How I Define Success

Two weeks ago I went on a cruise and as part of that cruise decided to go on an excursion zip-lining in Belize. Now at the time we signed up for this adventure, after the cocktail party, it seemed like a great idea. But as I said to my Husband in the cold light of sobriety the next morning, “What were we thinking?” I tried to reason with him that I should just stay on the ship and he and the girls should go. He would have none of it. I tried to suggest that I didn’t feel well (and I didn’t thinking of what I was about to endure) but again to no avail. He reminded me we’d spent $150 a pop to go but despite that I really, really did not want to go. I’m afraid of heights. I’m afraid of snakes. He said, “Gale they can’t MAKE you zip line.” I said, “Yes, they can.” He said, “Nobody can make YOU do something you don’t want to.” So eventually I stopped talking about it and trudged along anxiety ridden but seemingly unable to stop my eventual doom. On the bus ride to the jungle the Guides claimed that this was the longest, tallest zip-line in the world. They actually bragged about this. I sort of got into a zone like when I was in labor with my daughters. I told myself in a matter of hours I’d be back on the bus alive and heading back to the ship. I was not enthusiastic but quiet, reserved and alternatively mad at myself and my Husband. The lady next to me told me that on this one you have to jump off the side of a mountain. I thought to myself there is no way I can jump or step off a mountain or ledge. There is no way I can take an affirmative step towards this. When we got there we had to climb the equivalent of 8 stories to reach the side of the mountain to start the trip. By now I’m sweating profusely, out of breath and literally sick. They showed us how to stop the zip-line with our hands. “Pay attention not to put your hand in front of the zip or it’ll cut your fingers off.” They were serious. “Pay attention not to put your hand on the top line because it’ll cut your forearm.” Great, I thought. I was worried about the children remembering all of this but then they said the kids are light enough they don’t have to brake which let me revert to worrying about my own imminent dismemberment or death. As we stood on the last stairs before we “took off” I doubled over so nervous I really thought I would vomit. My Husband zipped away seeming unfazed. Then my youngest went. My worry turned to deep sadness. But I love her so, I thought. Next our older daughter went. I was resigned to fate at this point. When it was my turn the Guide put the hook from my waist on the line then the other from my chest. He told me to put my hands on the strap, no need to brake on this one and to relax, sit down. When I sat gravity took hold and I was off. Of course, I didn’t realize that was going to happen and so I screamed. I screamed at the top of my lungs the entire zip. I screamed as I crashed into the poor Guide on the other side. At least I didn’t have to jump off a cliff I thought. When I managed to stand up I realized I was on a grate maybe 4 feet by 8 feet long fastened to the side of the mountain by a wooden triangle. Also on this grate were my Husband and my daughters and 2 Guides. How much weight can this think hold? I thought. Just as my panic set in I saw our friend Teresa zipping to our ledge followed by our friend Tom. The Guide was trying to send my Husband on to the next platform but there was some problem. It seemed we were suspended there together for a long time though I am sure it was a matter of seconds. And what stopped us from toppling off this ledge? A little rope attached to the mountain to which our hook was attached. What am I doing here? What the heck?, I thought. Off to the next one and then the next. There were 6 zips in a row. As I approached the 3rd platform the Guide yelled, “Brake! Brake!” His eyes were bulging out of his head. I tried to brake. It didn’t seem to take. I crashed into him going 100 miles an hour, probably cracked his ribs. On the next zip I tried to brake better but still no results. When I crashed the Guide said “Lady, you very lucky. You put your hand on the top line. Could cut and burn your arm.” So I gave up. I just to barreled into the Guides and hope for the best. In route to #5 the Guides called back and forth to one another in a foreign language. There was clearly a problem. Great I thought. Just great. Then my petrification turned to an awful thought. My daughter was in front of me. Was she hurt? No time to think, the Guide got the go ahead and set me on my way. When I landed my legs were mushy with fear. The Guide yelled at me to “Stand up, ma’am!” “Hurry, big snake lady!” Oh great. Just great. I stood and tried to “hurry” but I didn’t know where the snake was and I didn’t want to find out. Later I was told he was literally just below my feet underneath the grate where I stood. When we were done with our last one I said, “Really, that’s it?” My kids laughed. I could not believe what we just did. Still can’t to a certain extent. That was one of the most difficult, scary, exhilarating things I have ever done ever: I overcame my fear of heights, snakes, death and injury of me and my family. That was success!

Minor Child Passport Application Requirements

Under the two parent consent law, as amended in 2008, and as implemented by the United States Department of State, both parents are required to consent to the passport application for a minor U.S. citizen under the age of 16. In the alternative, the applying parent must document his or her sole authority to obtain a passport by producing one of the following: (a) evidence of sole custody, (b) a court order allowing the parent to travel with the child, or (c) notarized written consent of the other parent or written statement explaining why the non-applying parent’s consent cannot be obtained. The minor child must appear in person when applying for the passport. This law in practice is designed to decrease the likelihood that a U.S. passport would be used to facilitate an international parental child abduction.

Will the Court Credit a Spouse for Money Borrowed During the Divorce Proceeding?

The answer is maybe and maybe. Our district court looked at this issue is the case of Stock v. Stock, 693 So.2d 1080, 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) and found that "the reimbursement or credit for a party's payment of marital property-related expenses during separation is a matter of judicial discretion in light of all relevant circumstances." The First District Court of Appeal recently relied on this holding in Fashingbauer v. Fashingbauer, 19 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The issue depends on the answer to (1) what the money was borrowed for and (2) the Judge's discretion depending on the unique facts of that specific case. Marital and family law is, by its nature, very fact intensive which is why case law can serve as a guide but cannot always answer the specific question in your case.

