. Recovery is possible is for "expenses in view of the marriage" in case the marriage does not happen (typically: the fiancée who breaks up an engagement must return the engagement ring), but not after that.
Of course, there could be a bunch of other issues related to dividing common assets, child support and so on but none of them should take into account the causes of divorce. ("Should", not "will": it is unwise to present yourself as a huge jerk to the judge no matter the case, but particularly so in family cases when the judge will have to decide on a couple of numbers with wide discretion - e.g. how many days of custody for each parent, which child support amount, etc.)
And how far can this line of logic go? If a man doesn't disclose his hair restoration treatment, or the significant history of disease or cancer in his family, are they likewise liable?
Per above, no liability, so let’s answer about marriage nullity.
Hair restoration (and other cosmetic-like items), probably not.
History of cancer, I am less sure. A Hollywood-like "you will die in a couple of months" diagnosis would probably qualify (this will significantly affect the length of marriage and its living arrangements); but past medical history in the family is more removed.
