Latest Headlines
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Centery YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Walnut Hill Man, Three Others Charged After Alleged Overdose On Embalming Fluid, GHB
- Escambia Man, 77, Charged With Shooting Multiple Rounds At Santa Rosa County SWAT
- Escambia (AL) Volunteer Fire Departments Receive State Grant, Present Service Awards
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Escambia County Corrections’ Wilson, Hankins Graduate From State Leadership Programs
- Escambia Commission Cancels This Week’s Meeting
- Suspect, 19, Indicted For Fatal Drive-By Shooting Of 70-Year-Old
Scott Vetoes Alimony Overhaul
April 16, 2016
For the second time in three years, Gov. Rick Scott has vetoed a controversial alimony proposal, this time blaming an even more-contentious child custody component included in the latest bill.
The proposal vetoed Friday would have created a formula, based on the length of marriage and the combined incomes of both spouses, for judges to use when setting alimony payments. After years of disagreement on the issue, alimony reform advocates and The Florida Bar’s Family Law Section supported the alimony proposal, which would have also eliminated permanent alimony while giving judges some discretion to veer from the formula.
But the plan became one of the most hotly contested issues of the 2016 legislative session when it was amended to include a child-sharing component that would have required judges to begin with a “premise” that children should split their time equally between parents.
The proposed time-sharing changes could potentially upend the state’s current policy of putting the needs of children first in favor of parents’ wishes when judges determine custody arrangements, Scott wrote in Friday’s veto letter.
The proposed revisions “have evoked passionate reactions from thousands of Floridians because divorce affects families in many different ways,” Scott wrote.
Men, women and a handful of children on both sides of the measure (SB 668) clashed outside of Scott’s office Tuesday, before representatives met with the governor’s policy director to make last-ditch pitches. Scott received nearly 10,000 messages urging him to sign the bill into law, more than three times the number of requests for a veto.
“As a husband, father and grandfather, I understand the importance of family and the sensitivity and passion that comes with the subject of family law. Family law issues are very personal, and nearly every family comes to the court with different circumstances and needs. As such, we must be judicious and carefully consider the long term and real life repercussions on Florida families,” he wrote.
But “the one constant” when a divorce involves a young child is “the needs of the child must come before all others” when judges determine parenting schedules, something now required by Florida law, Scott wrote.
“This bill has the potential to upend that policy in favor of putting the wants of a parent before the child’s best interest by creating a premise of equal time-sharing. Our judges must consider each family’s unique situation and abilities and put the best interests of the child above all else,” he concluded.
Scott’s veto drew a barbed response from Senate budget chief Tom Lee, who has pushed the child custody issue.
Lee, a former Senate president, said he met with Scott’s staff throughout the session in an attempt to address some of the concerns expressed in the governor’s 2013 veto of a similar alimony bill. Scott objected to a retroactivity provision in the 2013 legislation, which was not included in this year’s bill. Scott’s aides wouldn’t give any clear guidelines about what might please the governor, Lee indicated in a statement issued Friday afternoon.
“At this point it is unclear what future family law reform legislation the governor may find acceptable. Today’s veto message is vague and does nothing to further illuminate the governor’s concerns,” Lee, a Brandon Republican whose wife is a judge, wrote. “Specifically, the veto message focuses exclusively on potential outcomes, without giving reasons for how the legislation could actually result in those outcomes. Current law is clear that the best interest of the children remains paramount and it is the primary responsibility of judges to make a determination based on 20 factors listed in current law. Senate Bill 668 does nothing to change the primary role of the court, which is to do what is in the best interest of the children.”
Lee said he remained “hopeful that we can continue to work to find a solution for the thousands of families across our state who are seeking meaningful changes in family law.”
Other alimony reform advocates aren’t backing down, but will try to keep the time-sharing and alimony issues in separate bills next year.
“We still believe, as an organization, child sharing is important. We just don’t want it to hurt our chances for alimony reform, which is what happened this session.” Family Law Reform founder Alan Frisher, who has spent nearly a decade pushing the issue, said in a telephone interview Friday.
The alimony measure has been mired in controversy since Scott’s first veto three years ago.
