Debate Over Ending Lifetime Alimony

MS. DIANE REHM

10:06:55
Thanks for joining us. I'm Diane Rehm. Gov. Rick Scott recently vetoed a bill that would have effectively ended lifetime alimony in Florida. A similar measure took affect in Massachusetts last year. Comparable bills are pending in New Jersey, Connecticut and Oregon. Joining me to talk about the purpose of alimony, how it's awarded and whether it should be changed: Cheryl Lynn Hepfer, past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and Ann Sundt, a retired circuit court judge.

MS. DIANE REHM

10:07:37
Joining us from a studio in San Francisco: activist and author Warren Farrell. I'm sure many of you have been involved in such situations. Do join us, 800-433-8850. Send us an email to drshow@wamu.org. Follow us on Facebook or send us a tweet. Good morning, all.

MS. CHERYL LYNN HEPFER

10:08:07
Good morning.

MR. WARREN FARRELL

10:08:08
Good morning.

MS. ANN SUNDT

10:08:09
Good morning.

REHM

10:08:09
Good to have you with us. Before we begin our conversation here on the studio and with you, Warren Farrell, we are joined by phone from Milwaukee, Wis. by Judith McMullen. She's professor of law at Marquette University. Good morning, Judith.

PROF. JUDITH MCMULLEN

10:08:33
Hi, Diane.

REHM

10:08:34
I'd appreciate getting some basic statistics here. The – for example, the percentage of American marriages that end in divorce today, give us that figure.

MCMULLEN

10:08:51
The figure you'll usually hear is 50 percent. That's 50 percent of first marriages. The rate tends to go up a bit with second and third marriages. Second marriage is somewhere in the 60s. Third marriage is somewhere in the 70s.

REHM

10:09:05
Wow.

MCMULLEN

10:09:06
And there is some difference in demographic groups. The rate of divorce has been dropping slightly among college-educated partners, for example.

REHM

10:09:14
And the percentage of divorcing spouses who receive alimony.

MCMULLEN

10:09:23
That varies a lot from state to state. It's been going down over time nationally. So, for example, in the early part of the 20th century, very early in the 20th century, maybe around nine or 10 percent of divorces had permanent alimony. By around 1950, the rate was about 25 percent of divorces getting some alimony. But the range was huge. It was from -- there's only one or two studies. It ranged from, like, 7 percent in Florida to 48 percent in Kansas.

REHM

10:10:02
I see. And...

MCMULLEN

10:10:04
Now, it's much less. Now, it's closer to depending on the state you're in. In Wisconsin -- I did a study in 2005 -- and it was 8 percent alimony, about 11 percent if you counted a hybrid form of alimony that we have here.

REHM

10:10:21
And how many states have actually ended permanent alimony?

MCMULLEN

10:10:30
By statute, only a handful of them. You mentioned Massachusetts. Texas has greatly limited it to hardship cases. Kansas and Utah have not abolished alimony per se, but they have put time limits on it. So permanent alimony is gone. You can go into court and ask for modifications later if some hardship comes up. But I should say that a lot of states have de facto limited alimony by simply applying it mainly in situations that include hardship, that include – that --where people need rehabilitation, basically.

REHM

10:11:16
I see, I see. And is alimony still primarily going to women?

MCMULLEN

10:11:27
Yes. In the study that we did in Wisconsin in 2005, there were 64 cases in our sample that alimony. Only of two of them were husbands getting alimony. There's probably – theoretically, alimony statutes are gender-neutral. There's probably still some social prejudice against it. Wives probably make the claims more. And it is a changing landscape because there are more stay-at-home dads than they're used to be.

REHM

10:12:02
Judith McMullen, she's professor of law at Marquette University. Thanks so much for joining us.

MCMULLEN

10:12:12
Thank you for having me.

REHM

10:12:13
And turning to you now, Cheryl Hepfer, why the push by more states to end lifetime alimony?

HEPFER

10:12:26
Well, I think that there have been some changes in the way we function as a society over recent years. More women are joining the workforce, although I will tell you that the 2011 U.S. Census Bureau report indicated that women earned 77 cents to every dollar a man earns. And it's very interesting that even in categories that we would think of typically as being careers for women like nursing, actually, pursuant to that same U.S. Census Bureau report, male nurses earn $60,700 per year whereas women earned $51,100 a year.

