Now that President Obama has come out in support of marriage equality, I'm beginning to think that talking about alimony in public is one of the only taboos still left. Sure, it's fine to discuss movie stars or the divorces of the super rich that splash the gossip pages, but your own alimony issues in public? In print? With your legislator? Are you kidding?
But the times - and the laws - are a-changing, and Connecticut is now part of a nationwide movement of men and women working to bring out-dated alimony laws into the 21st century. With women's economic power, the widespread acceptance of people living together outside marriage, and our increased longevity, alimony laws built on the premise that divorced women have no options but lifetime support from ex-husbands have made many state legislatures tailor their laws to the times.
Each state has its own laws, and they are as different from each other as apples are from antelopes. New York State changed its alimony assumptions in 1980; Massachusetts came in 30 years later, in 2012, on March 1st, bringing guidelines and limitations where there used to be none.
Connecticut's laws are now being re-examined by lawyers and legislators, led by a grassroots organization, CT Alimony Reform, which supported a bill inspired by the new law in Massachusetts. The bill, introduced earlier this year, would have brought guidelines to alimony decisions, with exceptions for special cases. The purpose of guidelines: to cut down on uncertainty, unpredictable awards, conflict, and litigation for divorcing couples. Under current law, every alimony decision is up for grabs: each must be fashioned from scratch with every divorce. Lawyers consider it the most contentious area of divorce, and contention=conflict=legal fees.
Unlike the child support guidelines, which lay out parents' obligations and expectations early on, alimony awards are a crapshoot. Lawyers can't tell clients what to expect. The judge in Room A will make a different decision from the judges in Room B and Room C. What's at stake? Family resources, good will, and the ability of divorcing couples to remain co-parents to their children. High conflict divorces are toxic for good parenting -- and quickly eat away marital assets. A divorce can cost the family four years of a college education.
The alimony reform bill died in the Judiciary Committee. It was supported by several women legislators, strapped alimony payers left having to ride a bike to work or borrow money to put gas in their cars, and some lawyers who believe that the time for guidelines has come, as it's come to many other states. Opposition to the bill came from powerful divorce lawyers, who argue that everything's fine in family courts, even when they tell their clients differently.
Many lawyers favor some form of guidelines, and many believe that the current cohabitation laws need an update. The CTAR-supported bill has sparked much conversation and debate across the state. Lawyers will be discussing the matter of guidelines at their annual meeting in early June.
CTAR is holding a free public meeting on , to educate and inform citizens about current law, about proposals for change, and about how they can become involved in moving our laws and expections into the 21st century.
Alimony laws in Massachusetts changed when citizens began to speak out, when the taboo was broken. As people began to speak up, more people joined the conversation - and pretty soon, word got out about what really happens in family court, under a system that offers no guidance for lawyers or judges. And legislators knew they had to make changes. It took input from citizens to make a difference.
I'll be blogging on this issue leading up to the meeting and afterwards. I'm eager to hear from you - publicly or privately - on where you stand, what your concerns are, and what you think alimony reform should look like. Please email me at info@ctalimonyreform.com.
"They become the heart of a family and its soul as well." Maybe that's the problem, then.
You mention that there are different circumstance where alimony should be given like when the couple agrees for one of them to stay at home with the children. I just want to make sure you know that this new proposed bill does not take into consideration anything except length of marriage. The current law takes 13 factors into consideration so what you mentioned above would be taken into consideration. This new reform which I oppose only takes into account the length of marriage. It doesn't matter what the couple agreed to during the marriage or number of children they have or there age etc. It is a simple formula (length/2) which a first grader could do. They claim that divorce is too emotional and thus Judges can't consistently dissolve them. So they feel their formula is the magic solution (one shoe fits all). Before you agree with reforming alimony please take time to read raised Bill 5509 and read some of the supporting arguments against it from various groups. You can find this information if you google legislation, CT.
Thank you
If you read CK comment he states " There are many things to consider. Some couples agree that the mother or father should stay home with the children ." I am 99% sure that this alimony reform bill does NOT have any exceptions in it for the mother who stayed at home to take care of her children and did not work. Elizabeth comment to CT is that the proposed bill has "A LONG LIST OF EXCEPTIONS/DEVIATIONS! " I am just asking Elizabeth to back up her statement. I have read the bill and I know what the exceptions are and I would like to see her share them with her readers.
in and ask which is the whole point of this blog, you at the very least should be able to back them up with actual facts when asked. Sarah, I'm going to ignore your consistent put downs that you have done to me and others that have written in who oppose this reform. Elizabeth could have just commented to CT that there are NO exceptions for those situations that he mentioned. She glossed right over it and I am asking her to back up and tell us what those exceptions are which corresponds to the comment he made above. He mentioned a particular situation where both parents agreed someone should stay home with the kids.
I Agree. People should back up their statements. Are you willing to back up your statement? You flatly said that the bill "I just want to make sure you know that this new proposed bill does not take into consideration anything except length of marriage" So DOES NOT TAKE ANYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION EXCEPT length of marriage. Can you back that up? As you demand others? Thanks.
How is it that your comment got posted to my email address. None of the other comments from Elizabeth or Sarah have actually come into my personal email. Do you have access to my personal email address?
you probably checked "give me updates on your last comment."
