Recently, I posted a blog opposing H.B. 5509, "An Act Concerning the Payment of Alimony and Child Support." At the time, I found some readers opposing my viewpoint. However, I now feel justified that I took my particular stand since even woman hating judge of the year, Judge Lynda B. Munro, agrees with me.
In her testimony opposing the bill which she read before members of the Judiciary Committee on March 19, 2012 she stated, "It would substitute arbitrary guidelines for judges' discretion to fashion alimony orders tailored to the individual cases before them."
That's just what I said!
In regard to time limits for alimony Judge Munro states, "The concept that alimony cannot be awarded for more than half the length of the marriage is [arbitrary]. There is no rational connection between the need for alimony and this formula." It would also, from her analysis, favor those with "capital assets" which I assume means rich people.
That gives you a feeling for the kind of people who proposed this legislation in the first place!
In regard to the provision in the bill that allows people to return to trial court for a modification of alimony were the bill passed, even if there is no substantial change in circumstances Judge Munro states, "This will result in a workload increase that cannot be handled under existing resources. It will create a huge burden on the family court system, including the judges, staff and family services personnel."
Well, duh!
As a point in favor of H.B. 5509, I was told how great it is that the State of Massachusetts has passed the equivalent of H.B. 5509. In response, Judge Munro states, "It appears that this bill is modeled on a law that recently passed in Massachusetts. I would respectfully note that the situation that prompted the legislative change in Massachusetts was very different than what exists in Connecticut. The Connecticut statute, with its detailed factors to guide judges' discretion, was adopted in 1973 and has worked well. There simply is no need for such a radical change."
Thank you, Judge Munro.
Next the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) weighs in with their opinion which is, "Raised Bill 5509 is fraught with hazards for family law in Connecticut too innumerable to exhaustively set forth herein. Its passage would severely undermine existing laws and decrease the quality of justice that parties could expect in our family courts."
In regard to changes in the cohabitation statute, the Academy acknowledges what I already stated, which is H.B. 5509 is an unwanted intrusion into the private lives of the recipients of alimony, stating, "The proposed statute would turn cohabitation into an overreaching exploration into the personal lives and new romantic relationships of an alimony recipient (which divorced spouses already need all too little encouragement to do) while the true consideration is a financial one. That is the focus under the existing statute and it should remain so."
This is just as I said!
Another aspect of H.B. 5509, the creation of trust accounts for children is just another grab at control, as the AAML acknowledges, "To require the recipient of child support to essentially have to ask for permission for use of these funds from the payor would undermine the purpose of child support itself."
So. Who is left supporting this bill or what idiot would do so? Our friend, Attorney Mengele Louis Kiefer, that's who! Why are we not surprised by that?
What does he say? He says, "One of the problems I see repeatedly is alimony payers left with less money, less disposable income, than alimony recipients."
Really? That wouldn't be because the alimony payer is only supporting himself while the alimony recipient is paying not only for herself, but also for the five children so that means it costs more to maintain all of them!
Ok. Duh, again.
All I can say is, I rest my case. H.B. 5509 was bad legislation, period. It didn't pass this year and it never will as long as common sense prevails.
No comments:
Post a Comment