HEPFER

10:13:12
But I believe that there is significant incentive on the part of young women to secure an education. We know that more women are completing their college educations than men now. And I think young women want to be financially independent. So there is certainly a move culturally and in society for women to be more financially independent than they have been in my mother's years and in my grandmother's years. And I believe that we've also seen a significant change in the number of women staying home when their children are young, and now we see some men actually sharing those responsibilities.

REHM

10:13:52
Of course. Yeah.

HEPFER

10:13:54
So I think that there have been some significant changes in our society recently.

REHM

10:13:58
Cheryl Lynn Hepfer, she is past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. She's a family law attorney practicing in Bethesda, Md. Turning to you, Ann Sundt, as a retired circuit court judge, talk about the purpose of alimony and why it is that more and more women are paying alimony today.

SUNDT

10:14:35
Well, the purpose of alimony has radically changed. It changed by a legislative fiat back in 1980 because the governor commissioned a group to study alimony. And previous to that, it really was a gender sort of thing. It was an amount being paid to women. And I think it was based on assumptions that have changed radically. The assumptions for 200 years, from the 1700s, were that women didn't work and that they were entitled, they had a right to be supported by their spouses.

SUNDT

10:15:19
And as Cheryl commented, all of that has changed. I think I was probably part of the last generation of women who had choices. We like the idea of a career, but it wasn't required of us. There was still that idea that you would be taken care of by your spouse. So those assumptions now have changed. And the new alimony statute, which is now about 35 years old, really says right up front, we expect people to be self-supporting.

SUNDT

10:15:58
And the purpose of alimony, really, is to enable people to be more self-supporting. And we'll give you a limited amount of time if you need training, if you need education, hence that really pejorative word rehabilitative alimony, like you need to be cured or straightened out. But the concept is we'll help you make that transition from a family to people working together to two single separate lives, but we expect you to be self-supporting.

REHM

10:16:38
Ann Sundt, she's a retired circuit court judge. Turning to you, Warren Farrell, do you believe that an alimony award should have a fixed termination date?

FARRELL

10:16:59
You know, I think that it's probably helpful to have a guideline of about 10 to 15 years. I do think there is a purpose to alimony. I don't think permanent alimony is really a useful concept, and it usually tends to engender entitlement. But I think that we're going to be seeing -- and just to give a little bit of clarifying comments to a few things that have been said, nationwide, it's 4 percent of the -- of alimony goes to men, 3.6 percent in more precise terms. And -- but women earn -- about 20 percent of the time, women who -- earn more than their husbands do in marriages.

FARRELL

10:17:35
And 38 percent of the time when both sexes work, the women earn more. But alimony is still a fairly gendered thing. You -- and the reform in alimony will really be the reform of second wives fighting with first wives or women who are earning more than men. Men have, for a long period of time, accepted alimony as sort of part of the cost of love, a little bit like diamonds and drinks and dinners and dates and flowers and Valentines Day. They're all sort of the cost of love that men and women...

REHM

10:18:04
Right, right.

FARRELL

10:18:05
It's part of the process. But -- so men are not fighting that nearly as strongly as second wives will be fighting that and that women earning more than men will be fighting that, and so that's -- I think the -- part of that transition. On the issue of the genders earning $1 versus 76 cents, this is one the most destructive to women statistics and most erroneous pieces of information that we believe.

REHM

10:18:33
All right.

FARRELL

10:18:33
For example, in the nurse's case...

REHM

10:18:35
OK.

FARRELL

10:18:36
Go ahead. Sorry.

REHM

10:18:36
Warren, we've got to take a short break here. So we'll talk more about your views on that disparity in earning when we come back.

REHM

10:20:05
And, of course, in this hour, we are talking about alimony. There are some states which have declared that the idea of permanent alimony will no longer be part of divorce settlements. Warren Farrell is on the line with us. And, Warren, just before the break, you were talking about the skewed, I gather, statistics, as you see them, in regard to women's earnings versus men's earnings.

FARRELL

10:20:46
Yes. When you look at the – not just the category like nurse or doctor, you will find that men – male doctors and male nurses both earn more than female doctors and female nurses. When you look more closely at the category, you find that the sub-specializations that men and women earn -- work in tend to lead -- for example, men are far more likely, as doctors, to be cardiologists.

FARRELL

10:21:08
Women are far more likely to be general practitioners. Male nurses are more likely to be a nurse anesthesiologist. As a rule, nurse anesthesiologists earn over $100,000 a year. And so what's really helpful to our daughters is to teach them which specialties earn more and which specialties earn less if we want them to earn more.

