Julie Delegal: Rick Scott should veto alimony “reform” bill

divorce

The world runs on the unpaid and underpaid work of women. Churches, schools, nonprofits, and many business offices would collapse without it.

Something else, however, has been collapsing and crumbling in our society for the past 60 years: the American family. For all the rhetoric about the “breakdown of the traditional family,” our leaders give little more than lip service to the crucial work of caring for vulnerable people: our children, our disabled people, and our parents’ generation.

This work, and the work of creating strong families, is not only enormous, it’s enormously important.

Florida Senate Bill 668 is a slap in the face to the men and women (mostly women) who choose to make themselves available to do the unpaid work of caring, freeing their partners to build bread-winning careers. Gov. Rick Scott should veto it now.

The bill robs judges of discretion in divorces by presuming in all cases that split custody arrangements are best for children, instead of evaluating custody based on the needs of individual kids.

The legislation ignores the economic burden its alimony structure inflicts on the parent who is not the breadwinner, the one who left the workforce to do unpaid labor. By ending lifelong alimony and implementing restrictive spousal payment formulas, the bill  tells marital partners who might choose to step out of the workforce that they should look out for No. 1 instead. Forget about investing your life energy in your family, this policy says, because if you get divorced, you’re screwed.

The bill is misogynist, shortsighted, and anti-family.

In any marriage, the negotiations that go on about who will take care of what on any given day are complex and private. Many two-income couples have developed balanced approaches to child rearing and the endless duties of home. They know that raising children, housecleaning, making meals, and home maintenance all add up to work.

We know it’s work because when we contract it out – to day care centers, baby sitters, maids, restaurants, and fix-it people – we pay for it. With money.

Yet too often we still refer to non-bread-winning spouses as “not working.” It’s a privilege, we tell the likes of Ann Romney, to stay home and care for your children. It’s a luxury, American society says, for parents who can “afford” to make the choice to be their children’s primary caregivers.

Meanwhile, we dole out billions to the day-care industry, which, ironically, is staffed mostly by underpaid women. Feminist writer Anne Marie Slaughter calls it “the work that makes work possible.”

Do we think that people who take care of children in day-care centers are “luxuriating”? Do we view those who clean houses for a living as “privileged”?

As more and more men — but still way too few — take on the caring work that women have traditionally done, the myth of the luxuriating housewife is coming unraveled. We know now that laundry is important because dads are doing Tide commercials.

First-wave feminism is partly to blame for helping to create the privileged-mom myth in the first place. Slaughter contends that as the early equality movement rightfully sought to expand opportunities for women, it inadvertently degraded the traditionally feminine work of caregiving. Working outside the home, the movement said, is more important than what goes on inside of it.

That message is partly responsible for the near-extinction of marriage. But there’s another culprit: the changing labor market. In recent decades, as technology, automation, and overseas outsourcing have gobbled up jobs, the marriageability of menin general, has declined. As the Brookings Institute points out, while changing morals is a factor, policy changes must consider cold, hard, economic facts. Over the same period, job and career opportunities have increased for women. Given the choice of whether to merge finances with men or raise children alone, women are choosing the latter.

Staying out of the workforce to raise children is, all at once, less glamorous than paid work and a luxury for the rich. Either way, it’s trivialized.

The alimony “reform” bill that is now sitting on Scott’s desk further trivializes the critical “work that makes work possible.” If we’re going to value the family, we’re going to have to value all the work that creates and sustains it — not just the kind that gets paychecks.

• • •

Julie Delegal, a University of Florida alumna, is a contributor for Folio Weekly, Jacksonville’s alternative weekly, and writes for the family business, Delegal Law Offices. She lives in Jacksonville, Florida.

Julie Delegal


114 comments

  • Diana H.

    April 6, 2016 at 11:48 am

    Women who stay home while tge husband works an out-of-the-house-job DO get paid! They have a roof over their head! Health insurance! Food! Cloths! maybe even vacation! The bill foresees up to 15 years of alimony! This should truly enough to get back to work and at least HELP to cover expenses! The women who feel entitled to permanent aliminony and rather depend on a men (and its alimony payments) than get up and moving are a threat to what we’ve accimplished over the last decades in regards to EQUALITY of men and women!

