The chilling effect of state's (MA) divorce laws

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed..._divorce_laws/

The chilling effect of state's divorce laws

By Elizabeth Benedict
June 13, 2008

FORGET KAFKA. Welcome to Massachusetts. In the 1980s, it was known as
Taxachusetts. These days, it's known as the state whose divorce laws are so
out of date that many people decide against marrying here - or marrying
anyone anywhere whose alimony obligations originate here. I'm one of them.
Two divorce lawyers tell me that the state's laws are so extreme they have
"a chilling effect on marriage." Prenups offer no guarantees. Judges
routinely ignore them.

Cathy Ortiz, a secretary in Fairhaven whose husband is out of work, was
ordered in 2007 to make alimony payments from her own paycheck to his
ex-wife - who has a full-time job with benefits. The husband, Ernest Ortiz,
is suing the state, arguing that these laws are unconstitutional. Oral
arguments were heard yesterday in Appeals Court.

Alimony law is largely case law, not statute. Many legislators are shocked
to hear the feudal details, unique to Massachusetts. But not shocked enough
to reform the law.

The laws are gender neutral, but the facts are not: 96 percent of alimony
payers are men, who often must give 30 to 40 percent of gross earnings to
educated and sometimes employed women. Alimony does not automatically end or
decline at retirement, even after an ex-wife has gotten an equitable share
of marital assets. This applies in no-fault divorces, to the middle-class,
and to millionaires.

Alimony is usually ordered until the recipient dies or remarries, even for
couples in their 30s and 40s. Judges who set time limits may be overruled on
appeal. When children are involved, the court usually awards only child
support, about 30 percent of a father's income, which ends when children
turn 23. Then mothers frequently receive alimony at the same or higher
levels, for life.

Many highly skilled workers who took time off to raise children - nurses,
paralegals, financial analysts - are often not expected to work again, even
if they divorce at 40. Some judges push them to work again; many don't.

Instead of remarrying, which would end their alimony, many women live with
boyfriends and become the lifelong charges of their ex-husbands - and, only
in Massachusetts, of their ex-husbands' new wives, whose resources are
routinely and circuitously considered in determining alimony awards.

The case law is so murky, lawyers disagree on how it works. Some deny it
happens. One says it's common, another "an anomaly." Bottom line: Women who
marry men with alimony obligations may have even paltry earnings and assets
considered when a husband loses a job or retires and tries to lower or end
his payments. In 2003 a second wife put her disabled 8-week-old child into
daycare to get a menial job to support her family and her husband's
ex-wife - a nurse - when his business failed following 9/11. The court
refused them any relief.

In 2007, a group of modestly paid second wives whose incomes were directly
used to calculate payments were so incensed that they formed The 2nd Wives
Club, a partner to Mass Alimony Reform. The groups support HR 1567, modeled
on California's law, which was introduced earlier this year to update and
codify the state's alimony rulings. A day of heartbreaking hearings turned
up no opposition, but the bill was sent for further "study," a polite form
of death.

The Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations have created a task force to
study problems stemming from lifetime alimony, but it will be months before
their recommendations, if any, will be made public. They may eventually
support new guidelines for judges, not new legislation, which would clarify
and simplify. They prefer ambiguity and case law, which produce more
billable hours.

Beyond the injustice of divorce court without end, these laws create two
classes of women: those considered too fragile to work and those whose labor
is necessary to help support them. In the home of the country's preeminent
women's colleges, and home to the most celebrated women in American history,
these laws need to change.

-----------------------------------------------------

I've had to deal with the MA court system several times. And not just
"family" court, either. They all suck. The MA courts are so far behind the
times it's laughable.

Here's an example: If you have a traffic ticket and the cop doesn't show,
they have someone to take the cops place (another cop) to testify against
you - even though this 3-party cop wasn't there, doesn't know you or your
circumstances, and knows nothing about the case. But he's there to claim
that you were wrong and should be made to pay. The judge will always side
with the cop no matter what.

Yupper, Massachusetts "justice" for ya.

As for my issue with the MA "family" court.. I applied for a modification
for C$ in September 2007. The court said that they'd listen to my case
sometime between 25 OCT 2007 and whenever 8 months from that date was
(incidentally, that would be 25 JUN 2008). They placed it on what they call
an "eight month track". Hell, they could have made it a 14-month track!

Oh, btw, what, exactly is today's date??

As of right now, I've not heard so much as a peep from MA about my case.
And I'm rather unclear as to where I'd need to take things should they
choose not to say squat by Tuesday. This will be a first for me. The first
time a court has out right ignored the plaintiff - without so much as
allowing me to state my case.

I'm wondering if this could go right to the Federal level, instead of
dicking around with the clowns in MA and having the next court of theirs
drag their feet on this too and drag it out even longer... Wow, wouldn't
that be fun!

