Child Custody under SB 668

The child-custody provisions of SB 668 put parents on equal footing during child-custody determinations. Existing law declares a vague public policy that each minor child have “frequent and continuing contact” with both parents after they separate or divorce. What this public policy means can vary from judge to judge.

The bill replaces the vague policy, with a requirement that courts begin a custody determination with the premise that a child should spend “approximately equal time” with each parent. The court must then take into account a child’s best interest by considering 20 statutory factors that are based on current law. Finally, the bill requires courts to explain their child-custody determinations in writing.

The changes to the child-custody law are driven by well-known societal changes. For example, there are more two income households than ever.[1] Women are more likely than men to have a college degree, and women are pursuing more graduate degrees than men.[2] Forty percent of households with children have a female breadwinner, a dramatic increase since 1960.[3] Additionally, fathers have become more active in raising their children.[4]

Unfortunately, many incorrect statements and specious arguments have been made about what SB 668 says and how the bill will affect children and custody litigation. The remainder of this document identifies and responds to the common misstatements and specious arguments.

---

[1] Kim Parker, Pew Research Center, 5 Facts About Today’s Fathers (June 18, 2015) available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/5-facts-about-todays-fathers/.

[2] Executive Office of the President of the United States, Eleven Facts About American Families and Work 10-11 (Oct. 2014), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/eleven_facts_about_family_and_work_final.pdf .

[3] Wendy Wang, Kim Parker, and Paul Taylor, Pew Research Center, Breadwinner Moms (May 29, 2013) available at: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/.

[4] Parker, supra note 1.

No Fault -- No Alimony

Florida became a "no fault" state in Dissolution of Marriage proceedings in 1971.

A truly no fault dissolution of marriage should only address a  Fair and Equitable distribution of assets (and liabilities).

I am a victim of Domestic Abuse and Elder Abuse.

My partner made unilateral decisions concerning the religiously oriented activities our two daughters should receive.  That is classic Male Privilege.

My partner has Master's Degree from an out-of-state private university.  Her three skills that I have observed are:

1.  She is good at obtaining volunteers
2.  She's very generous with someone else's money
3.  She is good at church history.

These are appropriate skills for a Director of Christian Education (DCE).

Women are no longer limited to a DCE role; they can now compete in and for the pulpits.

Following advice that she later regretted, my partner filed for divorce in April 2009.  The matter has not been settled.

I have seen and been victimized by the best divorce lawyer in Brevard County, Diane Baccus-Horsley.  She President Obama look like a truth teller.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott Vetoes Family Law Reform

I watched the hearings for SB 718 and the companion bill in the Florida House.  There was very moving testimony about how a mother had achieved independence.

Government Rick Scott needs to be more pro-Family and less pro-Florida Family Law Bar Section.

(DR)2H

Florida Legal Profession Condones Lying

“Lying on Paragraph 6. THIS PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE:, of FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORM 12.901(b)(2), PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE WITH PROPERTY BUT NO DEPENDENT OR MINOR CHILD(REN)(05/12) does not violate The Rules of Professional Conduct or any of the rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida which govern attorney discipline,” per Maura Canter, Bar Counsel.

 

Reality Not Rhetoric

Congress has the power to levy a tax.  Congress has the right to defer a tax.  Congress has done the latter in regular IRAs, 401(k), and 403(b) retirement plans.  Financial advisors refer to these as “qualified retirement plans” or just qualified plans.

A plan is “qualified” by meeting certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirements.  Qualified plans are eligible to receive certain tax benefits.  There are two types of qualified plans:  Defined benefit plans, and Defined contribution plans.

Qualified pension plans are defined benefit plans.  IRAs, 401(k), and 403(b) plans are defined contribution plans.  Pensions are retirement entitlements.  Defined contribution plans are retirement savings/investments.

A part of the IRS requirements for being eligible, is that IRS requirements for Minimum Required Distributions (MRD) be met.  The literature/law also refers to Required Minimum Distribution (RMD).

As an owner of an IRA (or other qualified plan) you may be required to make a withdrawal from your account before the end of 2012.  This withdrawal, called your RMD is generally required by the IRS once an IRA account holder has reached 70.5 years old.  You can withdraw more than the minimum from your IRA in any year.  However, if you withdraw less than the required minimum, you may be subject to a 50% tax penalty.  Some sources/plans say it is 50% of the amount not taken (IRA) and others say it is 50% of the entire account (for me, my 403(b) ).

The Federal Income Tax liability incurred by a withdrawal depends on a number of factors.  The main one for my purposes is whether it includes any return of the owner's after tax contributions.  The IRS intent is to not tax “after tax” contributions when they are returned/withdrawn.  The tax-deferred benefit of the plans is that Federal Income Tax is deferred on the “pre-tax” contributions until funds are withdrawn which is at a later time and likely at a lower rate than appropriate at the time the funds were deposited/earned.

The reality is clear.  An RMD is predominately a withdrawal of savings although the tax code requires the withdrawal to be taxed in the year of the withdrawal and not in the year the deposited funds were earned.  Defined contribution plan required withdrawals should be treated as “return of capital” or withdrawal of savings in all applications except determining tax liability incurred by the withdrawal.  Although the rhetoric may differ, that is the reality.

Floridians please note that this means that MRDs or RMD should not be considered in the determination of a party’s ability to pay alimony even though the IRS taxes them as income.  In short, distributions may not be “income” even though they are received, taxed as income by the IRS, and spent.  Being taxed as income at the later date is the benefit for which the qualified defined contribution plan owner is eligible.