  • Diana Haller

    April 6, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Women who stay home while the husband is working an out-of-the house job DO get paid!
    They have a roof over their head, health insurance, cloths, food, most likely a car, maybe even vacation. Short: they have all that the husband has that works for the money to pay for it all.
    if the marriage fails, the marital assets are split in half. Again: the women will receive just as much as the husband to start a new life. Yes, I am all for alimony. But it should be to get the receiver back on their feet to become self sufficent or at THE LEAST help to cover expenses. The fill forees up to 15(!) years of alimony! this should be enough
    Women who feel entitled to permanent alimony are a threat to what we have accomplished over the last decades in regards of EQUALITY of men and women! I am all for empowering women! I support SB668

    • Robert Sell

      April 6, 2016 at 9:04 pm

      What stay at home mom’s receive while married is only part of the equation. If it was a long term marriage and the husband was successful due to their contribution to the marriage, many times these women will receive the family home either fully paid for or being paid for by the husband. At least half of his retirement fund and other investments. Many times under the threat of higher alimony, they will receive more than 50% of the assets resulting from the marrige. How do I know? It happened to me.

      • Karen librizzi

        April 7, 2016 at 9:22 am

        In many divorces now a days there r no assets as u describe. I got over a million in debt handed to me. It’s now evident to me he used someone like Alan Fischer FLR to make any assets we had disappear before I realized what was going on. So alimony is my only way out. At 58 it’s the only thing I can count on. He managed to destroy my excellent credit so I can’t even get another car. All divorces r different. One size does not fit all.

  • Suk E Flowers

    April 6, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    My husband was married to his exwife for 10 years; during the divorce she had an attorney, he did not. She got 10 years of alimony (totaling $36,000.00), she also got the home (the mortgage was soley in his name), she had a bachelor degree in accounting, he has his basic education….tell me again, how this is fair?

  • Manuala D. Strebel

    April 6, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    I am a women and I support SB668! We’ve been working hard to be considered equal to men and this is a step more in the right direction. We can work, we can get education. Why do we have to depend on a men after a marriage fails? Alimony is there to help us gettin back on our feet. It is not an Annuity. Permanent alimony does nothing for one’s selfrespect, or for starting a new life. I asked the Governor to please sign SB668!

    • Karen librizzi

      April 7, 2016 at 9:28 am

      Permanent alimony is only awarded to those in a twenty plus year marriage and to people who r older like in their fifties. Also there are many other qualifiers for that. U act like permanent alimony is handed out to everyone. U don’t know what u r talking about. Read the laws then leave your comments.

      • Jeff Dombeck

        April 12, 2016 at 6:04 pm

        You don’t know what younarentalking about, my ex was 42 yrs old and I have been paying for 22 years with only death in sight to cancel the permanent alimony. Grow up and take responsibility and stop hanging on to your ex spouse for an annuity.

  • James Junior

    April 6, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    Ms. Delegal has either not read SB 668, doesn’t understand SB 668, or is intentionally misstating what the bill clearly states. This article is entirely off base, more absurd than anything. The traditional family hasn’t broken down, it has changed due to a large number of circumstances, including technology, education, on and on. Today, all persons have high speed access, and inexpensive devices to get online. Employment for all Floridians is available, and work from home is very common for an individual that isn’t formally educated, a nice living can be made from the comfort of home. Times have changed Ms. Delegal, but Permanent Lifetime Alimony is a boat anchor fixed to an individual and their kids, it is a horrible situation under current law. Governor Scott will make it right when he SIGNS SB 668 INTO LAW

    • #CraCra

      April 7, 2016 at 6:21 pm

      Hi Tony Not Sopranno

  • Patricia L Sevier

    April 6, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    This situation is especially detrimental to women over 50 or retirement age who have no retirement of their own. They are forced into poverty with no safety net and no possibility of employment that will pay a living wage let alone healthcare benefits.