A revised version of the measure, which included the formula included in this year’s proposal, died in 2015 after being enmeshed in a dispute between Lee and House Rules Chairman Ritch Workman, a key alimony-overhaul supporter who opposed the child-sharing component.
Late in this year’s legislative session, Workman and Lee reached a compromise regarding the child-sharing language. Instead of requiring a “presumption” of equal time-sharing between parents, the proposal instructed judges to begin with a “premise” that children will divide their time equally between both parents.
The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, which for years had opposed the alimony reform efforts but worked with Workman, Frisher and others to develop the formula, opposed the child-sharing portion of the bill. Late in the session, the Family Law Section hired lobbyists close to Scott — including the governor’s former legislative affairs director, Jon Costello, and Slater Bayliss — to persuade the governor to veto the proposal.
The National Organization for Women and the League of Women Voters of Florida and some conservative groups also opposed the bill, which they argued would be especially harmful for older homemakers who have few prospects of lucrative employment after spending much of their lives caring for children and husbands.
Family Law Section Chairwoman Maria Gonzalez hailed Scott’s veto, saying the bill would have caused more litigation if it had become law.
Divorces or paternity cases in which couples are separating are “tough situations for the entire family” but are particularly painful for children, Gonzalez said.
“So when mom and dad come in front of the judge the best thing they can have is a clean slate and have a judge consider the uniqueness of the family, and also the needs of the particular family and come up and craft a good parenting plan, a good time-sharing schedule that works best for that family,” she said.
Calling Scott’s veto “crushing and devastating,” Frisher accused the governor of ignoring the will of “the highest court, the court of public opinion.”
“He did not listen to our citizens. He did not listen to our legislators. One man made this determination. I understand he’s a family man, but he’s also our governor. And that made me even more disappointed,” he said.
by Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida
Comments
15 Responses to “Scott Vetoes Alimony Overhaul”
REGARDING:
“@ david, get off your self righteous charade. You are full of it.”
So any disagreement on anybody else’s part is a “self righteous charade” and anything you say is absolute truth?
Fascinating.
“I believe once a man and woman split, the man should no longer have any obligation to the ex, financially or otherwise, outside of SHARED EQUAL custody.”
So if a couple split up because the husband beat the wife and children up to and including breaking limbs, you believe they should share equal custody?
If a couple split up because the wife beat the husband and children up to and including breaking limbs, you believe they should share equal custody?
“I shouldn’t be a financial slave to another adult.”
I agree. Since you consider marital obligations “slavery,” you should never have that burden.
David for knowing when you’re full
@ chris: exactly.
@ david, get off your self righteous charade. You are full of it. I believe once a man and woman split, the man should no longer have any obligation to the ex, financially or otherwise, outside of SHARED EQUAL custody. I shouldn’t be a financial slave to another adult.
@Ronda
Yeah, it’s in the best interest of the child to automatically go to the mother where she can hold the child over the guys head. So you tell me, why should a child bear the burden of only seeing a father Wednesday nights and every other weekend ? Mom gets a new boyfriend and he has more influence and time with the child than dad, how is that right ? Besides it’s all supposed to be equal now. Women in the workforce was a huge contributing factor for why this country has gone to crap but you all want the cake, plates, forks, hell even the damn baker. Not happy with just a piece.
REGARDING:
“David: Not nearly as harsh as it should have been, or nearly as harsh as I truly think is deserved”
You know a harsher treatment than an eternity in Hell?
A million million million years of fire and thirst and still as much pain ahead as the first day?
“rhonda and jackie are perfect examples of why alimony needs to disappear forever…I truly believe they are perfect examples of using kids against fathers, as well as leaching off of somebody.”
So you believe a man should be able to dump a loving, supportive, faithful wife at any time without penalty? Some may not qualify, but you lump all as undeserving of consideration. Pity women in your life; their futures hang from a rotten thread.
“I thought slavery was against the law in this country, but not if you are male….then you can be a slave to some divorcee based on the whims of some left leaning family court judge that all seem to punish the man.”
Actually, I have known of men receiving alimony, undeservedly so, it seemed to me, but I was not the judge.
