Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Spousal Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spousal support formula from FLAC draws strong backing and sharp critiques
Summary
LD 2142 would add a rebuttable presumptive calculation for general spousal support; FLAC and legal-aid advocates said guidelines would improve predictability for self-represented litigants, while many family-law attorneys warned the proposed presumptions and formula ignore tax consequences and could spur litigation.
The Family Law Advisory Commission presented LD 2142, a proposal to establish guidance and a rebuttable, presumptive calculation for awarding general spousal support. Proponents said the change is intended to increase fairness and predictability and to help self-represented litigants who currently struggle to obtain spousal support.
Magistrate Andrea Najarian, who chaired the FLAC subcommittee, told the committee a lack of statutory guidance produces inconsistent awards and makes spousal support difficult to settle: "As a practical matter, spousal support is unavailable to a self represented party," she said, stressing that a guideline would give litigants a realistic starting point. Several family law practitioners and legal-aid representatives echoed that view and urged the committee to prioritize access to justice for low-income parties and survivors of domestic violence.
Opponents and skeptics were equally vocal. Family-law practitioners who testified in opposition described the bill as a ‘‘bad formula’’ that could increase litigation because it creates layered rebuttable presumptions and omits a careful treatment of tax consequences. Attorney Susan Schultz said the proposal "confuses instead of clarifies" and warned that presumptions increasing litigation would place a drag on family-court dockets; Diane Dusini and others urged the committee to address tax treatment, imputed income rules and other technical adjustments before proceeding.
FLAC members acknowledged the commission did not reach unanimity; the report contains a dissent (Attorney Catherine Miller). Committee members asked for concrete examples, appellate citations from states that have adopted similar measures, and comparative data. The Family Law Section and several mediators said they support exploring a guideline or an improved approach but asked for refinements to the proposed formula.
Next steps: the committee closed the public hearing and signaled that a work session would follow to reconcile tax, presumptive and fairness concerns and to solicit revisions from FLAC and other stakeholders.