FARRELL

10:21:28
But when we look – when we control for the specialties, the number of years worked, the number of hours worked per week and the willingness to go to places that people don't want to go to, locations that they don't want to move to which pay more, when you control for variables like hazardous work and so on and you put the 25 major variables together, only about seven or eight of which are normally controlled for, then you have women and men earning about equal, maybe women earning a little bit more for the same work, same time, et cetera.

REHM

10:21:56
OK. Then get back to the issue of a fixed termination date for alimony.

FARRELL

10:22:08
I think 10 to 15 years is really a very valid time. I think alimony does have a useful purpose, and we shouldn't go from one extreme to the other. When a woman or a man takes off to be full-time involved with the children, he or she does take – lose many years that are useful in the workplace. And when – my father, for example, was – he left a job 'cause my mom wanted him to leave a job because she was depressed in Europe, came – left a job as a manager of major company, came back and sold foil brushes.

FARRELL

10:22:43
Now, he wouldn't have applied for alimony. But it's an example of when he was 50 years of age, it was difficult for him, as it would be for a woman, to find a job when you've been – even when he was productively in a managerial position for a long period of time.

REHM

10:22:59
All right. Warren Farrell, he is an activist and author of several books, including "Why Men Earn More and What Women Can Do About It." Ann Sundt, I recognize that awards differ from state to state. But how do you, as a judge, approach these various cases when perhaps a woman has not been working? Her husband or she wants the divorce, but the woman clearly has no income yet. How do you deal with that?

SUNDT

10:23:50
May I just very quickly say that, whatever I say here, I'm speaking only for myself…

REHM

10:23:56
Absolutely.

SUNDT

10:23:57
...because, clearly, if you had five judges sitting in this room, you would get five different opinions.

REHM

10:24:03
Five.

SUNDT

10:24:04
So my experience, both as a lawyer and as a judge and then recently as a mediator, has made me very allergic to alimony. I worry about alimony. I – when Warren says 10 to 15 years, I picture a cliff. What happens at the end of 10 or 15 years? She just falls off the edge, or he falls off the edge if he's the recipient. So I'm always looking for a more long-term solution.

SUNDT

10:24:38
And if you have parties who have means, then you have really all kinds of options available to you as a judge or even as a mediator to suggest that maybe one spouse should take 90 percent of the assets, put them in a bank, get a financial advisor and look to see if the assets can generate sufficient income because the difficulty with alimony is not just that it's such a variable and not just that five different judges will make five different decisions. But it's also an ongoing binding of parties who are generally trying to separate their lives.

REHM

10:25:23
So what you're saying is rather than assessing a particular rate or a particular length for alimony, you're saying look at the assets, look at what one person is capable of having earned during the time of that marriage and then award the person who has not earned the money, but perhaps has stayed behind to raise the children, keep the home and so on while the other individual who has earned that money is going to likely go on to earn even more money.

SUNDT

10:26:13
Continue.

REHM

10:26:16
So you're saying separate the two, but give one 90 percent of the asset. Cheryl, how does that sound to you?

HEPFER

10:26:27
Well, first of all, the significant majority of cases are resolved by agreement without ever getting into the court system.

REHM

10:26:36
I'm glad to hear that.

HEPFER

10:26:38
And they are solved with creative, thoughtful assessment and, generally, by people trying to be fair to each other. Courts tend to be required to do equity, certainly family law courts. Equity is fairness. And what's fair can be significantly different one case to the next, which is why general rules and following very firm guidelines don't work in those few cases that require court involvement. They are normally the extreme cases. They are normally the cases that have the greatest degree of hostility and bitterness.

HEPFER

10:27:19
They are often the cases that have unique circumstances that require some additional evaluation. The parties are unable to proceed on their own, and the court then tends to try to come up with a fair and equitable resolution. And sometimes they do a good job of that, sometimes they don't. That's why we have appellate courts. But the reality is that there are benefits to using alimony. Alimony is deductible to the payor. The person receiving alimony pays taxes on that.

HEPFER

10:27:56
And when there is significant disparity between the tax rate of the person who's earning the significant income and the person who will receive alimony, creative measures between attorneys, financial planners and accountants can actually keep more money in the family by using that very appropriate process of paying alimony.

REHM

10:28:19
So what are your specific concerns about ending permanent alimony as an option?