  • Tina Granstrom

    April 6, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    You are an uneducated feminist talking out of your ass about issues that you don’t even know about and have never probably experienced and a disgrace to women. I had 3 children under age 3 when I divorced. I had no trade and no job skills when I divorced. I went to school for a year and got a trade as a dental assistant with no alimony and my ex husband was severely disabled so he couldn’t work to pay child support. Guess what?? We survived!! My kids are adults that know the value of hard work, they don’t have an entitled attitude. Did you know that another new law puts limits on welfare? So where are all the “cry babies” on that issue?? The state can have limits on welfare but ex spouses are slaves for life?? Also, children have rights to equal acces . of both loving parents.

    • bs

      April 6, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      Your ex was not disabled unless you count the 1990 felony for grand theft, the 1993 felony grand theft and burglary, the 1998 felony burglary, the 1999 felony dealing in stolen property all disabilities. He was not employable which is why you received no child support or even alimony for a 3 yr marriage. You also obtained sole parental rights and the father received supervised visitation.

      • Tina M Granstrom

        April 7, 2016 at 11:59 am

        He’s severely disabled with type 1 diabetes, kidney issues, etc. He had been severely abused as a child. His issues have nothing to do with me, our his love for his kids. I still openly shared them with him. I did not get alimony and he never had me hounding him for unpaid child support. So don’t talk about matters you don’t know. Also, do NOT lump me in with people who have brought up your personal issues because I’ve NEVER to my knowledge gotten nasty with any of you who oppose this bill. I’ve disagreed with you and shared my opinion(even if you didn’t like it)… To bring up people’s personal matters like you have is low… hitting below the belt shows your character.

        • Lies

          April 7, 2016 at 1:37 pm

          Tina if you lie with dogs you might wake up with fleas. Confused? Watch the company you keep. When you stand by and do nothing, it is just as bad as if you had engaged in the bs in the first place.

          • #CraCra

            April 7, 2016 at 5:07 pm

            Tammy you know who it is…your stupid is showing again.

    • Karen librizzi

      April 7, 2016 at 9:30 am

      U see to leave out how old u were when u divorced. Someone in their fifties is a completely different story. U can’t lump everyone in together.

      • Tina Granstrom

        April 7, 2016 at 1:53 pm

        Actually I have several friends in their fifties who are now CNA’s earning $15/hr after only one year in school. They were hired over the 20 something’s… What’s your excuse again?

        • #CraCra

          April 7, 2016 at 2:18 pm

          Tina should open her own headhunting firm. She has the inside scoop on all things for employability of all women over 50. I thought your kind didn’t judge???

    • #CraCra

      April 7, 2016 at 1:44 pm

      Cough…arrest record…Cough

      • Tina Granstrom

        April 7, 2016 at 1:58 pm

        Let he(or she) who has no “skeletons” cast the first stone… I’m sure I could dig up crap in your life that would make heads spin but you people bore me. * Yawns! * If Carey Hoffman or JH spent this kind of energy on getting JOBS they’d be rich and none of us would have this debate. Good luck in your lives girls…. (Or girl if you’re the same troll)

        • #CraCra

          April 7, 2016 at 5:10 pm

          No Tina, Nannasty already did that. Nothing left for you to find. I don’t do church lady talk…sorry. I’m allowed to judge whomever I want since I don’t claim to be what I’m not.

        • JH

          April 8, 2016 at 4:53 am

          Tina, I HAVE A JOB. Full time. I have had a job full time since leaving my ex except for one small period when the broke down vehicle he so willingly (NOT!) gave me in our divorce finally broke down for good. In fact my recent job is so good and my job performance is so good that my current supervisor has asked me to follow her wherever she goes and has gotten me more money than my co workers. I work hard and she knows it. So spill again. Now I am also confused, is it your ex or you that has diabetes? And again – why is it YOUR PLACE to judge me. Guess we will see how that one works for you 🙂

      • Bs

        April 7, 2016 at 7:20 pm

        So why did u sign over guardianship of your daughter to your mother after she filed suit against you. And didn’t your son join the military as a condition of his felony conviction for 4 counts of breaking and entering vehicles which was lowered to a misdemeanor. Good job telling your daughter to stop asking her baby daddy for child support. I’m sure his equal parenting time more than provides for his daughter’s basic needs and your daughter can save for the child’s college education. Which u say is so important to women so they are able to provide for themselves. And since u were on welfare raising those 3 babies you just had the taxpayers providing the child support. So don’t claim u did it all on your own. Glad u support women and children living in poverty…after all u did it so everyone should follow in your footsteps and not be better off than you were and are.