Slavery is illegal, but contractual obligations don’t disappear on your whim.
Just because your word means nothing to you doesn’t mean it is meaningless to the law. Now THAT would be “left leaning”, the idea that truth and promises mean nothing.
David for honest men
David: Not nearly as harsh as it should have been, or nearly as harsh as I truly think is deserved.
rhonda and jackie are perfect examples of why alimony needs to disappear forever…I truly believe they are perfect examples of using kids against fathers, as well as leaching off of somebody.
I thought slavery was against the law in this country, but not if you are male….then you can be a slave to some divorcee based on the whims of some left leaning family court judge that all seem to punish the man.
I agree that the alimony issue needs to be addressed but I am very glad Govenor Scott looked out for children in this instance. Both parents are best for a child but when those parents live seperately it is ridiculous to expect the child to bear the burden of maintaining an ‘equal’ relationship with both parents. The parents are the adults, they are the ones unwilling or unable to live together. Therefore they should be the ones bearing this responsibility. Yes, it will be unfair at times, as a parent who neither wanted or sought a separation from their partner is forced to live away from their child, but isn’t the best for the child more important than fairness or justice? No one will convince me that living part-time in 2 separate households is best for anyone, much less an innocent child.
REGARDING:
“I hope anybody drawing alimony goes straight to hell.”
Harsh and unfair.
If you could actually picture Hell as it is described, you would not wish it on the worst woman or man who ever lived.
David for salvation through Christ alone
I agree with this Veto. It was a very poor attempt in Bill SB 668 to gut the laws pertaining to FL divorces. It wasn’t about “reform,” it was about deform! The supporters are a bunch of older, very wealthy men who want to gut and take over the system in order to control it. Because they hate it. They have been ordered for years now to pay a portion of money to their older wives for their lifetimes and they DON’T like it. As they tell it, while playing their regular poker games and smoking big cigars, they came up with the idea to get together with their political connections as very rich people always have to scratch their backs for a little green stuff. They wanted a complete redo to rework the family laws in Florida to cater to men only! And while at it, why not go for the children too? Hold them hostage to take the money from the women’s home. Newborn babies? No problem! Give them over to the divorcing dad for fifty percent of the time. Breast feeding? No problem! Freeze the breast milk and hand them over with the frozen stuff, ” daddy” can feed them! Mother/ baby bonding during breastfeeding? Not happening anymore! Anything to gain ground to pay less child support. Hijacking children to rig the system to steal the money! It was a one sided scam designed to steal money from women in order to steal her chances and ability to sustain her family going forward without the men. A way to reform, deform, punish and control women! SAD! Thank God the Governor saw through it again and did the right thing. Vetoed the Greedy bill for the sake of the women and children of this great state as it still stands today!
good boy you done well children without parents someone got to go
some ones got to go
If one spouse is working outside the home, or making considerably more than the other, and they split up. Then it is important for them to help the other spouse. My husband stayed home and raised the kids while also attending school. I worked. His time and contributions were valuable. If we had split up, I would have helped him until he was able to find a use for his degree. Fairs fair. But no, a lifetime Alimony isn’t. Give each time to find their footing and move on.
Divorce is a sin.
alimony leaches continue to leach. I hope anybody drawing alimony goes straight to hell.
Alimony should never be for a lifetime.
He just lost our vote
Theres a guy at my job who was married and had a child. His wife made $13.50/hr and worked for the duration of the marriage. Immediately subsequent to the dissolution of marriage (in the last 10 years) she has been employed a total of 6 months. She is on Medicaid and every other program under the sun while the poor guy pays her $ 1,000/per month. I actually just found out today. He also says, “Yep, 5 more years of this crap and I can quit”. (He’d be 50 when she turns 18) I asked what he’d do for work. (As it stands he breaks his back and cant afford to miss a day sick or hurt) He replied, “Live a lot simpler”.
To me, that is completely, utterly sad and hopeless. All for a vindictive freeloader. I know other guys who’s ex wives return items purchased for their children and do not spend the refund on the child.
All I can say is in today’s day and age and I had a choice, I’d rather be a woman. (I’d be RICH)