HEPFER

10:28:29
Well, my concern is that it's not going to solve the problem. Currently, almost every situation involving alimony is modifiable so that if the payor becomes ill or retires, has an accident, something significant occurs that hadn't been contemplated, the parties, generally on their own, come to an agreement to modify.

HEPFER

10:28:52
And in those few cases that go to court, the court has the ability to modify based upon what's fair, to have an absolute cutoff date when one party is predicted to be prepared to be able to meet their own needs because the court assumes or the law assumes that after a period of 10 years, let's say, they're going to be just fine. The reality is that in many cases, 10 years is just not appropriate to terminate all alimony.

HEPFER

10:29:25
So having the ability to predict the future is not something that most judges are capable of doing, and certainly, we lawyers aren't capable of doing that, which is why modification and the ability for people to sit down and try to resolve situations where there had been changes or the court of necessity seems to me to be much better than having an absolute cutoff after a period of time. When...

REHM

10:29:52
Let me turn to you, Ann. Were there any circumstances under which you did award permanent alimony?

SUNDT

10:30:03
Absolutely.

REHM

10:30:04
Can you give me an outline?

SUNDT

10:30:06
Sure. The statute really does provide for that. We have -- we really have a fairly kind statute because although it sets out this aspiration of a limited alimony, it does provide that even if somebody who has made best efforts to become self-supporting isn't, or even if they're self-supporting. I'm not sure what that means, for instance, in an affluent county, what that means to be self-supporting.

SUNDT

10:30:38
But if the disparity in income between the recipient and the payor is what they call shocking, shocks the conscience -- and I've had cases like that. Somebody, at best, could earn 30,000, and the other spouse is earning over one million. That's going to be an indefinite alimony case.

REHM

10:31:01
What do you think about that, Warren?

FARRELL

10:31:05
I don't -- first of all, I really agree with a lot of what Judge Sundt is saying, and that is that you really -- that assets, for example, are a better way to go if you -- because many times second wives or second husbands, especially second wives, feel really -- they feel when a check is going -- being paid out to the ex, it seems to have an emotional impact that's very negative on the second wife.

FARRELL

10:31:32
And so that's -- so if you can -- if there's enough assets to divide, that's probably a good way to go in terms of having the psychological damage or remnants of the first marriage a little bit more free for a parent. The -- I think that there is a value to having both the aspiration be limited and also the amount of time being limited under almost every circumstance.

FARRELL

10:32:02
And the law can never be -- people are much more complex than a law is, and so I think the need for flexibility is really important. But I think that having -- but people -- if a person knows I'm going to earn -- I'm going to have $10,000 coming to me this year, $8,000 the next, $6,000 the next and so on, they can plan accordingly and adjust accordingly. I think...

REHM

10:32:27
But, on the other hand, what about concerns regarding, say, disabled or older wives or husbands, Cheryl?

HEPFER

10:32:40
Well, that's a significant concern, and that's why having very significant rules that don't provide with the ability for the courts to consider those extraordinary circumstances is really inequitable and unfair.

REHM

10:32:55
And you're listening to "The Diane Rehm Show." I want to read for you a portion of an email from Jay, who lives in Massachusetts. He says, "I was ordered by the court to pay my ex-spouse 180 percent of my unemployment benefits while I am unemployed. I'm at the end of my career, having a very difficult time finding a job after my position was eliminated.

REHM

10:33:33
"My ex does not have to touch the 50 percent of assets received in the divorce settlement. It's just plain crazy that the amount of alimony paid is set when you are working at the peak of your career and you get no relief when you're having difficulty." And, Ann Sundt, I gather you would agree with that.

SUNDT

10:34:06
Well, the one thing I certainly did learn sitting on the bench is that there are always two sides...

REHM

10:34:12
Of course.

SUNDT

10:34:13
...and this sounds just awful. It's one of the reasons why I always look for an alternative to alimony. I'm trying so hard to help these people say -- do what they say they want to do, which is to untie themselves. And I think alimony keeps them bound on a roller coaster. Whether it's good fortune or bad, usually somebody doesn't share in the good fortune of the payor, but they certainly do share in the misery. So the difficulty, of course, is if there are not other assets to be divided, then what?

REHM

10:34:56
All right. And joining us now by phone from Melbourne, Fla., is Alan Frisher. He's president of Florida Alimony Reform. Good morning to you, Alan. Thanks for joining us.

