Latest Headlines
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
- Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Food Distribution Held Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
- Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
- Still Time To Sign Up! Let The Miracle League Fry Your Thanksgiving Turkey
- Tate Aggies Beat Atmore Blue Devils 71-68 In Nailbiter Home Opener (With Gallery)
- FDLE Charges Escambia Man With Child Porn Possession
- Cantonment Man Charged With Sexual Battery, Molestation Of 5-Year-Old
- Truck Driver Airlifted After Crash On Quintette Road
Florida Alimony Overhaul Clears Senate, Ready For Full House
April 5, 2013
The Senate on Thursday approved a bill that will revamp the state’s alimony laws, with supporting saying it will give greater certainty to the amounts of alimony payments between former spouses. Senators voted 29-11 to approved the measure sponsored by Lakeland Republican Kelli Stargel.
The bill, for example, ends the concept of permanent alimony and also creates standards for the award of alimony based on the lengths of marriages. Stargel said she has tried to create a “fair framework” with the bill.
But Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, said she thinks the bill will have “bad, unintended consequences” and that it could create problems for women with children.
The House version of the overhaul has cleared committees and is ready to go to the full House.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
11 Responses to “Florida Alimony Overhaul Clears Senate, Ready For Full House”
NO THOUGHT:
“Socialism …. is about government being in control of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Okay, keep voting.
Contractual Huh? – like a lease, rental agreement, mortgage, promissory note.? Okay…well the laws are changing I think we all will see this alimony business generate even more money in the near future.
It’s a simple strategy: generate a way to have and create more couples, take anything sacred out of the definition, deem it a “contract only” just like David Green called it, then when the unions break up, step the government can step in as a mediator (for a high court fee of course), and then charge an extreme long-term penalty only to the party that has the largest annual income.
Socialism is about the re-distribution of wealth – ask FOX news. If one party is getting paid while someone else is out hard working, that is a socialist agenda point blank. Welfare is welfare regardless of what they try to spray over it in the name of something else.
People (theologians and scholars) used to think men had one less rib than women until somebody got around to checking.
I think I want my rib back after reading some of these post…
I agree with child support, but alimony is an insult to modern women. A woman today has enough pride and self esteem to go out and do something for herself, rather than depend on some man to support her.
Kept women are just passe.
Alimony should only be temporary, like maybe 5 years
our so to allow the spouse to either get an education that
they might have postpone for the sake of the sake of the
Marriage. Not a lifetime type of thing, nor if you were married 15
Or 20 years that you have to pay for that long. That’s wrong also I think
CONTEMPLATING:
“Can’t get any more socialist than this. Alimony and Child support!”
Meeting your contractual and legal obligations is socialist?
“Socialism: political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles (Encarta ® World English Dictionary)”
Socialism isn’t about two people being held responsible for their actions toward each other, it is about government being in control of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Admittedly, many marry with no intent to honor their word and this sometimes leads to divorce. That doesn’t automatically mean they shouldn’t be held accountable. Spelling out exactly how they will be held accountable isn’t inherently a bad thing even if some think they should be able to dump wives and children every few years and hold no responsibility and others think they should be able to marry for a day and get half of all future earnings of the sucker they married.
People who don’t want to be held responsible for spouses shouldn’t take spouses. The law should be clear regarding expectations of those who do.
David for literacy
Marriage today:
Man marry woman.
Woman watch TV.
Lawyer place TV ad.
Woman divorce man.
Man pay lawyer.
Man pay woman alimony.
Man no want to marry.
Can’t get any more socialist than this. Alimony and Child support! This is a dead horse situation. Everybody wants something for nothing and nobody wants to work for it. Let somebody else work and pay me for sitting around. Sounds familiar! Socialist agenda, all of it. You are right child support is different too because the more a man makes, the more they take. Diapers cost the same, milk cost the same.?. The cost should be consistent! What child in America needs $20,000 a month just because the dad makes more. Unbelievable!
This is the most socialist crap on any level. These entitlements plague America. They should at least require a Trust be set up for the children. But of course, how could money get pumped back into the economy that way? Plus that would be in the best interest of the child, so we can forget that. Good old welfare; gotta love it.. I’m sure someone will write and defend getting these welfare payments for life after this post. Keep voting! So sad..
Men are cry babies, wan,wan why do I have to the witch I divorced anything. So what she took care of me and my needs, laundry, cooking housekeeping for all those years. Gave birth to my babies, reared my babies on her own. Why should I the all great man have to do anything I don’t want to.
I can’t believe that alimony is still commonplace. In this day and age, women are completely capable of earning a living. Perhaps it won’t be the same lifestyle they had become accustomed to, but that’s not the point. If a woman decided to leave the work force, it was either her own or a joint decision (to which she agreed). Every decision has it’s consequences. It takes two to make or break a marriage. When it ends, neither should be “entitled” to a portion of the other’s earnings unless there are EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. Child support is an entirely different matter. Both parents are responsible for raising any children. Not just monetarily, but emotionally as well. And no, I am not a feminist… I simply believe that a failed marriage is no reason to fleece your ex.
My ex and I went to mediation 10years ago and that is exactly what I asked for. Alimony for the number of years we had been married. That is perfectly fair to me!
What a shame to have to get the Senate involved…