        • Tina Granstrom

          April 7, 2016 at 8:16 pm

          Lol… you people (trolls) are the most evil I’ve ever encountered. You don’t know crap about my life or what I’ve been thru. My point to all this was that I survived by hard work. So what if I used RESOURCES available to me to raise myself from the pit I was in. I used welfare for what it was designed for… I used the job training program to get thru school for ONE YEAR!! THEN I PAID MY OWN WAY, and my taxes paid for someone else, so what??? What excuses to you have for being a bitch ass lazy leech?? You bring out the nasty in people…. why don’t you practice what you preach?? How do you sleep at night and look yourself in the mirror?? You’re nasty, vile and horrible!

          • Tina Granstrom

            April 7, 2016 at 8:18 pm

            By the way, not one time in this entire thread have I attacked you like you’ve attacked me. You bring up personal shit but not once have I aired your dirty laundry…. Again, shows the type of nasty COW you are..

        • Tina Granstrom

          April 7, 2016 at 8:21 pm

          I never signed over any of my kids to anyone…. I was going to when I first thought of joining the military myself. Again, you don’t know shit. My kids lives are none of your effing business you whore!! Leave them out of this you POS.

          • #CraCra

            April 7, 2016 at 8:30 pm

            I’ve learned a lot on this thread today. Damn! Glad to see you’re human after all.

            Seems most of you like to air everyone’s dirty laundry hiding behind Facebook pages one a “Greedy Golfer” and the other “Bitchy Riveter”

          • JH

            April 8, 2016 at 5:05 am

            Tina, people have made us aware of who and what you are after they saw you going after us. Poor person, I didn’t know who they were and reported them as a fake Facebook page lol. Their page is still up though. Too bad for you huh? They gave me your former last name so it was really easy to look up the court records here in Florida. ALL THE COURT RECORDS. Now I will ask again. Why do you – all of you – feel the need to shame someone who has been through a very traumatic period in their life (and place blame where there has previously been no blame) for things that were beyond that person’s control. I personally have shared my testimony. I have been told by many who are in the system and out of it that my story is a testament to true strength, to someone who has faced the worst adversities and managed to move on beyond it. Yet you, Nannette (owner of the bastard child comment), Robin (does anyone know a PI in Orlando, I want dirt) and many of your other cohorts must spew evil nasty statements about me, about Carey, about our children. You have tried to destroy my child.

            Your groups have shared information on a young lady (15 years old, I know I found her FB page) who has been speaking out FOR shared parenting in her parents divorce. Why is it so horrible that my child wants to speak out AGAINST shared parenting in her life? She is only a fe months younger than your poster child. Her life has been affected by family law. So PLEASE explain the difference to me. Why is one child praised for speaking up, and another is vilified? Is it because the second child is saying something you don’t want to hear? I have never vilified the other young lady for speaking out for her desires. In fact I think it is wonderful she has found her voice and her parents give her the chance to speak out like that. Even though I don’t agree with her message, she delivers it without attacks, she is passionate, and it is her beliefs. I will never vilify her over that. Yet your groups do that to my child, threaten to contact her other parent, threaten to contact a GAL who is no longer in the picture, threaten to contact my lawyer (who BTW was only my lawyer for one instance – I don’t have the money to have a lawyer on retainer) and even go so far as to request that the followers of your pages contact my lawyer. What is the point and purpose behind all of that?