MR. ALAN FRISHER

10:35:13
My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

REHM

10:35:15
Describe the alimony reform that you pushed for.

FRISHER

10:35:20
Well, what we try to do -- and because I'm basically down in the trenches. I was listening to what everybody was saying, and certainly academically and legally, there are words written on paper. But what is practically happening in the courts are a whole another thing entirely. The arbitrary and unbridled discretion of many judges in this case, ruling on these cases, give them the ability not to be consistent, not to have any predictability.

FRISHER

10:35:49
And like the judge said, five different judges can have five different opinions. More importantly, the same judge can have different opinions when basically the same factual situation occurs in cases. So what we try to do with the reform movement in Florida is allow for certain guidelines to be put in place to allow for predictability and consistency throughout the state.

REHM

10:36:12
But I gather that your goal is to eliminate most alimony.

FRISHER

10:36:20
No. Well, that's not the case. We actually believe that a certain amount of rehabilitative alimony is quite necessary in most cases. What we've tried to do is eliminate the permanency of it. We don't believe anything should be permanent in the law. And while modifications can occur, we found practically that's very rare. Most judges do not allow for modifications when they do go before the judge to ask for them because there's no definition of what a significant change of circumstance would be.

REHM

10:36:52
So Gov. Scott did just veto that permanent alimony bill. I gather he had concerns about applying the law retroactively.

FRISHER

10:37:08
Yes, he did. I was recently at a dinner with Gov. Scott and had the opportunity to speak with him personally about this. And he said while he is for reform, he believes that the retroactive part of it would have been very challenging and very difficult. So he wants me to come back and present something different to him that may be able to allow for certain amount of retroactivity…

REHM

10:37:31
All right. Alan Frisher, president of Florida Alimony Reform. Thanks so much for joining us. And short break here. We'll be right back.

REHM

10:40:04
And welcome back. Time to open the phones. Let's go first to Sherry in Ocala, Fla. Good morning to you.

SHERRY

10:40:15
Good morning to you, and thank you for having me on your show.

REHM

10:40:17
You're most welcome.

SHERRY

10:40:19
Thank you to your guests. With -- I called the governor, and I followed the Florida Alimony Reform that was in place. I had asked the governor to veto it, and my son who is a disabled young adult also asked the governor to veto it. I don't -- right now, I've been in a long-term marriage, many children, over 20 years of marriage. I also have a disability. With my disability, there was a settlement, which those funds -- part of them are used toward promoting my husband further in his career.

SHERRY

10:40:57
And, you know, with the alimony reform, the way it was written, I didn't feel that it gave equal protection under the law. Yes, I was a stay-at-home mom for many years. In fact, in the mediation for this settlement, when they calculated what I did within my household, I actually -- the value of service would double to what my husband earns at that time.

REHM

10:41:22
You know, someday, our work in the home is going to be calculated. Cheryl.

HEPFER

10:41:32
Well, I often ask people whether or not their spouse works outside the home because certainly they do work inside the home, we all know.

REHM

10:41:39
Of course.

HEPFER

10:41:41
But I agree with your statements very much, which is why I do believe having limitations on alimony is a significant concern to people. Those who make the choice -- normally it's a joint choice to have one parent stay home with children for a significant period of time -- don't realize at the time or do realize and are willing to accept the consequence of that, that the ability to further their career, even if they do become "rehabilitated," as Judge Sundt says, whatever that might mean, simply do not have the capability to earn the same type of income of those who continue on in their career through the young children stages of marriage, and it cannot be replicated.

HEPFER

10:42:35
You can't make it up. So unless and until there is some value placed on that by society or by maximizing earnings later and unless and until there is some way of dealing with people who, like you, have children who are special needs and as a result have limitations in their ability to work outside the home, having a consequence that is absolute, you know, 10 years or 15 years no matter what, I think, is arbitrary and capricious and will result in consequences that will be staggering for our society.

REHM

10:43:15
All right. Here's an email for Warren Farrell. "What are your thoughts on how long alimony should be if one of the individuals in the divorced relationship is permanently disabled and collects SSDI?"

FARRELL

10:43:39
You know, I think that in cases like that, there should be flexibility to, you know, permanence of alimony shouldn't be, like, knocked out of the law. But it should certainly be, you know, an aspiration for all of us to avoid whenever we can. You know, long-term dependency really does create a bad psychology. I think something that I would like to address here is, you know, what we all really want is to prevent the whole divorce from occurring to begin with.

