Guest Author
The Legislature is considering so-called alimony “reform” and a 50/50 “presumption” for child custody decisions. Both are bad ideas.
“Reform” legislation almost always seems to be about taking away rights, benefits, or protections from less well-off individuals to the advantage of more affluent people and big corporations.
Tort “reform” is a prime example. Alimony “reform” continues that oppressive tradition.
The proposed alimony legislation is anti-woman, anti-family and arbitrary. In some respects it’s also anti-man. It’s so convoluted and oppressive that it’s hard to figure out where to start and where to end a critique. But here it is.
The unstated purposes of the legislation seem to be to end the possibility that well-off guys might have to pay permanent alimony, and to give well-off guys a ready-made legal basis for reducing alimony previously ordered.
Presently, a judge considers the evidence and determines if one spouse has the ability to pay alimony and the other spouse has a need for support. If there is a need and ability to pay, the judge decides a reasonable amount of support under the circumstances and how long the alimony should be paid. Alimony can be ordered for a few months, a few years, many years, or permanently.
Presently, a judge can order short-term “bridge the gap” alimony, say six months, to give the receiving ex-spouse time to get an apartment, pay deposits on utilities, find a job, etc. Bridge the gap alimony has been “reformed” right out of the law. It will presumptively no longer be available for spouses who are essentially homeless because of their divorce.
In some circumstances, a stay-at-home spouse doesn’t have an adequate earning capacity and needs “rehabilitative” alimony for a year or two to finish school, complete occupational licensure requirements, or undergo vocational training. To be awarded rehabilitative alimony under the present system, a spouse has to have a specific plan of training that the court finds to be reasonable in duration and expense, and likely to result in employment.
Like bridge the gap alimony, rehabilitative alimony has been “reformed” right out of the law. It will no longer be available for spouses who need it.
Under the proposed law, the judge would be required to determine a range of possible alimony amounts by applying an arbitrary formula pulled out of thin air. The formula multiplies the difference between the two spouses’ incomes times the number of years they were married then multiplies the resulting figure by factors of .015 and .020.
The judge determines the alimony from the range between the two numbers that result from this calculation. The multipliers, .015 and .020, are purely arbitrary figures not explained in the proposed statute. Nowhere do we find a justification for them. No study was done. No data is cited. The drafters just pulled these figures out of the air. These numbers apply to all cases: one size fits all. There is no justice in applying the same figures to all cases.
No one has made a finding that those numbers are “appropriate” or “equitable.” Yet the judge cannot order more or less alimony unless the judge files a written order that the presumptive range is “inappropriate” or “inequitable” in a particular case. This is a major flaw in the bill.
The Legislature is attempting to force judges to order alimony in a specific dollar range that the statute presumes is appropriate and equitable when in fact the statute may be inappropriate or inequitable as a starting point.
A similar problem exists with the duration of the alimony. Once again the drafters of the bill have plucked numbers out of thin air.
The judge is required to presume that the alimony term should be between 25 and 75 percent of the length of the marriage. For a 20-year marriage, that would be five to 15 years. That presumption ends permanent alimony without saying so.
The proposed law’s duration ranges are unrealistic. Let’s take two examples, one in which the woman would be hurt and one in which the man would be.
Let’s assume a 25-year marriage, a wife who is 45 and has been a stay-at-home caregiver for the couple’s disabled child. The child has reached adulthood at the time of the divorce, but the adult child will require the same stay-at-home caregiving for the rest of the mother’s life. The wife will not receive child support for adult offspring of the marriage.
Under the bill, alimony will terminate well before the woman turns 65, maybe soon after she turns 50. The mother and the adult disabled child will be impoverished, maybe both living off of notoriously low Social Security disability benefits paid on behalf of the adult child. That is very unfriendly to stay-at-home moms.
Men can be hurt by the proposed legislation too. As a judge, I ordered alimony in hundreds, probably thousands, of cases. If I had applied the proposed duration range to marriages of seven years, each and every husband in a seven-year marriage who earned more than the wife would have been presumed to have to pay alimony for at least 21 months and maybe as long as 63 months.
That kind of an alimony award is unlikely under the current system for such short-term marriages. Bridge the gap or rehabilitative alimony is more likely to be ordered, and almost never for five years in a seven-year marriage.