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed..._divorce_laws/

The chilling effect of state's divorce laws

By Elizabeth Benedict
June 13, 2008

FORGET KAFKA. Welcome to Massachusetts. In the 1980s, it was known as
Taxachusetts. These days, it's known as the state whose divorce laws are
so
out of date that many people decide against marrying here - or marrying
anyone anywhere whose alimony obligations originate here. I'm one of them.
Two divorce lawyers tell me that the state's laws are so extreme they have
"a chilling effect on marriage." Prenups offer no guarantees. Judges
routinely ignore them.

Cathy Ortiz, a secretary in Fairhaven whose husband is out of work, was
ordered in 2007 to make alimony payments from her own paycheck to his
ex-wife - who has a full-time job with benefits. The husband, Ernest
Ortiz,
is suing the state, arguing that these laws are unconstitutional. Oral
arguments were heard yesterday in Appeals Court.

Alimony law is largely case law, not statute. Many legislators are shocked
to hear the feudal details, unique to Massachusetts. But not shocked
enough
to reform the law.

The laws are gender neutral, but the facts are not: 96 percent of alimony
payers are men, who often must give 30 to 40 percent of gross earnings to
educated and sometimes employed women. Alimony does not automatically end
or
decline at retirement, even after an ex-wife has gotten an equitable share
of marital assets. This applies in no-fault divorces, to the middle-class,
and to millionaires.

Alimony is usually ordered until the recipient dies or remarries, even for
couples in their 30s and 40s. Judges who set time limits may be overruled
on
appeal. When children are involved, the court usually awards only child
support, about 30 percent of a father's income, which ends when children
turn 23. Then mothers frequently receive alimony at the same or higher
levels, for life.

Many highly skilled workers who took time off to raise children - nurses,
paralegals, financial analysts - are often not expected to work again,
even
if they divorce at 40. Some judges push them to work again; many don't.

Instead of remarrying, which would end their alimony, many women live with
boyfriends and become the lifelong charges of their ex-husbands - and,
only
in Massachusetts, of their ex-husbands' new wives, whose resources are
routinely and circuitously considered in determining alimony awards.

The case law is so murky, lawyers disagree on how it works. Some deny it
happens. One says it's common, another "an anomaly." Bottom line: Women
who
marry men with alimony obligations may have even paltry earnings and
assets
considered when a husband loses a job or retires and tries to lower or end
his payments. In 2003 a second wife put her disabled 8-week-old child into
daycare to get a menial job to support her family and her husband's
ex-wife - a nurse - when his business failed following 9/11. The court
refused them any relief.

In 2007, a group of modestly paid second wives whose incomes were directly
used to calculate payments were so incensed that they formed The 2nd Wives
Club, a partner to Mass Alimony Reform. The groups support HR 1567,
modeled
on California's law, which was introduced earlier this year to update and
codify the state's alimony rulings. A day of heartbreaking hearings turned
up no opposition, but the bill was sent for further "study," a polite form
of death.

The Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations have created a task force to
study problems stemming from lifetime alimony, but it will be months
before
their recommendations, if any, will be made public. They may eventually
support new guidelines for judges, not new legislation, which would
clarify
and simplify. They prefer ambiguity and case law, which produce more
billable hours.

Beyond the injustice of divorce court without end, these laws create two
classes of women: those considered too fragile to work and those whose
labor
is necessary to help support them. In the home of the country's preeminent
women's colleges, and home to the most celebrated women in American
history,
these laws need to change.

-----------------------------------------------------

I've had to deal with the MA court system several times. And not just
"family" court, either. They all suck. The MA courts are so far behind
the
times it's laughable.

Here's an example: If you have a traffic ticket and the cop doesn't show,
they have someone to take the cops place (another cop) to testify against
you - even though this 3-party cop wasn't there, doesn't know you or your
circumstances, and knows nothing about the case. But he's there to claim
that you were wrong and should be made to pay. The judge will always side
with the cop no matter what.

Yupper, Massachusetts "justice" for ya.

As for my issue with the MA "family" court.. I applied for a modification
for C$ in September 2007. The court said that they'd listen to my case
sometime between 25 OCT 2007 and whenever 8 months from that date was
(incidentally, that would be 25 JUN 2008). They placed it on what they
call
an "eight month track". Hell, they could have made it a 14-month track!

Oh, btw, what, exactly is today's date??

As of right now, I've not heard so much as a peep from MA about my case.
And I'm rather unclear as to where I'd need to take things should they
choose not to say squat by Tuesday. This will be a first for me. The
first
time a court has out right ignored the plaintiff - without so much as
allowing me to state my case.

I'm wondering if this could go right to the Federal level, instead of
dicking around with the clowns in MA and having the next court of theirs
drag their feet on this too and drag it out even longer... Wow, wouldn't
that be fun!
===
And just why wouldn't a bunch of teens get pregnant on purpose in MA? Guess
the MA legislature never considered that unintended consequence of their
outrageous CS guidelines awards.

"Dusty" wrote in

The Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations have created a task force to
study problems stemming from lifetime alimony, but it will be months
before
their recommendations, if any, will be made public.

So essentially the government tells the people what to do instead of the
government doing what the people want them to do. What ever happened to a
Government by the people, for the people?

Seems that only self serving lawyers dictate policy that serves only they're
best interest!