2 AND A HALF MILLION CIGARETTE BUTTS ARE COLLECTED ON BEACHES WORLDWIDE. EACH YEAR.
>>JENNIFER WAUGH: 36 MINUTES
AFTER 7 O’CLOCK CHANGES COULD
SOON TAKE EFFECT TO HOW MUCH
AND FOR HOW LONG SOMEONE PAYS
ALIMONY HERE IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA. THE STATE LEGISLATURE
HAS PASSED A BILL DESCRIBED AS
CONTENTIOUS THAT NOT NOT ONLY
IMPACTS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY A
SPOUSE RECEIVES FROM HIS OR
HER ACTS, BUT ALSO CALLS FOR A
REQUIREMENT FROM JUDGES ABOUT
HOW CHILDREN IN DIVORCE TONES
SPLIT THEIR TIME. THE GOVERNOR
HAS 14 DAYS TO SIGN IT, VETO
IT OR SEND IT BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE. IF HE DOES
NOTHING, IT COULD TAKE EFFECT
AS SOON AS JULY. 1ST,
JONATHAN’S SISTER IS A LOCAL
FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY AND JOINS
US LIVE VIA ZOOM. GOOD
MORNING. THANKS FOR BEING WITH
US. THE WARNING AREA. SO THERE
IS A LOT IN THIS BILL. AS YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE 3 CHANGES THAT
COULD ARGUABLY IMPACT COUPLES
THE MOST OF A DIVORCE WHICH IS
WIDE LIKE TO START WITH THOSE.
SO FIRST PERMANENT ALIMONY
WOULD ESSENTIALLY GO AWAY IF
THIS BILL IS ADOPTED, WOULD
YOU EXPLAIN HOW IT’S AWARDED
NOW IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
THIS CHANGE?
>> SURE. SO IT’S A REALLY
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE BECAUSE IN
LONG-TERM MARRIAGES, MEETING
MARRIAGES OF AT LEAST 17 JUDGE
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WARD
PERMANENT ALIMONY TO A LARGELY
IN SITUATIONS WHERE YOU KNOW,
SPOUSES ME, YOU KNOW, 25 YEARS
AGO THERE IN THE SAME PLACE
ECONOMICALLY FAST FORWARD. 25
YEARS IN THE FUTURE, ONE
SPOUSE HAS BEEN VERY
SUCCESSFUL WHILE THE OTHER
SPOUSE A STAY AT HOME, RAISE
THE FAMILY, TAKING CARE OF THE
CHILDREN, PUT THEM INTO
COLLEGE AND HAS NEVER, YOU
KNOW, FOR OWN CAREER. AND
THAT’S UNDER FLORIDA LAW THAT
IS IN PERMANENT ALIMONY CASE
AND WITH THIS CHANGE PERMIT
ALIMONY WOULD GO AWAY. SO
THAT’S VERY SUBSTANTIAL FOR
FOR FAMILIES.
>>JENNIFER WAUGH: AND
CURRENTLY THEY LOOK AT ABOUT
17 YEAR YEARS OF MARRIAGE OR
LONGER IS PERMANENT. SO IF
THIS BECOMES LAW, WOULD THIS
BE RETROACTIVE?
>> UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY THIS
BILL IS IT WOULD BE
RETROACTIVE. THAT IS A HUGE
AND THAT IS WHY THE THE ON THE
FLORIDA BAR SECTION THE FAMILY
LAW SECTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR
IN ERIC AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS AGAINST
THIS BILL AND HAS URGED THE
GOVERNOR TO VETO IT. THERE’S
ALREADY A HUGE BACKLOG FAMILY
LAW CASES IN THE COURT SYSTEM
AND THE RETRO ACTIVITY OF THIS
LAW. WHAT CAUSED AN INCREDIBLE
AMOUNT OF STRAIN IN THE COURT
SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WERE IT
WOULD ALLOW ALIMONY PAYERS TO
GO BACK AND IMMEDIATELY MODIFY
AND ALIMONY AWARDS THAT HAVE
ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THAT HAVE
ALREADY BEEN NEGOTIATED IN
ADDITION, IT PUTS IT. IT’S
IT’S REALLY UNFAIR. 2 PARTIES
WHO NEGOTIATED IN THEIR OWN
DIVORCE, PERMANENT ALIMONY.