Lori Here is what I read on that bill On and after October 1, 2012, when ordering an initial award of alimony, or a modification of an award of alimony entered before October 1, 2012, the Superior Court may deviate from the durational limit set forth in subsection (b) of this section and amount limit set forth in subsection (d) of this section, upon making written findings that deviation from any such limit is necessary. Grounds for deviation may include: They go on to list 9 items. Im not going to copy and paste these--unless you feel as though this paragrpah does not exist in the bill. Which of course, is absurd.
I read through your comments on the previous thread. There too , you demand for people to 'back up their statements" yet also there, you make patently false statements. Can we conclude that Lori has no particular problem with double sets of standards. That she demands /asks people to support statements , yet wont support her own? Many men (and working women) are concerned with how the non-working spouse somehow gets an enormous amount of money for sometimes good reasons, but other times, simply a system that was more relevant in the past. Lori is fighting to maintain the old system--and one would wonder why? Trying to get things to a fairer outcome, makes sense. Arguing to maintain a flawed system by way of untruths is wrong--but super wrong, when that person demands things they are unwilling to provide themselves.
(2) Tax considerations applicable to the parties; (3) Whether a party ordered to pay alimony is providing health insurance for his or her spouse and the cost of providing such health insurance; (4) Whether a party ordered to pay alimony has been ordered to secure life insurance for the benefit of his or her spouse pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and the cost of securing such insurance; (5) Sources and amounts of unearned income, including capital gains, interest and dividends, annuity and investment income from assets that were not allocated in the parties' divorce; (6) A party's inability to provide for his or her own support due to physical or mental abuse committed by the party ordered to pay alimony; and (7) Economic fault occurring during the last five years of the marriage. [(b)] (f) Any postjudgment procedure afforded by chapter 906 shall be available to secure the present and future financial interests of a party in connection with a final order for the periodic payment of alimony.
Do you know what b abd f mean?
Thank you for lising all the exceptions to the alimony reform. It is my understanding that outside of those 7 items listed above and b/f the Judges are not given any other discretion to change the terms of alimony from the formula Length/2. If this is not correct, please let me know and please be specific.
Why are you trying to maintain that you are somewhat right? economic fault in last 5 years; poor health; advanced age.... What exactly about these terms (and there are more) would make it unsatisfactory? Can you come up with 2 scenarios where length of time (1/2 year for every year married) would be patently unfair to either partner? For example married in 1994 have kids in 1997 divorce in 2001. 3.5 years alimony. Is that unfair? Why? Married in 1994 have kids in 1997 divorced in 2006 . 6 years alimony... . How long should it be? In any event--you demand/ask to BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS> Where is your supporting evidence to "I just want to make sure you know that this new proposed bill does not take into consideration anything except length of marriage"
proposed reform means, read this opposing article written by the President of the AAML. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/JUDdata/Tmy/2012HB-05509-R000319-American%20Academy%20of%20Matrimonial%20Lawyers%20-%20Arnold%20H.%20Rutkin-TMY.PDF
Im betting that lori is someone who has not worked in a long time. She will interpret this as a slight--but it is what it is. people who are incapble of being fair --demanding of others, what they are unwilling to do themselves, are exactly why divorce laws should be reformed. Fairness is what people of both genders should aspire to. Women should receive equal pay for equal job. Divorce lawyers, are relatively well known to be bottom feeders....they create drama-- and for their group to advocate to keep the status quo, is similar to banks fighting dodd/frank; or personal injury lawyers against tort reform.
There is no end of heartache in divorce, and it sounds like you've had more than your share. I believe the reform proposals in CT would be mindful of your situation and provide protection to you, while also granting your ex his rights, among them the right to retire. THank you again for being part of this conversation.
That said, the most important line in your response is your last. The needs of a woman who took time out to raise kids is important when considering alimony. She needs time and money to re-train to become financially independent. But the PAIN of divorce is never soothed by money, because money didn't cause the pain. The relationship and its end caused the pain. The emotional devastation of divorce is played out in the arenas of money (and most terribly) custody battles. But these kinds of battles never promote healing. There has been criticism in this blog of people writing from "personal experience." I believe with a topic like this, it is only personal experience that truly informs this discussion. Your conclusion about the exceptions listed in the reform based on your experience is very telling and, unfortunately, not that rare. Who wants their future left to back room deals?
A planner can run a regression analysis in excel (using solver) or another program to come up with the optiminal solution for both. The couple leaves their marriage with a plan that works, not just money but a real plan. The problem with this reform is the simple formula. It will be wrong 80% of the time. There are many ways to reach your goal of consistency among Judges. A simple formula is not the only way. I encourage all of you to "think out of the box".
publication. If only 10% of divorce cases receive alimony in NJ, then I am willing to bet less then 3% are permanent life long alimony cases. We are spending all of this time talking about 3% of divorce cases whereas child support only goes to age 18 in most states and that involves way more than 3% of cases. This alimony reform group represents a very small minority. "The most common type of support awarded in divorce cases is child support. In fact only 25,000 out of 280,000 spouses are awarded alimony. A New Jersey divorce lawyer is able to get this type of support for clients who need it in order to take care of themselves once their marriages have ended."