  • Lee Kallett

    April 6, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    The Family Law SB 668 was passed by an overwhelming 2/3 majority by the House and Senate after public testimony and constituents contacting their legislators. These legislators listened to what the people wanted. Now it is time for Governor Scott to listen to the people and sign this equitable and fair bill for the good of Florida families. The current antiquated family law badly needs reform and 2016 is the year for it to be accomplished.

    • Lies

      April 7, 2016 at 8:46 am

      Actually it was NOT an overwhelming 2/3 majority.

      • Mike Bakker

        April 7, 2016 at 12:22 pm

        I can see why the person calling themselves “Lies” isn’t using their real name. Facts are here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/0668/ByVersion

        Senate passed 24 to 14 house 74 to 38. Let’s hope the special interests don’t kill this bill with their false statements.

        • JH

          April 8, 2016 at 5:09 am

          That is not an overwhelming 2/3 majority however. Do the math. Lies is correct – it is below the 2/3 mark. You would have needed 26 votes to be at 2/3 in the Senate and 75 in the House. That is not “overwhelmingly” anything. That is missing the mark in the Senate and barely scraping under the wire in the House.

  • Chris Spears

    April 6, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    I believe SB668 should be signed into law. The majority have spoken by having both the senate and house chambers pass this by a 2/3 majority. Special interest groups (FL Bar and NOW- only represents women who stay home) are trying to derail this bill with false information. This is a good bill.

  • Elvina Bergmann Kallett

    April 6, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Governor Scott needs to listen to what the people want. The legislators did with a 2/3 majority vote for the bill. Governor Scott needs to sign this bill and listen to what Floridians want. This bill is a good start for further necessary family law reform. Other states like Texas have caps and guidelines that Florida should follow with further necessary reform that would include retroactivity of all judgments and MSA’s.

    • Lies

      April 7, 2016 at 11:17 am

      LW4SP has questionable leadership and membership. One need only do an Internet search to discover this. I will even give you two hints. Membership: search for the woman who had this to say about childhood sexual abuse – before we called it molestation we called it expirementation. Leadership: genitally caress a child (hint Warren Farrell)

  • Mike Baker

    April 6, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    I support the alimony reform. Everyone wins – the only losers are attorneys who wrack up fees for unnecessary suits and alimony receivers that refuse to work even if they are able and educated. The current awful law punishes alimony payers for marrying a working spouse. This bill was long overdue so that divorced alimony payers can marry without interference from a former spouse.

  • Rose Carbobe

    April 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    SB668 is a good bill and the will of the people.
    The formulas provided in the bill with respect to alimony awards are more than fair to the recipient. Temporary assistance is absolutely necessary to transition to single life, but permanent alimony should be reserved for rare instances rather than the norm. The bill also provides clear guidelines for judges as well as clearer provisions for modifications at retirement. Alimony is not retroactive. Nearly all settlement agreements are modifiable based on a change in circumstances. The bill only provides a clear definition of change in circumstances. Judges keep discretion to decide timesharing based on the best interest of the children. The premise is only a starting point for parents to be viewed as equals.

    Gloria Steinem has said that “women are not going to be equal outside the home until men are equal in it.”

