GOVERNOR SCOTT VETOES A
CONTROVERSIAL BILL THAT WOULD
HAVE OVERHAULED THE STATE'S
ALIMONY LAWS IN THE VETO FOCUSED
ON TIME DELETE S -- CHILD
TIME-SHARING.
CURRENT LAW DIRECTS A JUDGE TO
CONSIDER THE NEEDS AND INTERESTS
OF CHILDREN FIRST WHEN
DETERMINING A PARENTING PLAN AND
TIME-SHARING SCHEDULE.
THIS BILL HAS A POTENTIAL TO
UP-END THAT POLICY IN TERMS OF
FAVORING THE WANTS ONF THE
PARENTS BEFORE THE CHILD'S BEST
INTEREST BY CREATING EQUAL TIME
SHARING WE WERE TALKING IN THE
BREAK ABOUT IT AND YOU KNOW TALK
ABOUT THIS VETO, HOW WOULD IT
HAVE AFFECTED FAMILY?
THIS BILL, BASICALLY
ADDRESSES TWO MAJOR ISSUES THE
FIRST COMPONENT OF IT ADDRESSES
ALIMONY AND JUST LIKE WE HAVE
WITH CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES IT
WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHES
GUIDELINES DEPRESSANTING YOU
WERE MARRIED IT PUTS IN THIS
NUMBER AND MAKES IT MO UNIFORM.
AND IT WOULD HAVE BASICALLY
STARTED OFF ON A LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD AND SAID AIN'T DELETE S
EACH PARENT MOTHER OR FATHER
BASICALLY THE JUDGE CAN MAKE
FURTHER DETERMINATIONS FROM
THERE AND WHAT GOVERNOR SCOTT
DECIDED CLEARLY IS THAT HE DID
NOT AGREE WITH SPECIFICALLY THE
TIME SHARING ASPECT OF THIS
BILL, HE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE
ALIMONY PORTION, BUT HE
CERTAINLY SAID THAT HE DID NOT
WANT THAT TO BE JUST KIND OF A
UNIFORM BEGINNING FIELD AND
WANTED THE JUDGE TO ADDRESS
THAT.
TALK ARGUES AGAIN, EVERY
FAMILY, A JUDGE RIGHT NOW
CURRENTLY DOES ASSESS THE WANTS
AND NEEDS OF THE CHILD, MAYBE
CAREER, EVERYBODY HAS A CAREER
SCHEDULE SOMETIMES IT CAN'T BE
EQUAL TIME BECAUSE MAYBE THE MOM
WORKS CRAZY HOURS AS A NURSE AND
THE DAD IS A POLICE OFFICER AND
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SCHEDULES,
SO TALK ABOUT THAT, TOO.
ABSOLUTELY, SO DEFINITELY
WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING FAMILY
LAW YOU ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT YOU HAVE THE INTEREST OF
THE CHILD FIRST AT HAND.
THERE WILL BE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE
THE FATHER CANNOT SPEND AS MUCH
TIME WAS THE CHILD AND THOSE ARE
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COURT
WHEN THEY DECIDE TIME-SHARING
AND THE WHOLE PARENTING PLAN, SO
TO START OFF WITH THIS EQUAL
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, IT IS
SOMEWHAT UNREALISTIC UNLESS
YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, BE
SPECIFIC AS TO EACH FAMILY.
I SUSPECT WHEN THE THEY
START AGAIN EVEN THOUGH FLORIDA
BARS FAMILY LAW SECTION THEY
SUPPORTED THE ALIMONY BUT NOT
THE TIME SHARING I SUSPECT THAT
SOON WE WILL SEE THE ALIMONY
REFORM.
CURRENTLY ALIMONY HOW IT IS,
WHAT COMPLAINTS HAVE THERE BEEN?
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT TO CHANGE?
WELL, A JUDGE BASICALLY HAS
CONSIDERATIONS THEY CAN TAKE
INTO EFFECT REALLY HOW MUCH OF
THE SPOUSES ARE MAKING, HOW LONG
WAS THE MARRIAGE?
WAS THERE ONE OF THE SPOUSES
THAT SPENT A LONGER PERIOD OF
TIME AS A HOMEMAKER AND SO THOSE
ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE
JUDGE WILL NOW STILL CONSIDER
AND THEY WILL CONSIDER THAT, YOU
KNOW IN THE FUTURE, BUT THIS
BILL REALLY JUST MAKES IT MORE
OF A UNIFORM PRACTICE AND I
THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY
SOMETHING THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE
LOOKING FORWARD TO.
AND FAMILIES, YOU KNOW, MOM
AND DADS ARE AT HOME, HOW CAN
THEY MAKE THEIR CHOICES HEARD?
WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE CALL THE
NEWSROOM AND WE CAN'T REALLY
TAKE ON THE CHILD SUPPORT ISSUES
AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS A NEWS
STATION, BUT HOW CAN THEY GET
THEIR VOICES NEARED.
ABSOLUTELY, EVEN IN THIS
LATEST ISSUE WHERE THE GOVERNOR
DECIDED TO VETO, THERE WERE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
THAT RESPONDED AND MANY OF THEM
RESPONDED ACTUALLY TO THE
CAPITAL.
CERTAINLY SPEAKING TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND EXPRESSING OUR
OPINION TO THE LEGISLATURES
SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD
MIKE TO SEE IN THE BILL IS HOW
THESE LAWS ARE GOING TO BE MADE.
I APPRECIATE INSIGHT, AND
JOINING US TO READ MORE ON THE