Outdated alimony laws need overhaul

**khankrumthebulgar** · 27th-June-2011

By Jennifer C. Braceras | Monday, June 20, 2011 | Home - BostonHerald.com | Op-Ed
In the 1996 comedy “First Wives Club,” actresses Bette Midler, Goldie Hawn and Diane Keaton play three divorced women who plot financial revenge on husbands who left them for younger women.

The movie may be funny, but Lynn native Deborah Scanlon isn’t laughing.

After Scanlon’s first marriage ended in divorce, the mother of three spent a decade financially rebuilding her life. So when she married divorcee Dan Gringas in 2005, Scanlon insisted on a pre-nup.

“I had been burnt once,” Scanlon told me. And she counted on the pre-nup to protect her the second time around. What Scanlon didn’t realize was that the pre-nup was meaningless when it came to the total household income the probate court would consider when modifying Gringas’s alimony obligation to his ex-wife.

At the time Gringas and Scanlon married, Gringas was paying his ex-wife $39,000 a year in alimony (or spousal support, as distinct from child support). When Gringas was laid off from his job as a computer programmer, Gringas’s ex-wife agreed to modify the alimony order in light of changed circumstances. But the court held that the adjusted amount of alimony must be based on Gringas’s total household income — including Scanlon’s salary as a full-time executive assistant.

Scanlon (who received child support, but not alimony, from her first husband) was furious. But she channeled her anger into action, joining other similarly-situated women to form the Second Wives Club, a support group and grassroots organization that seeks to educate the public about the need for alimony reform.

Scanlon notes that current law, originally enacted to protect less-skilled women from being left destitute by husbands who walk out, reflects antiquated notions of a woman’s ability to earn a living in the 21st century.

Today, welfare laws reflect current expectations of self-sufficiency, allowing able-bodied persons to receive public support only temporarily. Yet, under Massachusetts divorce law, first spouses can collect alimony for life (even after the payer has retired) regardless of the duration of the marriage.

Thus, a man who earns more than his former spouse of less than five years may be forced to pay lifetime alimony, even if the ex is an educated 30-something fully capable of supporting herself.

Second wives and ex-husbands are not the only ones frustrated with the system.

My friend Theresa (not her real name) earned more than her husband during the last several years of their marriage. Theresa has sole custody of, and sole financial responsibility for their three children. Yet Theresa is required to pay her ex-husband — an able-bodied male with no child-care responsibilities — several hundred dollars a week! And she is required to do so indefinitely, despite the fact that the loss of this income ultimately hurts the children for whom she is responsible.

Responding to stories like these, lawmakers on Beacon Hill have filed legislation to modernize Massachusetts alimony law.

If passed, the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act of 2011 will allow judges to base alimony awards on the recipient’s actual need for spousal support. It will end alimony payments for long-term marriages at the age of retirement — sooner for short-term marriages. And it will require that alimony payments terminate upon the recipient’s remarriage or cohabitation.

Most importantly for second wives like Scanlon, under the proposed Reform Act, the income of a payer’s current spouse will no longer be considered in any alimony modification action.

Last week, the Massachusetts House Judiciary Committee gave unanimous support to the alimony reform bill. Let’s hope that the full House and the state Senate act quickly to pass this important legislation.

Jennifer C. Braceras is an attorney and political commentator.

Article URL: Outdated alimony laws need overhaul - BostonHerald.com

**Nynrah Ghost** · 27th-June-2011

You know... while I don't disagree with the need for overhauling this wicked alimony system, I do get quite pissed at the fact it such issues have never been considerd worthy of attention unless some women get screwed up. Men have been screwed over by the same laws for much longer and still in overwhelmingly large numbers, yet, when it's just men who suffer, it is 'fine' and 'equal'. This is a implicite way to tell me right in a man's face that his well-being is off absolutely no importance and that he's only good for his money.

Sometimes you'd (or at least I) get the feeling women need to be victimized in more areas of life where the law is against men in order to force change quickly.

**sjaime** · 28th-June-2011

Quote from Nynrah Ghost

Sometimes you'd (or at least I) get the feeling women need to be victimized in more areas of life where the law is against men in order to force change quickly.

Um, women are already victimized on the rape hysteria, and there hasn't been any improvement in rape laws for men, specially prison rape.

**Nynrah Ghost** · 28th-June-2011

Quote from sjaime

Um, women are already victimized on the rape hysteria, and there hasn't been any improvement in rape laws for men, specially prison rape.

Yes and no.

Yes, because real victims their credibility is diminishing. Such women often also hate false rape accusations.

No, because it aren't women being put in prison for false accusations or prosecuted in the same way as men.

What we see here is some women being screwed over because of alimony and suddenly they realize how unfair and draconian alimony (especially lifelong alimony) is.

There was also once in Canada a woman who was thrown out of her house and taken to the cleaners because she made a joke about killing her husband. Basically she got screwed over by the DV laws that screw over men for a longer time and in overwhelmingly larger numbers. Suddenly there was debate about DV laws being wrong, now a single woman got screwed over. I'll look for the link later (it should be somewhere on AM).

**sjaime** · 28th-June-2011

Quote from Nynrah Ghost

Yes and no.

Yes, because real victims their credibility is diminishing. Such women often also hate false rape accusations.

No, because it aren't women being put in prison for false accusations or prosecuted in the same way as men.

What we see here is some women being screwed over because of alimony and suddenly they realize how unfair and draconian alimony (especially lifelong alimony) is.

There was also once in Canada a woman who was thrown out of her house and taken to the cleaners because she made a joke about killing her husband. Basically she got screwed over by the DV laws that screw over men for a longer time and in overwhelmingly larger numbers. Suddenly there was debate about DV laws being wrong, now a single woman got screwed over. I'll look for the link later (it should be somewhere on AM).

At least those laws can be used for either side.
Women don't know how it is like to be on this side of those laws, and once they discover it, they campaign against them, so they could be great allies.

**Nynrah Ghost** · 28th-June-2011

Quote from sjaime

At least those laws can be used for either side.
Women don't know how it is like to be on this side of those laws, and once they discover it, they campaign against them, so they could be great allies.

From a political perspective that is true.

Although there must be guarded for these issues not to be usurped as women's issues. If that happens, the misandry and the role feminism had, will be ignored and thus the hate movement will not be blotched out. It must be ensured that feminism goes down in history as a hate movement that has caused a great amount of misery, so that it may never arise again.