On Monday, March 19, 2012, at 1:00pm at the LOB there is a hearing on a new bill entitled "An Act Concerning the Payment of Alimony and Child Support." Just looking at this act, I can understand why the section under "Introduced by:" is blank because I'm sure no legislator would wish to take responsibility for this outright attack on your legal right to alimony which this bill represents. For a copy of this bill look under the following link:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5509&which_year=2012&SUBMIT1.x=11&SUBMIT1.y=9&SUBMIT1=Normal
(For those of you who don't know, in a proposed bill the black print is for what is already in the Connecticut General Statute, the blue print is for wording that is proposed to be added to the Statute, and red print is for wording that is proposed to be removed. In this bill there is no red print.)
The changes in the Connecticut Statute that this bill proposes would affect the amount of alimony that you can receive in a serious way as of October 1, 2012.
First, it specifically establishes caps on the amount of alimony that a person can receive. For example, it limits alimony to a period of only one half the duration of your marriage. For those with a financial agreement signed before October 1, 2012 in which alimony exceeds that limit, this bill would then grant litigants the right to return to court and request a modification. The bill also limits alimony to thirty to thirty-five percent of the difference between the gross income of the parties established at the time the alimony order was issued.
Second, this bill would allow the court to revoke alimony based upon the fact that the recipient of the alimony has been living with another person for little more than three months. This is an open invitation for an abusive and controlling ex spouse to invade the privacy of a spouse who is the recipient of alimony.
Third, this bill would allow alimony to be terminated once the party responsible for the payment of periodic alimony attains retirement age, even if the party is capable of working beyond retirement age. This is ridiculous. If a party has a financial obligation as important as that of alimony, this obligation shouldn't simply end because a person is retiring. Are you allowed to stop paying your mortgage simply because you have retired? I don't think so. If you go to an doctor's office will you be excused from paying the fees simply because you have retired? I don't think so. Likewise, if you have a financial obligation such as alimony which provides an essential economic base for an ex spouse, even if you have retired, you should still be held accountable and required to pay it.
This bill is promoted on a website entitled "Connecticut Alimony Reform" which can be found at:
www.ctalimonyreform.com
which is maintained by a group of individuals who wish to remain anonyous because, I suppose, like the state legislators who don't wish to be named as sponsoring this bill, they like to do their dirty work in secret.
This group is promoting H.B. 5509 by stating it will make divorces easier to settle. Yeah, by railroading vulnerable litigants into agreements they would not accept otherwise. They also say it will reduce the stress and strife of divorce, get this, in the lives of our children. Right, because with laws like this you don't have to play as many games with the children, such as making false claims for custody, in order to eliminate alimony. I get it!
Oh, and there is more. The justifications for this abominable bill don't end here. These guys say the bill is pro-family and pro-marriage. Get real. What this bill actually does is provide an abusive ex spouse with an excuse to nose around and interfere in the life of a former spouse, and prevent him or her from rebuilding and moving forward. I mean God Forbid an abused ex spouse actually move on an establish a relationship with some other person! If I can't have him or her, this bill's underlying agenda states, nobody can.
Take the time to download this bill, review it and absorb what it is saying. Then contact your State Representative and tell him or her to vote this bill down in no uncertain terms.
Also, if you can take that one step further, come to the Legislative Office Building this Monday at 1:00pm and provide your personal testimony against this proposed bill. To do so, have one original and sixteen copies which you can give to the clerk. Ordinarily, you have around five minutes to speak and your testimony should be geared accordingly.
you are an idiot
ReplyDeleteobviously someone who wants to suck off the system.
get a job
support yourself
you are a miserable leach
When we wrote this Bill we were deeply concerned about as the author puts it "Yeah, by railroading vulnerable litigants into agreements they would not accept otherwise." Because felt that is what appears to be happening under the current law. Our members remain anonymous for the most part, because they fear retaliation, because this is the way they have been treated thus far. Our Bill is fashioned after one just recently passed in Mass. with the overwhelming support of the Mass Bar and Legislature. Seems like a good start to fix things in Connecticut. Join Us! ctalimonyreform.com
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the fact that you have left your name, Mr. Conway, which shows a high level of courtesy and respectfulness. The bottom line is that if a man chooses to have his children late in life, he must be held responsible for continuing to support those children until they have reached adulthood instead of leaving the financial responsibilities in the hands of his trophy wife--that is just one scenario. I can see questioning cohabitation after a year, but three months? This is simply intended as a means to intefere in the private life of a former spouse after the divorce. I would be interested in links to the Massachusetts decision. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteOh, and for the lovely fellow who commented above, my ex husband was the big leach in my situation. I think it is important to move beyond this kind of bitterness and hostility because I don't think it benefits anyone.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI heard recently that the group that sponsored this bill has been placed on a list of hate groups. I am not sure if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised given the tenor of the first comment. (Oh, and the deleted comment above was mine and I deleted it because it contained a typo, just so you know!)
ReplyDeleteSince you expressed interest in the Massachusetts law thought that you might want to see an article we posted written by the Boston Bar: http://ctalimonyreform.com/article/real-story-ma-alimony-reform-act.
ReplyDeleteWe are hoping that our bill will help end the hate. Simply because we believe that Litigation should be used to resolve disputes with finality. So that divorcing parties can go on to lead independent lives. An award of permanent alimony does the opposite and creates a lifetime of perpetual court action, the divorce never ends, so the healing never begins.
I reviewed that Massachusetts article and it added little to the discussion. It is typical of folk like you to think that it is all about the money, because that is pretty much where you are at, but it isn't all about the money. Furthermore, it is unusual for anyone to receive permanent alimony, but when it is assigned it is normally for very good reasons. When your attitude reflects is a presumption that what a woman contributes to a marriage is of no consequence. But it is. Women make the investment of their time and skills into a marriage. When the marriage fails, they do have the right to a return on that investment, in my view.
ReplyDeleteCathy, Are you sure that "David Conway" is a real name? I don't think so! These people don't have the guts to identify themselves.
ReplyDelete