Are too many children prosecuted as adults?

Currently local prosecutors have discretion as to whether or not to prosecute a child charged with a crime as an adult in certain instances. The Florida Bar's Legal Needs of Children Committee recently issued its report and recommended that Judges make all transfer decisions rather than the current practice. This report comes after a noticeable increase in the number of children prosecuted in adult court. The other issue noted in their report was whether or not coercive pleas are taken. The example observed is that a child may given the choice between pleading guilty and serving 9-18 months in juvenile detention or be prosecuted as an adult facing a life sentence and wait about 18 months in jail for trial in the interim. While being tough on crime is clearly a popular sentiment the question remains whether it is helpful or appropriate to push so many juveniles into the adult system. Unfortunately in our office we often see children acting out and sometimes getting into trouble with the law when the parents are in high conflict. Reducing that conflict so that parents are able to effectively co-parent not only benefits the parents but also the children and our society.

Changes made to Income Deduction Orders

The statutory changes recently enacted by the Florida Legislature require certain additional findings to be set forth in Income Deduction Orders (IDOs). IDOs are the Orders that require employers to withhold income from an employee's pay when that employee owes a child support and/or alimony obligation. Back in 1998 IDOs were statutorily required in all cases involving child support. The new changes in the law require that the end date for child support be set forth specifically in the IDO. The changes also require that in cases where there is more than 1 child the IDO set forth the specific date when child support shall be reduced due to an older child being an adult; the new reduced amount of support must be listed also. Today the Florida Supreme Court issued a proposed form to help us all comply with the new statute.

Major Changes Made to Alimony and Child Support Statutes

This past session the Florida Legislature passed major legislation that makes substantive changes to Florida's alimony and child support laws. Governor Crist has signed the bill which becomes effective later this year. An overview of the changes are as follows:

(1) Creates a new type of alimony called "durational alimony;"
(2) Changes the threshold for triggering substantial time-sharing (which generally greatly reduces child support paid);
(3) Mandates certain findings of fact related to unallocated child support for multiple children;
(4) Establishes very specific requirements to impute income to a parent;
(5) Addresses poverty guidelines;
(6) Makes changes in the adoption laws; and,
(7) Addresses assignment of time-sharing by military personnel.

Are Private Disability Insurance Policy Payments Marital Property?

Our Second District Court of Appeals looked at that issue in the Gibbons case decided last month. See Gibbons v. Gibbons, 10 So. 3d 127, (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). In that case the Husband who had been an attorney became disabled prior to the filing of the divorce action. As a result of his disability he received payments from 3 disability insurance policies he purchased and paid for during the marriage. One of the policies ended payments when he reached the age of 65 while the other 2 policies did not. The 2 other policies continued payment with no set end date as long as the Husband remained disabled. The Wife argued at trial that since the Husband would be receiving payment from the 2 policies after he reached the age of 65 the payments were akin to retirement payments and therefore subject to equitable distribution. The lower agreed with her and awarded her 1/2 the value of the 2 policies in question.

The appellate court disagreed and reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that there was no evidence that the payments made to the Husband after age 65 contained a retirement component and were subject to the condition that he remained disabled; therefore the payments was the Husband's separate income and not subject to division.

Proposed Budget Cuts for Clerk of Court

I recently received a notice from Ken Burke, the Clerk of Court for Pinellas County, advising of a bill pending in the Florida Legislature to dramatically cut funding to the Clerks' offices. Though I do not remember the precise amount of the budget cut Mr. Burke did advise that last year due to budget cuts the Clerk's office laid off approximately 28 people and if this bill passes the cuts this year will have to be twice as much. I recognize the financial constraints we are all under these days including our government. Cuts seem to be the foregone conclusion. Though it is clearly sad for the employees who may get a pink slip the public using the civil court system will also suffer a great deal with delays and inefficiencies due to the lay offs. If there is less money the Clerk will have to re-prioritize where employees work. There are mandates that ensure the criminal court system will be funded first. Therefore the primary place the pain of the budget cuts will be felt is on the civil side. It will likely mean significant delays in information processing.

Is He/She Going to Have to Keep Paying for Private School Tuition?

Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals took up this issue last month in the case of Gelman v. Gelman. In this case the parties agreed to a timesharing plan and the Court incorporated that agreement in the final judgment. The Father was ordered to pay child support and a lump sum payment to the Mother instead of alimony and equitable distribution. The Father was also ordered by the Court to pay the children's private school tuition. The Father appealed and argued that the Mother never pled for school tuition. The Mother stated that the agreed upon plan specifically mentioned the private school tuition and that plan was incorporated into the Court's final judgment.

The higher Court reversed the lower Court's ruling and found that the Mother had not specifically pled for it and that there was no evidence to show that the Father had agreed to pay it. Additionally the appellate Court held that the trial Court had not properly analyzed the requirement before imposing a financial responsibility for private school tuition. The Court cited Wilson v. Wilson, 559 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) which held that to order private school tuition (1) the parent must have the financial ability to pay it, (2) the expenses must have been in accordance with the family's customary standard of living, and (3) private school must be in the children's best interests.

Can Having a Boyfriend Reduce Former Wife's Alimony Award?

Alimony is based on one party's need for support and the other party's financial ability to meet that need. Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals examined the issue of whether having a boyfriend would reduce the former Wife's alimony award late last year in the case of French v. French, 4 so.3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The Court ruled in that case that the boyfriend relationship that was, in fact, a financially supportive relationship for the former Wife. As such it took the financial place of a remarriage. Therefore that relationship inherently affected (reduced) the former Wife's need for alimony. The result suggests that once the Court finds that a "supportive relationship" exists then by necessity the Court shall either reduce or end alimony because the recipient's needs have changed.