Taranto Law Blog

Under the New Alimony Reform Act, one of the provisions provides that an alimony receipient’s cohabitation with another person constitutes grounds for a termination, suspension or reduction in payments. This is a substantial change. Prior to the new act, individuals who received alimony purposefully avoided marriage ( remarriage by the receipient being a provision that would terminate alimony) so that they could continue receiving alimony. In order to avoid this game, the new law included a cohabitation provision.

A recent troubling article written by Judge Elaine M. Moriarty Associate Justice of the Suffolk Probate and Family Court appeared in the Boston Bar Journal citing the current crisis that judges, court staff, attorneys and litigants face today. I have directly quoted her. Over 250,000 people appear in the Probate and Family Court every year. On her motion day, she has upwards of sixty cases scheduled on a given day; a Department of Revenue child support enforcement day has more than one hundred cases assigned. She cites budget cuts over the past several years threaten the courts’ ability to meet the most fundamental obligation, as well as the most fundamental entitlement of citizens of the Commonwealth: timley justice. She has a packed court room, and often times her court officer is covering two other sessions, in addition to hers. And when an altercation takes place out in the hallway, he must respond and is not available to help in any session until the altercation is resolved. She reports that this is troubling to her because if there is a problem in her session, she is able to leave the bench into a secured corridor, but she worries about the safety of the staff, attorneys and litigants (who sometimes bring children) who remain in the courtroom. Of the sixty cases in front of her, more than 70% involve litigants who are self represented and who do not understand the system or what is expected of them. She reports that their pleadings often are not in order, and they frequently seek relief that has not been raised in the pleadings. Often proper notice under the rules has not been given. This requires that the case be continued and rescheduled, which upsets a litigant who anticipated a resolution today. Often times many cases involve one or more parties that do not speak English. They must wait for an interpreter. She reports that often she will hear cases for almost four hours without a break, and when she looks up, the courtroom seems nearly as full as it was when she began in the morning. She has barely made a dent in the number of cases or people who remain. She learns she has several cases that have walked in as emergencies. One involves a custody change and the police. The requesting party has little information about happened. This requires a referral to the Probation Department to try and obtain some immediate information. She further reports that is made more complicated by the fact that there are currently five probation officers to handle the busy case loads for all sessions, down from fifteen officers just a few years ago. It is now 4:00 P.M., many cases still remain. Many people have been waiting all day and haven’t been heard. She reports that she doesn’t want to send them home without a hearing after waiting. Some have taken a day off from work. Thankfully, two of her colleagues offer to help her, so they finish the list at 5:30 P.M. This assistance generally is not available, given the demands on each of the other judges. Sadly, she reports that as she finishes the session, she is drained. But her workday is not done. She must decide and write decisions and orders on the ten cases she took under advisement. This is in addition to deciding several trials under advisement, four of which she heard in the last two weeks alone, where a judgment and findings are due. She can not be as timely as she would like. Some of her cases present novel legal issues that require extensive research for which there is little or time in the ordinary course of the day. She cites that a few years ago the Probate and Family Court had twenty-four law clerks to assist judges in researching decisions. They now have 4 1/2 clerks to support 51 judges. She states that her work is demanding, challenging and rewarding and that she believes that she makes a difference in the lives of those who come before her. But the citizens of the Commonwealth deserve more timley justice. But sadly, this is not possible without the resources necessary to do the work.

I would like my readers to be aware, if not already, that the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines were revised for the first time since they were implemented back in 1987 on January 1, 2009. If you have a present order, you may be effected.

Some of the revisions include the following:

• They consider the combined income of both parents, elimination of the $20,000.00 custodial parent disregard, (under the old guidelines, this amount wasn’t included in the formula);

• The guidelines apply up to $250,000.00 of combined income for both parties, (up from $135,000.00 under the old guidelines);

• The manner in which to calculate child support in those instances where there is shared custody, (under the old guidelines they did not apply); and

• The ability to attribute income to any parent if the court finds that one party is capable of working and is either unemployed or under employed.

Under the new guidelines, an existing order may be modified if any of the following circumstances exist:
(1) the existing order is at least three years old; or
(2) health insurance previously available at a reasonable cost is no longer available (or if available but not at a reasonable cost); or
(3) health insurance not previously available to a party at a reasonable cost has become available; or
(4) any other material change in circumstances has occurred.

There has been a “new bill” awaiting assignment for hearings called the Alimony Reform Act of 2011”.  If passed it will provide direction for judges, family law practitioners, and litigants.  The end result will be consistency and predictability which is presently lacking.

There are a number of revisions that include time limits, along with new alimony definitions; rehabilitative, reimbursement, and transitional alimony. There would also be a formula for limiting alimony awards based on the duration of the parties’ marriage. Should a marriage last for less than 5 years, an alimony award would be no more than 50% of the length of the marriage, for 5-10 year marriages an award would be no more than 60%, 10-15 years 70%, 15-20 years 80%, and for marriages over 20 years, the alimony would remain indefinite.