  • Deborah Leff-Kelapire

    April 6, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    Using Robin Decamp’s words: Can you play a quick game of “spot the lies” in this article?
    1. “…women (mostly women) who choose to make themselves available to do the unpaid work of caring…”
    yeah, no. It’s not “unpaid” work. It is paid in food, clothing, housing, vacations, and all the other things most gals have to PAY for by working.
    2.”The bill robs judges of discretion in divorces by presuming in all cases that split custody arrangements are best for children, instead of evaluating custody based on the needs of individual kids.”
    The biggest and most disgusting lie of all. Wow – someone who works in the legal profession wrote this? Go back to school, honey, apparently you were absent the day the professor defined “presumption” to the class.
    3. “The legislation ignores the economic burden its alimony structure inflicts on the parent who is not the breadwinner, the one who left the workforce to do unpaid labor.” No, not unpaid labor. Also, you assume women can’t go back to work after kids are in school. Finally, do you give a whit for the financial burden placed upon payers? Of course not.
    4. “The bill is misogynist, shortsighted, and anti-family.” Opposition to the bill is all those three things. Your hyperbole does not convince. I guess you don’t think dads should get to see their kids as much as moms, which makes YOU antifamily. You also think women are too weak and stupid to learn how to support themselves, which makes YOU the misogynist.
    5.”We know it’s work because when we contract it out – to day care centers, baby sitters, maids, restaurants, and fix-it people – we pay for it. With money.” Exactly. We don’t have the maid move in with us, buy her everything she needs and much she does not in life, give her the luxury of staying home to raise kids (while denying that luxury to the maid’s husband, of course). Instead, we pay her money. Compensation comes in many different forms. I hope you don’t give your firm’s clients financial advice.
    6.”We know now that laundry is important because dads are doing Tide commercials.” Huh? Now you’ve just lost us all.
    7. “Over the same period, job and career opportunities have increased for women.” This was literally the ONLY thing you got right. Congratulations; go buy yourself a popsicle.
    9. I have developed a migraine after reading this tripe. Please put yourself in timeout and consider donating your computer to a local charity, because you are using it to disseminate lies and as such your rights to the Internet have been revoked.

    • #CraCra

      April 7, 2016 at 8:21 am

      Oh Debbie…this is QUOTE from Robin’s news article. Seems you to have the stigmata among you…why haven’t your compadres of hate blasted her health records? I feel for Robin, but hypocrisy is an issue.

      “For years afterward, I suffered extreme guilt, anxiety and depression. It wasn’t until long after the accident that I sought counseling and fully understood the extreme burden delivered when we take the life of another, even if it isn’t our fault.”

      http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/09/to_reckless_cyclists_from_a_dr.html

      • Diana H

        April 7, 2016 at 8:55 am

        Oh my god! You are using a persons personal pain and the fact that she’d open up publicly to pick on people, in a discussion about a COMPLETELY different subject? How disgusting! I feel for you. No alimony in the world can help your dark soul!

        • Jennifer D.

          April 7, 2016 at 11:21 am

          Diana H – the reformers have done just that to me, my family, and my children. This includes a child who is still just a teenager. She and her friends see THEIR TRIPE posted all over the Internet also. Are you going to jump on their case for being nasty to me, to my daughter and to my three children who are deceased? Still waiting for an answer. And I will tell you each and every one who has done so.

        • #CraCra

          April 7, 2016 at 11:37 am

          Diana, do you know what they have done to many who oppose this legislation?

          They are lucky this is all I’ve posted from the dirt I have. I held onto this information for awhile and Robin, Nannette, Terry, Tina, Lee, Tammy, Debbie and fake Stephen have posted my medical history (half thrusts) and other information about my children that they searched for and obtained from myex husband.

          They also scour Google searching for information to defame anyone who disagrees and posts about everywhere.

          Don’t be a hypocrite and we won’t have a problem. Open your eyes…many have documentation of their harassment. As the First Husbands and their Hate Groupies say…”If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch”

        • #CraCra

          April 7, 2016 at 11:40 am

          Oh Diana, I’d be happy to share the crap they share all over social media about me and have so for a year!

          You can find me on Facebook, PM me…the harassers have my name all over their pages, unless they deleted their vitriol.

  • LS

    April 6, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    Does this bill take into consideration that there may be extreme circumstances relating to both husband and wife, as well as children?
    If so, how is that addressed?
    And how are the extreme circumstances defined?

    • Mike Bakker

      April 7, 2016 at 12:11 pm

      It in fact does by allowing judges to deviate from the formulas but they have to back up their reasons in writing. This discretion allows judges to consider all one-off and unusual situations.

    • JH

      April 8, 2016 at 10:20 am

      LS the judges will be ordered to make a written set of facts that will be included in the divorce file which is public and will forever be in the divorce file. This “written set of facts” will be available for anyone to troll on the internet to find. That pushes the wire since dependency court cases are done under secrecy to protect the child’s identity (and in fact when those cases are appealed, only the parents and child’s initials are used in the appeals case). Having written finding of facts that would be available for all to see in a divorce case concerning a minor child will be traumatic for the child as he or she grows up at best, and problematic at worst concerning opportunities for said child.

