advertisement

SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed

21 Comments
Columns

Alimony Reform and 50/50 Child Time-Sharing – A Horrible Idea

December 9, 2015 - 2:15pm

 What does alimony have to do with “The Baby Mama Syndrome”?  Next to nothing.  

Only married people getting a divorce can get alimony.  On the other hand, Florida legislators keep trying to pass alimony “reform,” a code word for changing the law to the disadvantage of people who need protection or help.  The proponents of “alimony reform” combine it with a provision that would require a judge to “presume” that parents, whether they’re married to each other or not, are entitled to fifty-fifty time sharing of their children.  In other words, the judge would be told by the law to assume that each parent is entitled to have the child half the time.  That’s a horrible idea.
 
You cannot know what I know from years of resolving custody disputes and think a presumption of fifty-fifty child time sharing is a good idea.  The legal meaning of “presumption” is critical to understanding the problem.  If the judge is required by the law to “presume” something, in this case that fifty-fifty time-sharing should be ordered, someone has to prove that the presumption is wrong or it controls the decision.  If no one proves that fifty-fifty child time-sharing is wrong in a particular case, under the proposed law the judge should set up a custody arrangement that has the child spend time equally with both parents.  At present, a judge has to decide what’s best for the children, not base a time sharing decision on the presumed rights of one or both parents.
 
Consider some common situations in which the presumption would be bad.  First, a woman flees an abusive baby daddy with their child and he takes her to court demanding fifty-fifty custody and time sharing.  Neither of them has an attorney, which is more often than not the case. They get to court and he glares at her or flashes signs or does something else to show her she’s about to get another beating.  She clams up, says nothing about why he shouldn’t have the child half the time.  In the absence of proof that the custody/time sharing presumption is a bad idea, especially if the judge doesn’t pick up on the intimidation, the judge will most likely order fifty-fifty custody and time sharing without ever knowing the man is abusive.  By the way, studies routinely show that half of fathers who abuse their intimate partners also abuse their children.  Often this is described as “co-occurrence.” 
 
Here’s another typical situation.  When unmarried (or married) parents have a custody dispute, the man is often making enough money to hire a lawyer but the woman, who has been a stay at home mom, is working at minimum wage at Wendy’s for 30 hours a week, has no benefits, and is having trouble paying for child care and rent.  The lawyer knows how to navigate the legal system and confronts the mother in court with a demand for fifty-fifty custody.  She probably doesn’t bring witnesses and the lawyer has a bunch of them.  She doesn’t know how to cross examine them.  She may have gotten written statements from friends or relatives, but they can’t be introduced into evidence because they’re hearsay.  So the lawyer presents uncontested testimony that the man should have the child half the time, and the judge orders it because that’s what the judge is supposed to do under the proposed law.  To be clear, the father may in fact be the best parent or the two parents may be equally good or equally inadequate.  The point is that a parent without a lawyer is at a disadvantage, and when the judge is required to assume something unless that parent proves otherwise, the unrepresented parent (male or female) may have no chance of a fair result.
 
Does anyone really think every parent is entitled to a fifty-fifty presumption of custody and time sharing?  How about the fathers who seldom see their kids and have never supported them but ask for custody because the Department of Revenue sues for child support to repay the government benefits the mother has received for their child?  Or what about the woman who daily exposes her child to violence against the present wife or girlfriend of the baby daddy?  Completely apart from the inadequacies of the parent, the lack of a consistent home may in and of itself be bad for the child.

These domestic violence and financial situations will exist whether the law is changed or not. But under the present law, the judge has to make a finding that the custody and time sharing arrangement is in the best interest of the child, and is not required to assume they are both entitled to the child half the time unless one or the other parent proves that fifty-fifty custody/time-sharing is a bad idea in their case.  These proposed laws about alimony and custody/time sharing are not designed for the children, just for one of the parents.  When a judge makes a life-altering decision affecting children, the judge should be guided by what’s best for the kids, not what’s best for the parents.

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.  Over the years, Judge Doyel has handled over 15,000 domestic violence/restraining order cases as well as thousands of dependency, divorce, custody, and paternity cases.  A native of Oklahoma, Judge Doyel received his law degree (JD) from the University of Oklahoma and a master of laws (LLM) and doctorate (SJD) from the University of Wisconsin.  Before going on the bench, he was a law school professor and a board certified trial and appellate lawyer.  He is a Vietnam veteran and published author on family issues. He is currently running for an open Florida House seat as a Democrat. 

Comments

The law would actually force judges to consider evidence, hear testimony, research cases, and review the case file and family history prior to making an informed decision. The lack of a 50-50 clause or alimony reform allows the judges to make hasty, arbitrary decisions and then hide under the provisions of the law as justification. This law actually forces them to research, know the case, consider all of the evidence and testimony and make an informed decision. Any DV, protection orders, both parties criminal histories, etc. are part of each case file and should be considered prior to making any informed legal decision, especially one that involves children. This law forces judges, clerks, legal assts., attorneys, parents, etc. to be accountable.

