Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Governor's Veto Kills FL Child-Sharing and Alimony-Reform Bill
Florida's Governor Rick Scott has vetoed a contentious bill that would have created a legal presumption in nearly all child custody cases in favor of equal time sharing between parents. The 50-50 starting point for making custody decisions would have required parents seeking a different arrangement to jump through many more hoops to get a greater time allotment. The presumption that equal time sharing would be best for every child would not have attached in certain cases, such as when one parent is incarcerated, or has been found guilty of domestic abuse. But in more common scenarios, those against passage of the law feared it would hobble judges in their quest to serve the best interests of children. For example, a newborn might be separated for long periods of time from a nursing mother, or a child in special need of stability might have to shuttle between homes on a too-frequent basis.
“Current law directs a judge to consider the needs and interests of the child first when determining a parent plan,” Gov. Scott wrote in his veto message. “This bill has the potential to up-end that policy in favor of putting the wants of a parent before the child's best interest by creating a premise of equal time-sharing. Our judges must consider each family's unique situation and abilities and put the best interests of the child above all else.”
Another part of the legislation would have altered the state's alimony laws by creating formulas and timetables, and by doing away with permanent alimony. The alimony and child-sharing proposals were combined into one bill only late in the legislature's session, a move that turned some proponents of each proposal away ' though not enough to doom passage. With his veto, Gov. Scott not only signaled his opposition to an assumption that equal time sharing between parents is best in most cases, but also confirmed his distaste for cutting off alimony payments to those in need: He had vetoed a similar alimony reform measure in 2013 after noting that its retroactive application would have tampered with the settled economic expectations of many already-divorced Floridians.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.