The rainbows we’ve recently been seeing in celebration of the SCOTUS decision making marriages we formally called “same-sex”, now just marriages, got me to thinking about the enormity of change family law has undergone during the past fifty or so years.
It seems to me that a lot of thunder and lightning preceded those rainbows. I started thinking about the fact that in Massachusetts we once had laws for children born out-of-wedlock, and different laws for children born to parents who were married. We had laws about children as chattel (not too far afield from cattle), about men and fathers as property owners, and women and mothers as not being able to own property.
It led me to ponder the fact that in a divorce it was once presumed that fathers would have their children’s custody so they could help out on the family farm, and that as recently as the 1970’s we had a “tender years doctrine” which supposed divorcing mothers would have custody of young children. It also made me think about the sexual revolution, and how it changed the paradigm of women and men in the workplace and the equalities and inequalities that have grown from there. It caused me to reflect on divorcing fathers who created a movement demanding equal standing in matters of their children’s custody. And that brought me to thinking about the Massachusetts alimony reform statute that became law only three years ago.
When close to fifty per cent of marriages end in divorce, what’s fair preparation for a person who may want to stay home with young children? What are reasonable financial expectations?
Sometimes society drives changes in the law, and sometimes the law drives changes in society, and many times it’s not entirely clear which is the driving force…a chicken-and-egg situation.
As I continued to think more about the Alimony Reform Act of 2012, it appeared to me that there’s a consequence of that law was not the impetus for its change. That consequence is the fact that while at one point it was reasonably fair for divorcing, stay-at-home parents (in most instances women) in 12, 13 or 15 year marriages, to anticipate they would receive alimony until they remarried or their former spouse died (oftentimes 20 or more years), this is no longer the case. Now when a marriage of 12 years (barring unusual circumstances) ends in divorce, if alimony is ordered at all, it could be ordered for just a bit longer than eight years. Under the current law a 37-year-old who was married at 25, can expect to receive alimony only until she is 45 years old. Depending upon the ages of her children she may continue to receive child support for an extended period of time beyond that, however it’s fair to say that expecting to receive alimony for twenty plus years is now unlikely.
What’s the take-away for all of us? Are marriages impacted by fear and intimidation of money? Are divorces? Does the new Alimony Reform act create a need for both partners to have a better understanding of money and the world of finance? As a society, in our schools and in our communities should we be creating a new paradigm that includes financial and marital education for all? Thunder, lightning and rainbows got me to thinking.
Heidi Webb © 2015
Consilium ® Divorce Consultations