  • #CraCra

    April 6, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    The entire First Harassers Abuse Group and their Hate Groupies are all (one is missing) here to spread half truths, lies and demean women and mothers.

    Now, that I posted…just wait for them to attack. That is their tactic when anyone disagrees with these people. Lets see how many derogatory remarks each one will make about me…anyone want to place bets??? Oh wait, I don’t gamble…that is why my family has no money.

    • Mke Baker

      April 7, 2016 at 5:50 pm

      Nobody is attacking women or children – that is ridiculous. The new law recognizes both parents matter and that a person is allowed to retire or remarry without going into poverty.

      • Karen Librizzi

        April 8, 2016 at 8:07 am

        Mike r u a newcomer? Go to First Husbands advocate group on FB. Search deep. They are trying to not be as obvious with the hatred now that they have been called out in it. They still manage to make their message clear though. Postings all about women abusing men and children and so forth. If u need to see the old stuff I’ll happily send it to u.

  • Jim

    April 6, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    Wow, this is a completely one-sided and biased article. Women are not superior to men, and there is no reason they should be supported by their ex-husbands just because they don’t want to work anymore. Alimony may have made sense in the 19th century when it was socially unacceptable for women to work outside the house, but it has no place in 2016. It should be reformed, and eventually eliminated.

    • Karen Librizzi

      April 8, 2016 at 8:12 am

      Jim some of us married in the seventies or eighties when times were different. Yet they r trying to pass a law to include everyone. That’s like convicting someone of a crime when it wasn’t a crime.

      • Diana H.

        April 8, 2016 at 10:03 am

        Geez! The bill is NOT retroactive!

        • #CraCra

          April 8, 2016 at 10:32 am

          Diana, please explain modification and the 10% trigger. Please don’t give the excuse that no one will file for a modification if the receiver gets a 10% raise while earning minimum wage. Many of us have been taken back to court over nothing just out of spite regardless of the mounting lawyer and court fees.

          Some people are just vengeful.

          • Diana H.

            April 8, 2016 at 12:50 pm

            The current law already allows for modification (as you experienced yourself!) The current law has NO treshold. So NO criteria have to be met to file for modefication. Under the new law there is a treshold. geez! Getting tired to explain the bill to people who have not read it but only had their lawyer told them lies!

        • Karen librizzi

          April 8, 2016 at 4:45 pm

          Diana so what u r saying is it’s okay if someone is still dragged to court over twenty bucks a week? Yeah that’s fair. Lol. How about if u make more than him then he can take u back to court? Oh that’s right we shouldn’t be equal!!

          • #CraCra

            April 8, 2016 at 5:42 pm

            Oh Diana, I know this bill better than you my dear. Don’t patronize me or anyone else who truly understands.

            This bill is just making it easier for you whiny people to modify aka retroactive. Just as modification currently is law, there is no need for this legislation. However, modification is necessary regardless and will end up clogging the already clogged family courts. It will also take lots of time and money to modify…most likely not worth the end results.

            So, yes I know all of this and more considering I’m a pro being taken back for frivolous modifications…yes that is plural.

  • Howard Goldman

    April 7, 2016 at 1:43 am

    Feminism 101: We don’t need men. Unless they’re handing out cash.

    • Karen librizzi

      April 7, 2016 at 9:39 am

      I feel for u. However there is no judge in the world who would not cut permanent alimony in your situation if there aren’t any assets. Instead of spending 2100.00 a month go to court. Unless there assets u don’t mention here for u all to live on in comfort. U can’t speak about everyone’s situation regarding alimony. Have u thought about that shoe could be on the other foot? The ex being disabled.

  • Nick

    April 7, 2016 at 3:26 am

    You aren’t owed a lifestyle because your relationship or marriage ended. You are responsible for yourself. If you fail to be such, it is on you and no one else.

    • Karen librizzi

      April 7, 2016 at 9:40 am

      Nick I wonder how old u r? How many life experiences u have had? One size doesn’t fit all in a divorce.