So this bill is very anti-man in short-term marriages of two years or longer. The bill presumes that there will be no alimony at all, bridge the gap or otherwise, in marriages that don’t last more than two years.
Perhaps the greatest travesty in the proposed statute is the ease with which alimony orders can be modified and the application of the new rules to modification of alimony orders entered long ago.
For example, fat cats who have previously been ordered to pay a reasonable amount of alimony are entitled to a modification if the ex-wife’s income goes up by 10 percent even if the increase is due to inflation. However, the wife is not automatically entitled to an increase if the ex-husband’s income goes up by 10 percent. Also, the proposal provides for an automatic review of alimony when the person paying alimony reaches retirement age.
No one in the Legislature has ever provided a factual or logical basis for the proposed changes. The guidelines are entirely arbitrary. There has been no study of how the proposed changes would affect families, especially women and children, but also men.
There is no established need for reform of alimony laws in Florida. The proposed legislation’s overhaul should be rejected until proponents can produce research that shows that the present system is unfair. And they should prove what impact the “reform” will have on Florida’s women, children, families, and taxpayers.
Without that research, my experience as a judge leads me to conclude that the beneficiaries of the proposal are rich guys who don’t want to support wives who have dedicated their lives to supporting them. And those wives, as well as young men who would not be ordered to pay alimony under the present system, are casualties of the Legislature’s desire to please the fat cats.
***
Robert “Bob” Doyel retired in 2010 after nearly 16 years as a Florida judge, primarily in family court. He has served on the Florida Supreme Court Steering Committee on Families and Children and as chair of domestic violence subcommittees.
34 comments
Boston Terrier
January 15, 2016 at 1:59 pm
Alimony should be Abolished. The non-working spouse can get a job and support herself. Last I heard the 13th Amendment went into effect in 1865 supposedly to outlaw slavery, requiring a person to pay alimony for life is akin to slavery, in that it forces a man to work and turn over a portion of his earnings to his owner (ex-wife).
Let’s end Alimony. In fact, let;s just outlaw the entire institution of marriage and get the state government out of people’s lives.
Charlie Lawrence
January 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm
This judge is the same hack who showed up for the last hearing – self interest rules his agenda as he is now private and a paid hitman. Child sharing takes a key “bargaining” chip off the table and just makes sense as judges have discretion to protect best interest. Formula’s take the money away from lawyers and judges (in the case of Doyle and others like him) and provides predictible outcomes. Other states like Texas, New York, And New Jersey have reformed with many more following. A call for a study is a delay tactic. Time to align the laws with today’s society.
HypocrisyWatcher
January 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm
Actually, no this is a different former judge. Pay attention please 🙂 hahahaha
Charlie Lawrence
January 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm
You are wrong. I watched the entire hearing. Stop spreading your lies and reveal who you really are you troll.
Tina Granstrom
January 15, 2016 at 2:06 pm
This article is nothing but BS retaric by those who wish to maintain the status quo. If we’re talking about rights here than what about a man’s right to freedom from a yoke of slavery? The right to pursue happiness? How about the right of children to have equal access to both FIT parents? These current laws only enforce and incite an already fueled discord, they add fuel. These laws encourage the alienation of children by one parent over another… Its women like this who are an embarrassment to real women. These alimony hounds only want to perpetuate their cushy last lifestyle instead of having pride in their own abilities, they advocate dependency on another human being! Which is grossly inhumane, all while screaming that they want equality. Well, which is it?
HypocrisyWatcher
January 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm
Too many children (58,000+ per year) fall through the cracks of being with two FIT parents. They end up being placed with an unfit parent many times with dire results (Phoebe Jonchuck anyone).
Charlie Lawrence
January 17, 2016 at 12:47 pm
Most end up with women who are only chasing the money. This has nothing to do with this law. You are talking about our current system. Judge has discretion in bith cases.
