The Connecticut Law Tribune reports as follows:
Is alimony a punishment for a divorcing spouse withdrawing the income stream from a marriage?
Is alimony a punishment for a divorcing spouse withdrawing the income stream from a marriage?
Is it a mechanism to allow the recipient to live in "the style to which she (or he) has become accustomed"?
Or is it a short-term jump start of funding to help the recipient train for employment and self-sufficiency?
According to top matrimonial lawyers, decades of Connecticut case law gives no clear guidance, and recently, the picture grew more cloudy.
A December decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court, Dan v. Dan, held that a sharp increase in income of one ex-spouse, by itself, is not grounds for modifying alimony payments to the other divorced party. That decision has, the experts say, made it more important than ever for lawyers and trial courts to spell out the purpose of alimony payments in the settlement or trial decision, or risk a difficult modification battle later..."
Can you get your hands on the Amicus brief filed by the CT AAML (recognizing that that insular group alone is as about as incestuous a self-interested association of promoting themselves financially as the CT Family Court system itself, feeding on each other)?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that up and down the Appellate line (meaning Landmark Family cases - no small accomplishment insofar as PARTICULARLY FAMILY COURT Supreme Court Certiorari) the ongoing struggle here DEMANDS a CT Legislative Review of the Statutes regarding Family Law - they haven't altered a lick legislatively insofar as The Statutes are concerned for forever.
Which means, of course, it's a goddam free-for-all insofar as Common Law rulings go. There is a DECIDED difference between the two - and those 'in the know' in the Legal Field would admit (not to their clients, mind you) that there continues to exist a power struggle between the CT State Legislature and the Judiciary as to which branch, in all actuality, is MAKING the LAW, as opposed to 'interpreting it'. This struggle has been going on in for well over a decade in Family Law (probably why Norm Pattis was, as far back as 2005ish was quoted in the Ct Law Journal as saying the CT Family Courts were in essence "a lawless Court" - look it up).
It would be interesting to read the Amicus brief here in this Blog. It USED TO BE until Day v. Day that the recognized Standard of Deviation, following a TRIAL DIVORCE (decided with a full and appealable Memorandum of Decision particulars on, allegedly, the merits of said Trial) as opposed to an AGREEMENT between the parties blessed by the Court (the usual...and a Contract to boot, thus exposed to Contract Law...your readers should be educated on the extreme difference) was 15% at a minimum either way. Meaning the Finances as apportioned out by COURT DECREE (not mutual agreement Contract) needed to, based on the COURT'S ORDERS following trial, needed to deviate by example and expectancy by at least 15% in order to seek a Modification (notwithstanding any Appeal of the Original Orders in progress). This provides, needless to say, both a legal recourse on "inequitable orders" as well as, presumably, a guard against a horrific imbalance of going-forward life circumstances financial security for the once, supposed, EQUAL IN MARRIAGE parties/partners (particularly long ones) have given of themselves, and should be accorded, according to the present Statutes, going forward. Sister states to CT recognize (where CT woefully does not) for instance, the black-letter law that whatever inheritances ar whatever a party BRINGS to a marriage, is, by definition "off the table' for Equitable Division, as do most sister states (where CT does not) recognize that where a spouse, usually the wife, in a high earning family (read often times a financial industry engaged one of which CT is unusually and enormously populated with) for goes or 'sacrifices' her career to hands-on raise a family, that is compensated for.
Ct Family Courts are boiling down to the following Corruption: "We favor the monied spouse, we don't give a lick about the kids, and, more than anything: We favor our fellow attorneys (we practiced with them once upon a time don't forget) and to the extent We can aid and exploit ALL Family's finances in destructive Conflict and by rendering outrageous Court Decisions...WE WILL!!
DCF Commissioner Joette Katz is on the Connecticut Law Tribune editorial board. Now we know why the Law Tribune will not publish the Foy habeas article.
ReplyDeleteThe CT Statutes governing Family Law need a complete overhaul. The people should be doing this, not the Family Court or Bar. There is a bill for the Establishment of a Parental Rights Advisory Commission to look into issues and propose changes to the current law. It doesn't make sense to rely on the Judicial Branch or our elected representatives to do it. They haven't so far. And it makes sense to go about this in an organized way. Citizens need a commissioned forum in which to be heard on these issues. It's something to consider.
ReplyDeleteConnecticut needs a system of citizen referenda like other states. Popular democracy is what is needed.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be an independent ombudsmen office overseeing DCF.
ReplyDeleteIf you take the conventional deduction or itemize?
ReplyDelete