FARRELL

10:44:07
And then I think we also have an interest in -- and I think the way to deal with that is, in school we teach algebra, trigonometry, calculus, but we don't teach, you know, communication. And the part of the communication that we don't teach at all is how to handle personal criticism from a loved one without becoming defensive. And that's a skill set that almost -- the Achilles heel of human beings is our inability to handle personal criticism, particularly from loved ones. And we...

REHM

10:44:37
And that, Warren, is...

FARRELL

10:44:40
Yes. Go ahead.

REHM

10:44:41
...a whole program of its own, which, at some point, I do hope we can take up. Here's an email from Peter who says, "When military people get divorced, their spouses get ownership a part of the service member's retirement". This isn't alimony that can be said or adjusted by the court. It's permanent ownership as though it were a tangible piece of property. Is this changing?" Cheryl.

HEPFER

10:45:23
Well I don't think it's going to change. Actually, the states determined early on that there should be some fair distribution of marital property, either community property division, which is almost always 50-50 or equitable distribution, which could be something other than 50-50.

HEPFER

10:45:42
This issue is actually addressed by the United States Supreme Court, and the court determined that military retirement is an asset to be divided upon divorce, just like any other retirement would be. And generally, it's divided on a formula of if, as and when for a portion of the military service during the marriage.

REHM

10:46:04
I see. I see. A few emailers are asking Ann Sundt to explain the difference between alimony and child support. And what about prenuptial agreements?

SUNDT

10:46:23
Oh, my gosh. Where do I begin? I'm in favor of prenuptial agreements.

REHM

10:46:27
You are.

SUNDT

10:46:28
I am. I, you know, even if the agreements are never upheld, even if they're ripped up, thrown away, it means at least that youngsters entering into this relationship have given it some thought. And I think that's a very wise thing to do, particularly with more and more households where there are both parents working.

REHM

10:46:50
Indeed.

SUNDT

10:46:51
But child support is a whole different factor. I mean, alimony impacts child support, and that's another piece of this because we have child support guidelines. And into those guidelines go the incomes of both parties. And if one is paying the other one some alimony, that changes the whole child support scheme. The interesting parallel is one that I think you or Cheryl mentioned earlier. We have an automatic cut-off of child support. And all of us know either within our own household or we have friends whose adult children are not self-supporting.

REHM

10:47:34
Beyond the age of 18.

SUNDT

10:47:36
Eighteen.

REHM

10:47:37
Really.

SUNDT

10:47:38
Nineteen if they're in high school.

REHM

10:47:38
Yeah, absolutely.

SUNDT

10:47:41
So we don’t just throw them out on the street. We continue. But there's no legislative requirement that we do that. So -- go ahead.

REHM

10:47:49
All right. Let's go to Montgomery, N.J. Good morning, Stuart.

STUART

10:47:57
Good morning. Thank you so much for addressing this important issue on your show. My question would be for the past president of the AAML. My question to you is I'd like you to reconcile what you're saying here today with your 2000 -- the AAML 2007 report, which recommended durational guidelines for alimony because of the fact that there is no predictability with unlimited discretion with judges and no guidelines at all.

REHM

10:48:31
Cheryl.

HEPFER

10:48:32
I'm glad you brought that up, Stuart, because it was on my checklist for me to be sure to mention here today. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers years ago, as you say, in 2007, I believe, came up with guidelines, in great part, because we were concerned about the significant disparity in lifestyles that were afforded when women were not afforded a reasonable amount of support. Again, we, today, are not limiting this to women. I know that we started out with some statistics that indicated that there are few men who receive support alimony. It's mostly women who are receiving it.

HEPFER

10:49:16
But I assure you that 10 years from now, that statistic will be changed, especially as a result of same-sex marriages and the fact that same-sex couples are raising children together and one of them -- sometimes both -- will spend considerable time rearing their children. But when we came up with the guidelines, they were meant to be guidelines. They were not affected by any state that I'm aware of in the union adapting them. In fact, in Maryland, they are to be considered by the court as just one of many factors to give guidance.

HEPFER

10:49:57
That was the purpose of them. That's what they were meant to be. And because the guidelines, of course, were meant to be considered by all 50 states and because income can be significantly variable in some states vis-à-vis others, it's a lot more expensive to live, for example, in the Manhattan area than it might be, for example, in Arkansas. It was never intended that those guidelines were going to be just adopted.

