Phil AmmannSix years ago this month, in a modest office space leased by a Florida businessman named Rick Scott, I had the chance to ask the future governor several probing questions about his political views that any reporter would relish.
But I wasn’t a reporter. I was helping Scott prepare messaging points for the launch of his gubernatorial campaign, and I was treated to a level of personal candor that reporters and the public rarely get to see.
In that brief moment, we talked about marriage and family values, and though he was still learning how to navigate the political minefields that lay ahead, Scott convinced me he shared my social conservative values. In fact, nine months later, that meeting had everything to do with my decision to move to Florida and join his team after he won the election.
In the years that have passed with Scott as governor, he has largely lived up to my expectations as a social conservative, albeit one whose primary focus is on the economic, rather than social issues that affect Florida’s families.
Still, three years ago, relying on both his social values and economic instincts, he vetoed a controversial alimony bill that would have drastically changed the legal landscape governing marriage, parenting and divorce.
Relying on a key tenet of conservatism, the governor cited his concerns about fairness and a consistent regulatory structure that doesn’t change the rules for existing agreements. Scott specifically pointed to the alimony bill’s retroactive application as his core reason for the veto.
Now, he is being asked to sign off on a similar bill that would also apply retroactively to Florida families and children, changing the rules of the game for existing alimony agreements and current marriages, including those already in divorce proceedings.
As one family law judge I spoke with explained, “this bill makes it much more financially attractive for the primary earner to walk away from their family, and makes divorce a financially terrifying prospect for those that sacrifice their careers to take care of their children.”
For this reason alone, the governor is on solid conservative ground to veto the bill.
But there are other compelling reasons for a veto, including the bill’s absurd requirement that judges approach each new case with a one-size-fits-all mentality in which deadbeat parents are initially given the benefit of the doubt.
On the surface, the idea that parents deserve equal time with their children sounds “fair.” But if we think about fairness in transactional terms, where one person contributes at a high level and a second person contributes at a low level, it simply isn’t fair that each should receive the same benefit.
The bill encourages deadbeat parents to ask for more time with their kids in exchange for paying lower levels of child support, even when more time with that parent isn’t in the child’s best interest.
Government should do all it can to guarantee equal opportunities, but it cannot and should not guarantee equal outcomes. When it comes to the well being of Florida’s children, it is dangerous to assume that both parents should come into a time-sharing negotiation on equal footing, and that judges should be compelled to ignore their past history with their children.
As a family-values conservative, the governor’s decision on this should be an easy one: veto the bill. But many of those who voted to pass it also have something to gain financially: they too have experienced the tragedy of divorce, and their own alimony arrangements could be revisited by the court to reduce their own financial obligations. And so, the pressure on the governor from fellow Republicans is undoubtedly higher than usual.
Still, as Scott himself is fond of saying, I’m confident he’ll “do the right thing” for Florida’s families and children.
***
Brian Burgess is a media relations consultant in Tallahassee. He served as Rick Scott’s top communications adviser for four years, including two years inside the Executive Office of the Governor as Scott’s Director of Communications. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
19 comments
Craig Williams
April 7, 2016 at 4:52 pm
The people have spoken. There is good for society. The Gov should sign this bill.
John Grisham
April 7, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Brian Burgess must have been paid by the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar to write this opinion. His misstatements and false allegations sound very familiar to the ones that were being sent by the Family Law Section to its attorneys ( see the leaked documents exposed by the National Parents Organization https://nationalparentsorganization.org/recent-articles?id=22883)
Counter Argument #1: According to Mr. Burgess, the Governor should veto the bill because a Judge he quotes thinks that the bill “makes divorce a financially terrifying prospect”. Divorce is now a financially terrifying prospect because the current law allows these Judges to make decisions without having to write factual explanations for the decisions. The Judges have made a mockery of the divorce system. SB 668 allows Judges to have discretion but forces Judges to explain in writing why the decisions were made. In addition, SB 668 contains formulas for the amount and duration of alimony which will serve as guidelines and will make divorces more predictable and less terrifying!
John O
April 7, 2016 at 5:01 pm
How is it dangerous to assume two parents are equal BEFORE hearing any evidence to the contrary? Nowhere does this bill even come close to suggesting that a judge “should be compelled to ignore their past history with their children”. In fact, the moment past history is known, it becomes a factor which can be used to deviate from 50/50. This new bill is also LESS retroactive than current statutes in that it establishes some additional guidelines that must be met before a modification is in order. Seems clear that you either haven’t read this or only read what you wanted to.