Annette Hicks
January 15, 2016 at 2:54 pm
Alimony *should* be very limited in scope and duration. We are even relieved of any financial obligation for our own progeny after a period of years. Yet countless individuals live on the brink of poverty, or beyond, trying to comply with alimony payments that they cannot afford to appeal. Once the marriage is dissolved, there should be an end. If a spouse wants to divorce, yet still remain a financial beneficiary of their ex-spouse, then they should also remain financially obligated for that spouse’s debt and welfare as well. Alimony is just skimming the cream of marriage, keeping the benefits of a spouse while divesting of any responsibility. The current system ensures that there is a resolving door to keep lawyer fat and happy, and divorcing couples, and their potential future spouses thin and uncertain. What I see in this article is a judge/lawyer determined to keep the cash cow going. Alimony needs to be reformed to bring a full and predictable end to all marriages, so that lives may resume, and fortunes and futures may be rebuilt by both parties. As it stands now, there’s an eternal “twilight” where the obligee spouse remains doggedly single on purpose, or hides their relationship, and the obligor’s potential future mate remains single simply to protect their own assets from the obligees ever grasping fingers. Alimony represents nothing more than indentured servitude that may never, ever end.
Anthony
January 15, 2016 at 5:34 pm
He sounds like a pitchman or someone screaming that the sky is falling. Grow up old timer. The days of men or women having to pay their spouses to stay home and not work are over and equal parenting is the norm now only the BAD mothers want to keep fathers away from their children.
HypocrisyWatcher
January 15, 2016 at 6:01 pm
Actually the mothers to 58,000 children would disagree with that. I think Phoebe Jonchuck’s mother would disagree with that. I think Jessica Gonzalex would disagree with that. I think Katie Eaton (mother to Wyatt – 9 months old killed by his father) would disagree with that. I can name many others as well. This reporter would be well served to visit some of the social media sites of these “complainers” and see how the
impoverished” are truly living. It would serve to open a few eyes.
Charlie Lawrence
January 17, 2016 at 12:48 pm
There are cases of abuse on both sides…do you really want to go down this path?
HypocrisyWatcher
January 15, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Same few people who are selfish commenting. Pretty sad really. Children NEED both parents? Then explain why one of these people protesting alimony had his child for the child’s 18th birthday and did not “share” that with the child’s mother? That is acceptable? The hypocrisy level in these comments is so high it is unbelievable!
Carey
January 17, 2016 at 12:14 pm
These bills are not about lifetime alimony! They will effect ALL alimony, child support and shared parenting. Proponents and sponsors don’t even understand what is in these bills and how they will hurt the most vulnerable people in Florida.
These same people always screaming about lifetime alimony are not dealing with the real life current situations. Just because they scream the loudest doesn’t make them RIGHT.
Our current family court system needs a lot of help, but these bills are not the answer. Fix the system first!
Charlie Lawrence
January 17, 2016 at 12:41 pm
Alimony reform has nothing to do with child support – stop incorrectly trying to connect the two. There are formulas for child support (go figure as that is wht we are asking for here and time limits). This is about both parties moving on and putting predictability to it. No one should be indebted for the rest of there lives…period. Try to defend that, you can’t. Harm…there is so much harm going on with payers of alimony as the takers are not trying to rebuild and treat alimony as a paycheck. It is about rehabilitation and helping the othe to sustain.
Carey
January 17, 2016 at 12:54 pm
Charlie you don’t understand these current bills then. Stop commenting and feeding your flock a bunch of BS until you truly understand what is at stake in these Family Law bills.
Charlie Lawrence
January 17, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Carey, I fully understand all three bills moving through the House and Senate. I have as much right to free speech as you do so go ahead and try to shut me up.
I also understand the abuses that have occurred as a result of our current alimony and child sharing laws. Don’t even get me started on the 13th amendment (which deals with slavery and involuntary servitude) and the constitutionalality of family court. People should move on with their lives and lawyers roles reduced in family matters.
Carey
January 17, 2016 at 1:15 pm
Charlie, I’m not trying to “shut you up”. I hope for everyone to understand these bills for what is actually in them. No reason to get upset, we are having a discussion.
Anthony
January 17, 2016 at 12:20 pm
Hmmm here is a great idea, get rid of all the scumbags who make laws, who are they? The lawyers and judges. They only care about billable hours, not families so when a former judge or lawyer talks bad about a new law it actually is destroying money not families.