Alimony reform is needed because the current system in arbitrary and often unfair. My wife divorced me after a marriage where she often acted unethically and criminally. Despite taking a huge amount of assets and money as a result of the divorce, a vocational evaluation stating she could make just as much money as me, a custody evaluation stating she was not the primary parent, joint custody of the children post marriage, good evidence she committed perjury and absolute evidence her lawyer knowingly and maliciously lied in Court, she received massive permanent alimony. I will never be able to remarry or retire. But I have no doubt you could find an example of a woman hurt by the system just as much as me. The problem is the that the divorce industry needs reforming. Let's start with clear and fair alimony laws. That will help everyone, especially the children who are often the invisible victims.

Alimony, especially permanent, periodic alimony which is a lifetime sentence to the payer is the most ludicrous, unfair system ever devised. The Judge, like this guy, is a government worker, who probably couldn't make it in private practice or has a power problem, makes the ruling, goes home & goes to bed and never thinks about it again. The poor payer of alimony is living under huge pressure and the constant threat of missing a payment and the consequences that follow. There is no provision for sickness or lost jobs for the alimony payer. And the payor cannot get out from under it. If she misses a payment, it's back to court, maybe jail and more expense. The recipient is trapped because he will lose his alimony if he marries. The whole idea of a divorce is to terminate a relationship that is not right or working. Alimony ties the spouses together potentially for the rest of their lives. So he shacks up setting a miserable example for his kids and others. And this is going to affect more women because it is common now for them to be the superior earner in the family. Please stop this alimony nonsence now.

The author is living in the days when women didn't work or go to school. Historically men received the children for care until the 1960s and 1970's. I have worked in the family law arena for 30 years, and it must change to 50/50 custody presumption and no presumed alimony, unless for a very short period of time (no longer than 6 months). Women are the majority in society 53%, majority in universities and colleges 68%, and have careers, and high paying jobs. (They are also the most difficult to get child support from.) either women can or can't take care of themselves. Which is it? Every child needs BOTH parents in their life. It is sinful to withhold them from one parent. Alimony is archaic at this point and should cease. And the author...he must retire and quit ruining people's lives. When I became a lawyer, I believed in justice and fairness. But in this arena their currently isn't either one.

You make a broad statement without consideration of various ages of divorce. As in one case where I aided an 74 year old woman who had been a stay at home female for 40 years in her marriage and deemed acceptable to do so for the 40 years. Her husband, 8 years younger, left her, took all the bank accounts, her jewelry and fled with another woman. He did not want her to get alimony. He did not want her to have an equal share of assets. He fought in court on the complaint she never worked so she didn't deserve anything. He wanted, I would presume, to kick a 74 year old woman into the streets. This is where, alimony should apply. With an estimated maritial value of over a million dollars, he tried to use the 'equal rights for women' arguement to force a 74 year old wheel chair bound woman into the workplace or basically homeless. He did not win, nor should he have. There needs to be some discretion in individual assessments of how long a marriage has lasted, assets available, prior maritial agreement of dependency, and the ages. I have seen it go both ways. Men have received alimony when married to a financially successful wife and have divorced at an age where employment isn't possible or prior agreements left the man without a solid work history to maintain the lifestyle he had during marriage. While I understand many issues facing fathers and fathers rights, they tend to place all women as 'money hungry' and 'young' and there fore make broad sweeping laws which don't always apply to all couples.

This is the rarest form of alimony, and your example only happens in the 0.0000000001% the most common case is wife marries rich husband, sleep with pool boy, has child with pool boy, husband gets child support + alimony while she is out having partying and putting your kids and day care. Women are also the main abuser of children and will treated,beat and sometimes burn their children alive to keep the man paying child support. When a man wins custody he needs to be careful because the women will often kill her child.

Judges like you stole my children's childhood from me, while acknowledging that I was the best father they'd seen in their decades on the bench. Presumption of 50-50 as a starting point is what it SHOULD be. Men are NOT just ATM's for women to withdraw from and the court to treat like deadbeat dads for the matching Federal dollars. I could provide you with alternate case examples where women are given custody despite being the demonstrably worse parent due to abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, or neglect. Women are human too. They have all the same character flaws that men do. They get away with them more often because of people like you.

Hete is an idea! Please think about the children. Children need one settled home. When the parents are breaking up, this 50-50 thing means the child has no settled home, but just shuttles back and forth. In urban areas, that poses a challenge for attending school, and school activities, much less after school care. Kids are not property. Parents have the responsibility to provide a settled, nurturing home environment, and that is not the focus if this 50/50 "rights" thing. The bill got going through Sen. Tom Lee, who divorced his wife when their children were young. I think this judge knows more about the problems of families in divorce and child custody than most people who are posting here.