John Grisham
April 7, 2016 at 5:05 pm
Counter Argument #2: According to Mr. Burgess, the bill requires that judges approach each new case with a one-size-fits-all mentality in which deadbeat parents are initially given the benefit of the doubt. Wow, this is a total misstatement of what the SB 668 does. SB 668 requires a Judge to start with a “premise” that each parent have approximately equal time with the children. A premise is just a starting point and the Judge can deviate from this premise by using the 20 factors that now exist in the law. There is NO one-size-fits-all requirement.
John Grisham
April 7, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Counter Argument #3: According to Mr. Burgess, the bill encourages deadbeat parents to ask for more time with their kids in exchange for paying lower levels of child support. This is a huge misstatement. SB 668 encourages both parents to participate in the lives of the children. Psychological studies have revealed that it is in the best interest of children of divorce to spend approximately equal time with each parent. The parents must show that they are spending that time with the children. If a parent is a “deadbeat” parent, the Judge will have the discretion to use one or more of the 20 factors in the current law (and also in SB 668 ) to give the responsible parent more time with the children.
Steven Ison
April 7, 2016 at 5:15 pm
I’m in complete disagreement with you. If you’re willing to have a civil discussion on misstatements of your article please contact me.
John Grisham
April 7, 2016 at 5:23 pm
Counter Argument #4: According to Mr. Burgess, the bill will guarantee equal outcomes. He also states that it is dangerous to assume that both parents should come into a time-sharing negotiation on equal footing. Again Mr. Burgess tries to slip us a white lie. Nothing in the bill guarantees an equal outcome. SB 668 allows the Judge to have discretion and use the 20 factors to determine what the outcome will be and the outcome must be explained in writing so that both parties in a divorce are protected. Stating that it is dangerous for both parents to come into a time-sharing negotiation on equal footing is like stating that is is dangerous for women to be treated as equals in the workplace. What is dangerous is the opinion of Mr. Burgess to state that men should not be treated as an equal parent. Society has changed and
not only should women be paid the same for working the same job as a man, but a man should be also be considered as an equally good parent unless there are facts that show otherwise.
Celime
April 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm
Hmm what a great concept of fairness he suggests. Maybe it should apply to finances as well.
“But if we think about fairness in transactional terms, where one person contributes at a high level and a second person contributes at a low level, it simply isn’t fair that each should receive the same benefit.”
Wayne W
April 8, 2016 at 8:23 am
I support SB 668. The lawyers have made enough money from Florida families and it’s time for updated clearer laws in Florida.
Wyman Oxner
April 8, 2016 at 12:10 pm
This is the most ridiculous argument that I have seen concerning alimony. How in the world would it make it financially attractive for an earner to walk away from their family? No one gets married thinking of walking away from their families. If they walk away now while paying permanent alimony, how is not changing the laws to something much more fair and reasonable going to encourage them to walk away? No one…and I repeat…NO ONE should have to pay someone else for the rest of life simply because their marriage failed. If anything would destroy families and family values it would be people learning more about this alimony trap and refusing to marry. The game is rigged and the payers suffer greatly while the payee, in many, many cases, is able to quit work and live a life of Riley. The alimony laws need to be equitable for both parties in a divorce…not just one. The standard of living should be considered for both parties, not just for the payee.
Glen Wilner
April 8, 2016 at 12:13 pm
I don’t think I have ever read a more factually incorrect article. Thinking that divorce, alimony and child custody has anything to do with family values is absurd. Times have changed, women are equally as likely to be unfaithful as men. In many cases, the women are using children as a financial bargaining chip. Men are stepping up around the state and country to care for their children.
The archaic way of thought in this article is an embarrassment to the author and to anyone that truly believes in family values.
Donald Little
April 8, 2016 at 12:21 pm
This article lacks courage, integrity, and objectivity. The author mentions primary wage earners have an incentive to leave. However, under current system, the non-wage earners have no reason to stay. The laws are biased towards women and should not be. The point made regarding the children is infuriating. If the father, which it is implied, doesn’t do as much for the children because he is responsible for the family earnings, he should not be penalized by having less time with his children. Equal time sharing is not only best for the children, but allows the parents much needed flexibility. Clearly the author has no children or married. Otherwise, he would have considered the second and third level effects of a divorce. He would also recognize that the system penalizes good fathers leaving without their children, money, and home. How is that right? It also allows the mother to use government resources to wreak havoc on the father. If a father needs help, he can call, but to no avail. We are automatically labeled as not wanting to pay child support or simply deadbeat. Consideration that we are loving caring fathers is not considered.
SCOTT THROWER
April 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm
WOW, HOW BLIND OF AN OPINION!
