TALLAHASSEE — After three vetoes of similar measures, a proposal to overhaul state child support laws — one of the most emotive issues Florida lawmakers have grappled with in the past decade — is back on track in this year’s legislative session.
Proponents of changing the law and the Florida Bar’s family law section, which has fought bitterly on the issue in the past, say they have reached an agreement on the latest version.
But left out of the mix are the “First Wives,” a group of mostly older women who have traveled to the state Capitol year after year to ask Republican leaders to take existing child support agreements off the chopping block.
As with previous versions of the bill, the main point of contention this year is a proposal that would eliminate so-called “permanent” alimony. The measure would establish a process for former spouses paying alimony to request changes to alimony agreements if they wish to retire.
Related: In Florida, the fight for child support can be brutal
Supporters of this year’s legislation (SB 1416 and HB 1409) say it would codify into law a court decision in a 1992 divorce case that would guide judges in retirement decisions.
The bills would allow judges to reduce or eliminate alimony, support or alimony payments after considering a number of factors, such as “the age and health” of the person making payments; the normal retirement age for that person’s occupation; “the economic impact” that a reduction in maintenance would have on the recipient of the payments; and the “motivation for retirement and likelihood of returning to work” for the person making the payments.
Philip Wartenberg, a family law judge in Hillsborough County and chairman of the Florida Bar’s family law section, said that unlike a similar bill vetoed by Gov. Ron DeSantis last year, the proposal would not require judges to to change maintenance payments when someone retires.
Related: DeSantis vetoes controversial child support reform bill
“It’s not a ‘shall,’ so it’s not an automatic right to a pension, which is what we opposed in last year’s bill, which we felt was really biased in favor of payers,” Wartenberg told The News Service of Florida in a statement telephone interview. “This is a ‘May.’ It’s very clear.”
But Robert Doyel, a retired former family court judge, disagreed.
“The amendment part of the bill says nothing about what it refers to, so it applies to any situation, any order previously entered. So it’s absolutely retroactive,” Doyel, a former law professor, told the News Service. “They’re deceiving you by saying it’s not retroactive.”
Proponents of change have spent a decade trying to overhaul laws that haven’t been updated in decades. Many of the advocates are wealthy professionals who claim lifelong support obligations have forced them to continue working long past the point at which they wanted to retire.
Get insight into Florida politics
Subscribe to our free Buzz newsletter
We’ll send you a roundup of local, state and national political coverage every Thursday.
You are all registered!
Want more of our free weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s begin.
Explore all your options
Michael Buhler, chairman of the Florida Family Fairness Committee, said in a statement that his group supports the deal negotiated with the Family Law Section.
“Florida Family Fairness is pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement with the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section to eliminate permanent alimony and create a statutory pension right for alimony payers. “Anything that brings clarity to this difficult process and ends permanent alimony payments is a win for Floridians,” Buhler said.
DeSantis’ veto last year marked the third time bills made it through the Republican-controlled Legislature only to be defeated. Former Gov. Rick Scott twice vetoed such legislation, with a stalemate over the issue in 2016 that led to a near-crime outside Scott’s office.
Related: Florida’s child support carousel is exhausting parents and costing children
In his 2022 veto message, DeSantis noted concerns about the bill (SB 1796) that allows ex-spouses to modify existing alimony agreements.
“If CS/CS/SB 1796 were to become law and be given retroactive effect, as the Legislature intends, it would unconstitutionally impair acquired rights under certain pre-existing marital agreements,” the governor wrote.
Jan Killilea, who founded the Facebook group First Wives Advocacy Group a decade ago, said she “unleashed an angry mob” when she began speaking out in 2013 against a proposal that sought to retroactively eliminate permanent alimony.
Killilea said she opposes the current bill in part because it does not contain enforcement provisions requiring ex-spouses to meet support obligations. Killilea said her ex-husband owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support, but the courts have not forced him to pay the money. She predicted that the bill would have serious consequences for older women whose only source of income is maintenance.
“It’s really sad that we are the ones affected by this bill, but we don’t have a voice,” she said.
The bill, set to be considered by the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee on Thursday, has caused panic among women in the First Wives group who have banded together on Facebook and Twitter.
“It’s a mess. “It’s an absolute mess,” said Camille Fiveash, a 62-year-old woman from Milton who was married for 30 years and whose permanent alimony payments are her main source of income.
Fiveash is among the women who claim permanent support is their only protection against poverty and homelessness. Most alimony recipients did not work outside the home while raising their children and supporting their former husbands while the men climbed the career ladder.
Many of the women said they agreed to give up assets such as family homes or retirement investments in exchange for permanent alimony that they believed would last a lifetime.
“I’m going to be penniless and dependent on the government, collecting food stamps and everything else,” Fiveash said.
In addition to eliminating permanent alimony, this year’s proposal also limits rehabilitation alimony to five years. Under the plan, people who have been married for less than three years would not be eligible for alimony payments, and those who have been married for 20 years or longer would be eligible for payments for up to 75% of the length of the marriage.
The identical House and Senate bills would also allow alimony payers to request modifications if “a supportive relationship exists or has existed” that included their ex-spouses in the past year. Critics like Doyel argue that the provision is vague and could apply to temporary roommates who help alimony recipients cover living expenses for short periods of time.
This year’s version of the bill does not contain a controversial provision that would have required judges to first make a “presumption” that children should divide their time equally between parents. Scott based his veto of a child support bill in 2016 largely on a similar child-sharing provision. The Family Law Division strongly opposed the inclusion of the child sharing provision in previous versions of the child support reform proposals.
Wartenberg said he found ex-spouses’ objections to the current proposal confusing.
“I can’t explain it other than fear of what has happened before and perhaps fear that this will do the same thing we thought previous bills were trying to do. We certainly don’t see it that way. In fact, we were the ones pushing for the inclusion of this language last year,” he said. “We are satisfied with the product as it is currently described.”
By Dara Kam, Florida News Service
• • •
Tampa Bay Times coverage of Florida legislation
Sign up for our newsletter: Get Capitol Buzz, a special bonus edition of The Buzz with Emily L. Mahoney, every Saturday while the Legislature is in session.
Follow the Florida Legislature live: The Florida Channel, a public affairs programming service funded by the Legislature, is livestreaming coverage at thefloridachannel.org. The video library also archives coverage for later viewing.
We’re working hard to bring you the latest news from the state’s legislative session. This effort requires a lot of resources to collect and update. If you do not already have a subscription, please consider purchasing a print or digital subscription.
Comments are closed.