    • Jamie Karl

      April 8, 2016 at 12:26 am

      Succinctly put. You are responsible for yourself. You own your shit, your choices, your outcomes, and the responsibility for those outcomes. It’s that simple.

  • Robert Sell

    April 7, 2016 at 11:26 am

    It’s obvious from the comments from those who support the current government system of marriage to grave ownership of people’s private lives and the multi-billion dollar milking of their livelihoods and assets, that true reform will never happen from within the system. Our children must be educated to the ramifications of signing their name to a state marriage license and what that truly means. I.e. that they are marrying the state and it’s corrupt family law institutions. The very evil that they will experience at the hands of those running it and who benefit from it.
    Once they know the truth and avoid that slave contract with the state, the system will fall apart on it’s own.

  • Robert Sell

    April 7, 2016 at 11:28 am

    It’s obvious from the comments from those who support the current government system of marriage to grave ownership of people’s private lives and the multi-billion dollar milking of their livelihoods and assets, that true reform will never happen from within the system. Our children must be educated to the ramifications of signing their name to a state marriage license and what that truly means. I.e. that they are marrying the state and it’s corrupt family law institutions. The very evil that they will experience at the hands of those running it and who benefit from it.
    Once they know the truth and avoid that slave contract with the state, the system will fall apart on it’s own.

  • Jim Hays

    April 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    The 2 biological MARRIED family in America is disintegrating because it is government regulated by family courts, destroyed by bar associations, which foster policies like sole custody and no fault divorce which provide income transfers to (mostly) women to divorce their partners generally for convenience. That doesn’t mean that either a man or woman doesn’t lvoe and cre for their children and are in need of government interfering in their family. Gee, the author “Delegal” is part of “Delegal Law Offices”! Perhaps it is income protection by the Bar Association which fosters this opinion. I support SB668.

  • Kumud

    April 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    I am women and worked whole my life. All women can work. Please sign the SB 668, we do not want lazy people on earth

  • Jamie Karl

    April 7, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    Disagree.

    It’s anti-misandrist, and pro-family. It will encourage people to think of the kids, and their partners, and not just themselves and their entitlement to do whatever they damned please bugger the consequences for others, the child, or society. It will create families more likely to stay together, and every piece of science on the matter shows beyond question, that two parents are better than one, for societies outcomes, and the childrens outcomes.

    Anything less is selfish.

    There couldn’t be anything more equality providing, than a better deal for dads in the wildly sexist current family law environment – and something that by empowering men as fathers, is likely to keep families together, unlike feminism which has undoubtedly by placing the solo mum above all other stakeholders, broken the family.

    I can’t believe someone espousing the very notions that have destroyed the family, is claiming the reversal of their irresponsbly nonsense is anti-family. It’s very rich, tbh.

    This is the future. You are the past, and the future will see you as such.

  • Jamie Karl

    April 8, 2016 at 12:11 am

    This reform should be happening everywhere in the world.

  • Robert Cohen

    April 8, 2016 at 9:02 am

    Only an elite few make enough money to support a non-working spouse. Most families need two incomes to get by. Mine did. But after divorce, I was ordered to pay half my income in permanent alimony so my ex-wife could retire young. Sign the bill and end permanent alimony.

Comments are closed.


#FlaPol

Florida Politics is a statewide, new media platform covering campaigns, elections, government, policy, and lobbying in Florida. This platform and all of its content are owned by Extensive Enterprises Media.

Publisher: Peter Schorsch

Contributors & reporters: Phil Ammann, Ron Brackett, Jason Delgado, Renzo Downey, Daniel Figueroa, A.G. Gancarski, Anne Geggis, Kelly Hayes, Joe Henderson, Ryan Nicol, Jacob Ogles, Scott Powers, Gray Rohrer, Jesse Scheckner, Christine Sexton, Andrew Wilson, Mike Wright, and Tristan Wood.

Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @PeterSchorschFL
Phone: (727) 642-3162
Address: 204 37th Avenue North #182
St. Petersburg, Florida 33704




Sign up for Sunburn


Categories