Missouri is very close to redefining marriage and family forever, and not in a good way. With the hard push in the legislature to pass one of the two nearly identical concurrent bills (SB-307 and HB194) that would completely torch all previous statutes related to maintenance in divorce, some questions arise.
These questions need to be answered by the Republicans and all elected representation that championing the destruction of traditional marriage and the rolls Americans have valued in building family since, … forever.
Both bills specify: “No maintenance order shall be modified to extend its duration in excess of the limits established in this section.”
Missouri statutes, in cases of divorce, already allow judges great discretion in awarding maintenance, or not. Why do legislators feel the need such concrete and definitive statutes to outline specific awards and termination in maintenance when the point of having a judiciary is to have an overseer of cases on an individual basis?
“For purposes of determining maintenance, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a short-term marriage is a marriage having a duration of less than seven years; a moderate-term marriage is a marriage having a duration of seven years or more but less than seventeen years; and a long-term marriage is a marriage having a duration of seventeen years or more. The duration of a marriage is the period of time from the first day of the marriage until the date of the filing of an action of dissolution of marriage or legal separation.”
So, I was just wondering, why is there such a vast departure from previous definitions of short/medium/long term marriage?
How does the legislature quantify the sacrifices made in the marriage partnerships in these differing durations of marriage especially since women are most often giving birth to children during the early years of marriages which drastically alters their career paths, as it does when women are raising children through out the medium and long term marriage.
“Bridge-the-gap maintenance may be awarded to assist a party leaving a short-term marriage by providing support to allow the party to make a transition from being married to being single. Bridge-the-gap maintenance shall be designed to assist a party with legitimate, identifiable short-term needs. The length of the maintenance shall not exceed two years. An award of bridge-the-gap maintenance terminates upon the death of either party or upon the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance. An award of bridge-the-gap maintenance shall not be modifiable in amount or duration.”
Why does this legislation ignore the probability that many under short term marriage will produce children within 7 years and will no longer be transitioning into being single from divorce, but of a parent with much different needs than a single person? What is the legislature’s plan to address that?
Why does the this legislation ignore the responsibility young single mothers will assume after divorce and not provide for specific funding from an ex spouse to attain re-training into the work force? Where is the divorced woman supposed to come up with funds for re-training to gain adequate employment/earning power while raising a child? It’s more likely men will not have to endure the hardships, financial or otherwise of employment retraining. Is that fair?
“1) Rehabilitative maintenance may be awarded to assist a party leaving a short-term or moderate-term marriage in establishing the capacity for self-support through either:
(a) The redevelopment of previous skills or credentials; or
(b) The acquisition of education, training, or work experience necessary to develop appropriate employment skills or credentials.
(2) In order to award rehabilitative maintenance, there shall be a specific and defined rehabilitative plan, which shall be included as part of any order awarding rehabilitative maintenance. The length of the maintenance shall not exceed four years.”
Just who is going to determine the appropriate skill set plan for the receiver of spousal support? Will this require the development of additional bureaucracy to oversee the adherence to the rehabilitative plan? Is anyone advocating for women here, since they are most likely the target of these restrictive attacks on maintenance awards?
“(3) An award of rehabilitative maintenance may be modified or terminated based upon a substantial change in circumstances, upon noncompliance with the rehabilitative plan, or upon completion of the rehabilitative plan; provided that the length of the maintenance shall not be modified to exceed the limits set forth in this subsection.
7. Durational maintenance may be awarded to provide for the needs and necessities of life as they were established during a moderate-term or long-term marriage. Durational maintenance may be awarded if such an award is appropriate upon consideration of the factors set forth in subsection 2 of this section.
8. Absent exigent circumstances, a court shall not order durational maintenance that remains in effect for more than:
(1) Five years if the duration of the marriage was seven years or more or less than ten years;
(2) Seven years if the duration of the marriage was ten years or more but less than seventeen years; or
(3) Ten years if the duration of the marriage was seventeen years or more.
For purposes of this subsection, “exigent circumstances” shall mean a physical or mental disability or other compelling substantial impediments to earning sufficient income to provide for the spouse’s minimal reasonable needs. An award of durational maintenance may be modified in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3 of this section; provided that the length of the maintenance shall not be modified to exceed the limits set forth in this subsection.”
Where is the safety net for the receiver of maintenance, due to mental disability or other compelling substantial impediments, to earning sufficient income?
As you read this, does it seem protections for the provider are a little lopsided to you? Has this really escaped the notice of legislators, or don’t they care?
And this is really outrageous. The courts are now going to become “relationship police.” It seems women are going to be punished for dating, by losing their maintenance. Does anyone think this is a little over the top?
“9. An order awarding maintenance shall be subject to modification or termination if it can be shown that the recipient and another person have entered into a mutually supportive relationship that is the functional equivalent of marriage that has existed for at least twelve months of an eighteen-month period.”
Who determines the status of the relationship of the receiver of maintenance? What quantifies “mutually supportive?” Can friends living together to share expenses qualify as “mutually supportive?” Does a sexual relationship qualify as “mutually supportive?” What happens if the “mutually supportive” relationship ends between 12-18 months? Who is going to monitor the private life of the receiver of maintenance?
Missouri statutes allow for judges to take conduct of the parties and contribution to the marriage into consideration, so why does this legislation disregard contribution to the marriage by the receiver of maintenance?
This legislation is over the top, extreme, severe and will forever change the definition of marriage. It will also so severely choke the financial survival of women after divorce, that many of them will be forced onto state aid, just to keep their heads above water as they struggle to raise children and make a new life after dissolution.
Why? Why such severity? Who is pushing this hysterical departure from existing statutes, where judges already have the discretion to make these decisions?
Missouri Republicans Neely, Cierpiot, and Morris pushing this legislation have a lot of explaining to do.
Why is it, that in every other contract/agreement/partnership between two people there are always damages assessed when one party breaks the agreement?
At the end of the day, after reading this legislation everyone should be asking who is advocating for women who make sacrifices to career to care for the home and family in marriage? It’s clear it isn’t Republicans in the Missouri legislature.
Since Missouri Legislators have forgotten how important family, marriage, small government and traditional values are to their voters maybe it’s time to remind them.
And reintroducing a movement to remove No-Fault-Divorce from Missouri wouldn’t hurt either.
Image: Source
Please share this story and follow me on other social media platforms: Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter,Spreely, Tea Party Community, MeWe, Gab, OneWay, Instagram, Pinterest.
Also, send me your email. I’ll email you when new posts are published.