This is a typical argument by feminist, of course she means the child should settle with the mother, and you should pay the mother child support. You see women can't take care of children, they are to busy on social media so they need a pay check. With 50/50 both parents would pay child support, of course Lisa knows no women has the desire to support her child and herself. If she was truely concern about the child she would send them to their fathers which studies have shown children without fathers do very poorly in life

Lisa, I have a friend who has 50/50 sharing with his ex-wife. They divorced 10 years ago and agreed on the 50/50 sharing. The kids spend one week with their father, and the next week with their mother. Their children have TWO "settled" homes. Their kids are healthy and happy. His oldest child is an adult now and she told me that she wouldn't have wanted it any other way. She and her siblings loved their time with both parents.

I don't think he has a clue. He is a condescending paternalistic man. People who make these decisions must have divorce and custody issue experience in order to understand what is best for the children and parents. Kids need there dads too.

Lisa, Just a few questions. On what knowledge do you base your comment? To what degree do you know what world wide experts on child development say is good for children whose family has experienced breakdown? How many papers have you read, which have been peer reviewed by these experts. How many of them do you know personally? What is it they say is best for children and are they concerned that Judges and other court employee's are basing their decisions based upon faulty beliefs? Do you believe your opinion should weigh more towards establishing the best public policy we can have for Florida's children than those who've spent their entire career studying what's best for kids in these circumstances? Did 110 world experts make any recommendation regarding shared parenting lately and what was that recommendation? I'd appreciate knowing if your opinion is based on anything other than your own personal feelings or experiences with the Family court. Thank you. Terry Brennan www.lw4sp.org

A 50-50 presumption is perfectly fair. Start in the middle, and allow each party to make arguments for changing it. Why only assume that women can be abused? Why assume that the man will have a better lawyer? Unless either party can show otherwise, a father has just as much right to see his children as a mother.

This is a highly sexist article.

Nobody cares about the suffering of men. Society could kill all men and nobody would care.

The problem with 50/50 is that it holds both parties to one state, one county when some parents do not have the same opportunities in the same county. while one parent may be successful and have family in that county, the other parent would be more successful financially by living near relatives or job opportunities. when it is 50/50 the place of residence is restricted and unconstitutional holding a parent to one county and denial of freedom to live where they choose. The only avenue to avoid the other parent losses is for the parent who ties the other spouse to a county is for the successful earner to pay higher support to allow the financial ability for the other parent to engage in their 50 percent. And as for alimony, I would say, continued alimony is taxed and not always necessary, however, the equal shares to the assets at dissolution should be adhered to, and frequently is not. So men who complain about 50/50 should realize by doing so, they are obliged to enable that financially if the mother is not employed enough to cover living expenses to comply with the ruling. As should women if they are the main breadwinners. More times than not, 50/50 is not possible long term. People need to move for work opportunity, elderly parent care, health, cost of living, education, job transfers. And in the case of an abusive spouse, there should not be equal custody, or for a parent that travels and is seldom home who leaves children in the care of others during their custody times. While it sounds equal, it commonly fails one or the other parent. As for the kids, my children, raised now, hated the back and forth. Hated that their father was gone more than he was home. Hated 50/50 and it had nothing to do with their parents. It had everything to do with a schedule and school which left them exhausted. They preferred weekend stays, and would have liked to have the power to say, I am too tired to go anywhere and I am staying home to catch up on homework, or be sick in bed, or simply to go with their friends. Overbearing and needy parents are a detriment and burden to children that should be raised to make decisions, weigh options and become an adult who can determine what is in their best interests.

No one is saying that a parent cannot give up their 50 percent voluntarily and move for a job opportunity that is important to them just that if both parties want custody than the starting point is 50/50 unless there is a compelling reason with evidence to support it that says otherwise.

Custody was moved to 80/20 when the other spouse failed the responsibility of school pickup and drop offs, as well as being with the children on his custody shares due to work. The result was, my work was sacrificed to enable the children to maintain school needs, while financially he kept his earning potential. I was held to a county for the entirety of the childhood because of his lack of abiity to actually care for children, he was better in his workplace. He did have to financially pay more of his income to allow me to care for them. It cost several thousand to arrange this thru court hearings, which was a waste. I did suffer long term because my schedule was not easily adapted in the workplace. As a unit and family we would have succeeded financially if I had been allowed a move to another county, which was barred in court. Now, the children have less stability than they could have from their parents. Their father placed all his profits on non parenting expenses, therefore, was terrible in foreseeing any future planning. All in all, he was inadequate as a parent and the reason for the dissolution. I would have preferred settling outside of court, however, as a parent with issues, he chose to wage a battle in court for full custody, which went to 50/50, which went to 80/20. And the children have suffered for his inability to coparent.

"Does anyone really think every parent is entitled to a fifty-fifty presumption of custody and time sharing?" Yes we do unless there is evidence of abuse in the family.

So when did you decide that only women are worthy of parental rights after divorce and that it's ok to consider men as nothing more than wallets to be cleaned out by greedy ex wives?

Please stop the war on men, you pansy-ass liberal pantie waste.

Comments are now closed.

columns
advertisement
advertisement
Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.

advertisement