Who doesn’t get the benefit of doubt in the beginning of an argument in America? How are “deadbeat parents” identified? Obviously not ahead of time by either of the divorcing parties. Your statement could so easily be reversed. The non-primary wage earner, who is out for more money, can in this current system deprive the child of love from the primary wage earner just by making a quick accusation. This must change! Then you get behind them not taking into account that it is in the children’s best interest to see both parents. Ever talked to a child psychologist? Maybe you should before your write about our children. Obviously there are exceptions and there is room in this bill to take care of that. Couldn’t your statement about walking out of the marriage also be reversed. In the current system it is now financially attractive for the non primary wage earner to abandon and walk out of a marriage? OPEN YOUR EYES AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE WRITING!
Mark Tobert
April 8, 2016 at 12:31 pm
Really? A Veto says I don’t care about the payers of alimony. Many people are paying alimony simply because the other party is too comfortable not working or taking care of their self. My entire Florida retirement is now gone because someone decided they just didn’t want to work anymore, cheated on me, did absolutely nothing in the house, then decided to end it because I didn’t have their best interest in mind? Don’t screw over the people who have been unconstitutionally forced to pay for people like this.
Harold Roland
April 8, 2016 at 2:54 pm
There are many statements in this article that are simply untrue, and don’t represent this bill.
First, there is no retroactive language in this bill. Because that was Governor Scott’s main problem with the last bill, all retroactivity has been removed. This core reason for his veto has been removed, and for this reason, the governor SHOULD sign the bill.
Second, Mr. Burgess claims that the bill “make’s it much more financially attractive for the primary earner to walk away from their family”. Actually, the opposite is true. The bill further defines responsibilities of each party, and requires more participation from both parents, in addition to the already clear and strict guidelines of financial child support. For this reason alone, the governor SHOULD sign the bill.
Third, Mr. Burgess also uses the term “deadbeat parent” but does not clearly define it. If he defines it as a parent that doesn’t pay child support, the court clearly has power in this regard already. If he defines it as a parent that doesn’t participate enough in the child’s life, this bill will clearly help with that. If he defines it as not paying required alimony, this bill helps to define the rules much clearer. On any of these points, the governor SHOULD sign this bill.
Fourth, Mr. Burgess states, “Government should do all it can to guarantee equal opportunities, but it cannot and should not guarantee equal outcomes.” Really? It’s true that the court is set up this way now. My permanent alimony has caused my car to be repossessed, my house foreclosed on, while the loan on my ex-wife’s 3600 sq/ft house is still in my name, I pay, and she doesn’t work for two years, and takes six week vacations to Europe. The current laws are driving me into bankruptcy. In this idea of unequal outcome we agree, but that is what this bill is attempting to fix. It will not help me, but I hope to protect both men and women from this unfair system. Inequality is a problem to be fixed, not a goal.
Finally, Mr. Burgess claims that the reason the bill has passed both the Florida House and Senate is because the representatives are self-serving, doing it for their own personal gain. Is that what we are to think of our state government? If we are to believe Mr. Burgess, what is he then saying about the governor himself? I believe that this issue has been discussed and refined over many years, and the bill is solid and restrained. I believe our representatives have acted in support of their constituents, not out of simple selfish gain. I further believe that governor Scott will look honestly at how society is today, consider how the state representatives have voted, recognize how laws are not serving us fairly, and do the right thing. Divorce is horrible when it happens, and though you think you understand it, it’s always much worse when you actually experience it. This bill recognizes current society, encourages parents to act like parents, and helps parents financially to do so. THAT is why governor Scott SHOULD sign this bill.
vernon askegard
April 8, 2016 at 5:06 pm
I cannot believe Brian Burgess. He obviously has not read SB668 nor read the stories of those who have become slaves under the present broad discretion given family law Judges. Yes, there is an appeal process but , but to overturn it has to meet “reasonable man” test. Also you cannot have a trial by jury nor have attorney appointed if you cannot afford one.!! The present laws are biased.
John Grisham
April 9, 2016 at 2:55 pm
Why do you guys have a section to comment but yet you do not post your reader’s comments?
Sue Wieland
April 11, 2016 at 12:07 pm
This article is wrong on so many levels. The information is inaccurate and distorted.
This bill is about taking outdated, lopsided alimony laws and making them fairer and more predictable for all parties involved.
I don’t understand how we live in a democracy, but Gov Scott can repeatedly ignore the will of the people, as well as the majority votes in the House and Senate? He’s already done it once. If he does this again, then why do we have a House and a Senate at all? Why is one man making this decision, when the voters have already spoken?
The ‘right thing to do’ for Florida families, children and Florida Voters is to listen to the majority who elected you and execute the will of the people.
Peter Wilkes
April 11, 2016 at 12:18 pm
The inaccuracies and out right lies in this article have previously been well defined. I just want to add one detail why Brian Burgess should be truly embarassed as a jounalist. Two words: YELLLOW JOUNALISM. Period. Brian you should be ashamed.
Comments are closed.