Retired Florida Circuit Judge Jones Urges Gov. Rick Scott to VETO SB668 Family Law "Reform" - It's Retroactive, Drastic, Heavy-Handed and One-Sided

Now retired Circuit Judge Earnest Jones has specialized in Florida Family Law for over 26 years.  In his position as Judge in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, he oversaw what is arguably one of the most stressful courtrooms in the Judicial Circuit: dependency court, where the judge hears cases concerning children who have been abused or neglected by a parent.  The full text of Judge Earnest Jones letter to Gov. Rick Scott is below:

March 7, 2016

 

Governor Rick Scott

State of Florida
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

 

Re: Senate Bill 668 ("An act relating to family law")

 

Dear Governor Scott:

 

          The Florida Legislature, which appears to be on a rampage this session, recently passed the above-referenced bill.      Professor Cynthia Lee Starnes, The John F. Schaefer Chair of Matrimonial Law at Michigan State University, and one of the nation’s foremost alimony experts and published scholars, sent you a letter dated February 22, 2016, which expressed her concerns with the bill and urged you to veto it and appoint a task force to study alternatives. I write this to second her concerns and her recommendations.

          I specialized in family law from 1980 until I was elected as a Circuit Judge in 2006 in the Tenth Judicial Circuit. (I am now 72 and retired.)  I will not argue that the alimony current statute is perfect, but I will categorically assert that its defects are not of such magnitude as to warrant the wholesale modifications envisioned by this bill. Indeed, one wonders what could have prompted the Legislature to enact such drastic and one-sided changes in well-settled existing law, changes that will have far-reaching and, one fears, unintended consequences. As one of many examples, and in spite of the sponsors' protests to the contrary, this bill is in fact retroactive in that existing orders can be modified under the draconian new rules. If a man who was married to his physician-wife for thirty years has to take a second job because his alimony is not sufficient to support him and the couples’ adult disabled child, the former wife is entitled to a modification hearing if his income goes up by 10 percent, and the court is required to consider that increase a substantial change of circumstances supporting a modification even if the former wife-physician's income has gone up 50%! Moreover, as far as I can discern from the records, there were few committee hearings wherein the impact of the proposed changes were thoroughly discussed. One likens this government heavy-handedness to an extremely risky heart transplant being recommended by a single physician without adequate discussion with colleagues and consideration of alternatives for a 65 year old patient for whom a far less risky stint or bypass would have achieved the desired results.

           Thank you for your consideration of this letter and the recommendations contained herein.

 

Respectfully Yours,

Ernest M. Jones, Jr., Circuit Judge (Ret.)