Carey
January 17, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Yes, Anthony fix the family court system. New laws are just adding more flaws. Families will continue to get hurt, why can’t everyone not see that? Enough with the “Best Interests of the Money” and put the “Best Interests of the Families” first. This includes everyone…mother, father and children.
Anthony
January 17, 2016 at 12:39 pm
That is what Senator Ring and Senator Lee say every time. They are fed up of the lawyers making laws that are in their best interest not the interests of the fathers, mothers and children
Carey
January 17, 2016 at 12:50 pm
That is not what their bills say. You trust the politicians but not the lawyers or judges? Open your eyes and advocate for YOUR families best interests!
There are some good and some not so good. All of us parents are trying to survive under the family court microscope. All this time and money should be spent fixing the family courts, that we all agree on!
Anthony
January 17, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Well I agree with what they are trying to over haul. You and I may not agree but I agree with them
Beth
January 17, 2016 at 10:51 pm
The ‘reformers’ will never achieve equity and fairness in their proposed legislation because that is not what they want. These are rich guys (and their second, third, etc. wives) paying lobbyists to push their one-way, oppressive, and unscrupulous agenda – fat cats getting fatter by starving their former wives and children. Their avaricious agenda includes eliminating alimony from the statutes altogether and after that, upending military divorces.
Florida’s families deserve a task force who will study this issue that is comprised of ethical, educated and unbiased professionals who witness the outcomes of family court proceedings daily – forensic accountants, vocational rehabilitation counselors, psychologists, financial planners, domestic violence professionals, economic and workforce development specialists, and – most importantly – board certified attorneys who understand and are committed to working towards EQUITY in marital dissolution cases, and who stand by the bylaws and ethical standards of their profession with integrity, rather than arrogantly flying a middle-finger in its face.
Women in Florida – beware – your Florida attorney will no longer be able to achieve equity for you in a marital dissolution case.
Family Law Section of the Florida Bar – watch out – this bill will prevent you from achieving equity in 50% of your cases, or more. The Florida Supreme Court is not going to like that. The press on the other hand, will love it.
HypocrisyWatcher
January 18, 2016 at 12:48 pm
This is so very true. Years of documentation has been done and it has been shown that men do abuse kill children more. Simply read the NIS-3 for proof of that. It states that single fathers are 1.3 times more likely to abuse than the next group below them which is mothers WITH an unrelated male living with them. Just because your group publishes stories of only women who abuse and attack those who are outspoken against these laws does not mean only women abuse. Barry Goldstein of Stop Abuse has been writing and researching this issue for DECADES. I would trust him much more than I would three or four alimony payers angry that they have to pay alimony. He has done the research, he has had his suggestions utilized in multiple jurisdictions and it has saved millions protecting abused women and children. Men are also abused but not at the same rate as women. Women are 90-95% of all DV victims. Women are injured at far greater rates in DV situations than men. Women are killed far more often than men. And men have created thousands of websites and Facebook pages to vilify women (including the six or eight that are run by your groups). People reading these comments simply go to Fist Husbands Advocacy Group (profile pic of a golfer cartoon) to see the vitriol spewed by these people. 95% are Donald trump supporters so that does explain quite a bit.
And I do know who JH is, I am not her – I am someone entirely different. She has said numerous times she is done with all of you. She no longer engages you, she has all of you blocked. And while we are on that note, why must your group continue to try to report her every opportunity you get. Yes, she has spoken to Facebook, several others have also spoken to Facebook on her behalf including myself. Hence the name hypocrisy watcher. I watch, I listen and I document. EVERYBODY, INCLUDING YOU NANNETTE.
Glen Gibellina
January 19, 2016 at 12:52 pm
With all do respect, you should of retired long before you did. That’s the problem…Judges, if we were to be Judged by a jury all the corruption and cash for conflict would be eliminated. As far as 50/50 who would not want that. Your thinking is from the 1950’s as so is your attitude about family courts. Do you homework, open your eyes and see the destruction of he current Family Court Mafia that exists today in this country..My statement ….“Loss of a child is catastrophic in its own right, but loss of a child through parental alienation is far worse than loss of a child through death. At least with death, you have closure. Through parental alienation, there is no closure.” Glen Gibellina
https://youtu.be/4LInxoSJN9E
Comments are closed.