MAYBE A SPOUSE GAVE UP
SOMETHING IN ORDER TO GET
PERMANENT ALIMONY. AND NOW.
THAT AWARD COULD GO AWAY
RETROACTIVELY. IT MAY EVEN BE
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
AND WHILE ALIMONY REFORM IS
INEVITABLE, IT SHOULD AT LEAST
BE PROSPECTIVE, STOOD APART SO
THAT FAMILIES HAVE THE ABILITY
TO PLAN, YOU KNOW, DIVORCES
ARE HARD ENOUGH. GIVE FAMILIES
OPPORTUNITY TO PLAN FOR IT,
NOT MAKE IT THAT’S A THAT’S A
HUGE PROBLEM. AND THAT’S
>>JENNIFER WAUGH: THE GOVERNOR
SHOULD VETO THIS BILL. AND SO
NOW THERE’S ANOTHER
REQUIREMENT. ALSO, THIS WOULD
BE NEW THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY
REQUIRE JUDGES TO BEGIN WITH
PRESUMPTION THAT CHILDREN
SHOULD SPLIT THEIR TIME
EQUALLY BETWEEN PARENTS. YOUR
REACTION TO THAT AND AND WHAT?
HOW WOULD THIS CHANGE, HOW
IT’S DONE NOW?
>> RIGHT. SO ANOTHER POTENTIAL
HUGE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT’S
NUMBER ONE. IT’S NOT PARENTS
ALREADY HAVE EQUAL EQUAL
FOOTING IN THE STANDARD RIGHT
NOW IS THAT WHEN WHEN PARENTS
COME INTO PORT, THERE IS NO
PRESUMPTION FOR OR AGAINST
EITHER PARENT THE THE TIME
SHARING STATUTE HAS 20 FACTORS
FOR A COURT TO CONSIDER. IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT’S IN
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
AND EVERY SINGLE FAMILY IS
DIFFERENT. EVERY FAMILY
DYNAMIC IS DIFFERENT. PARENTS
HAVE DIFFERENT JOBS. THEY LIVE
IN DIFFERENT PLACES. A A A
STATUTE GIVES A PRESUMPTION
FOR 50, 50. IT’S ESSENTIALLY A
ONE SIZE FITS ALL. AND THAT’S
JUST NOT REALITY AT THIS
POINT. IT PUTS UNFAIR BURDEN
ON A ON A PARENT TO HAVE TO
PROVE THAT 50 50 IS NOT IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD AS
OPPOSED TO BOTH PARENTS COMING
INTO PORT AND PRESENTING
EVIDENCE 4 AGAINST THEIR IT’S
IT’S SOMETHING THAT IS IT’S
NOT NECESSARY. IT’S IT’S GOING
TO BE HARMFUL. IT’S GOING TO
CREATE ACTUALLY MORE
LITIGATION. ANOTHER REASON WHY
WE HOPE THAT THE GOVERNOR
VETOES THIS BILL AND I KNOW
THAT THAT PART OF YOUR CONCERN
TO THIS ALSO IS, IS THAT IN
CASES IN WHICH, YOU A FAMILY
MEMBER IS ACCUSING, YOU KNOW,
THAT EXPELS OF ABUSE OR
ANYTHING ELSE TO HAVE TO THEN
HAVE THE PRESUMPTION THAT THAT
FAMILY MEMBER HAS TO ARGUE WHY
THE CHILD SHOULD NOT SPEND 50,
50 TIME WITH THE WITH THE THE
SPOUSE WHO’S ACCUSED OF ABUSES
IS REALLY AN ISSUE HERE.
JONATHAN, THERE IS SO MUCH TO
TALK ABOUT WITH THIS. I HOPE
YOU WILL COME BACK IN ABOUT 13
DAYS, WHICH IS WHEN THE
GOVERNOR HAS THE IT WHETHER OR
NOT HE DOES MAKES A DECISION
ON THIS AND AND THAT 17TH.