REHM

10:50:25
All right. Here's an email from Bonnie, who says, "There is too much abuse in alimony, and modifications are too rare. And the addition of effectively forcing a new spouse to pay for someone's previous spouse is unconscionable as that person may still be reeling from a previous divorce themselves. Alimony is properly and too rarely used a lifeline to the future." Ann Sundt.

SUNDT

10:51:10
I'm not sure which part of this I agree with, but a good deal of it because as -- I started out by saying I try very hard to look for some other alternative. I see alimony the same way I see the court. It's a last resort. Most people do resolve their differences, and they work it out. And then they take responsibility and ownership for their own contracts.

SUNDT

10:51:33
The people who come to court, for whatever reason, can't do that or won't do it, and so a third party does it for them. Alimony is a little bit like that. If there is some other way to untangle the relationship, to make sure that everybody is fairly treated, the parties will find that, given suggestions, opportunities. And it's only when they can't do that that a third party...

REHM

10:52:01
That they end up in court.

SUNDT

10:52:03
...has to make a decision.

REHM

10:52:04
All right. Let's go to Barrington, R.I. Let's hear from David. Good morning to you.

DAVID

10:52:12
Good morning. And thank you for having me.

REHM

10:52:14
Sure.

DAVID

10:52:14
It's a really complicated and complex topic. But one of your guests -- and she just mentioned that most seem to get settled before they get support. In my experience, based on all the friends that I know that have gone through this very difficult process, is that they usually do or end up in court. And you take something that is sort of an emotional contract and you kind of fit it into this legal -- legalistic contract, and it seems to perpetuate this adversarial process.

DAVID

10:52:50
And I'm just wondering how they see the -- maybe the courts kind of bringing a little more compassion or something into the system so that it seems to be a fair process even when they do get to court because my experience is that most end up in court. And I don't know where the guests recites the information or the data that shows that most settled before they get to court.

REHM

10:53:11
David, may I ask you a question?

DAVID

10:53:15
Sure.

REHM

10:53:16
Did you turn to a mediator before you got to court?

DAVID

10:53:24
I personally -- we did try to do that, and we were moving along in that process. But I found that once we got into the -- once we get into some of the -- once we get into the legal system that, in some ways, the legal system almost perpetuated the animosity that kind of grew out of it. And I'm wondering if that's true, if you have children, if it becomes adverse because children add a whole another dynamic to it.

REHM

10:53:48
Indeed.

FARRELL

10:53:49
Let me add something here, if I may, Diane.

REHM

10:53:50
All right. Hold on one second just to remind listeners that you are listening to "The Diane Rehm Show." Warren, go right ahead.

FARRELL

10:54:03
I deal with the courts a lot, and one of the things that I often think is that there needs to be a form of couple's communication or mediation that is not -- where that mediator or that couple's communicator person does not need to report what is being said in the sessions into court that precedes the one where something is reported to court.

FARRELL

10:54:31
I think what I see with many couples is that they're afraid to say what they -- something that is constructive, that is loving, that is appreciative, that is acknowledging to the other person or to sort of bend a little bit for a fear that it'll be used against them in court. And I wanted to ask Judge Sundt if she agreed or saw the possibility for that being incorporated into the system.

SUNDT

10:54:55
Absolutely. And we don't ask mediators to report in the court. I think -- to respond both to you and the previous caller, most court systems now do try to build in mediation services. But, you know, somebody has to file in order to get a divorce, and that has a wicked effect because it starts a timeline running. And some courts are very efficient.

SUNDT

10:55:23
If you file then, by golly, you are going to get divorced within a year or nine months or whatever their timeline standard is. So I think more and more couples now are learning, and they're getting good coaching, counseling from their attorneys. Hold off on the filing, try the mediation process so that you don't find yourself in an adversarial position right from the get-go.

REHM

10:55:45
Such a good point. Such a good point.

FARRELL

10:55:47
Yes, yes.

REHM

10:55:49
And finally, here's an email from Stephanie, who says she's thinking ahead as a stay-at-home mom. "What would you recommend I do to protect myself financially now in the event of a divorce later?" Cheryl.

HEPFER

10:56:11
And I think that my mention previously about prenups and post-nups is a point well-taken. We are finding that more and more people are entering into prenups. It used to be then only the very wealthy did. We are seeing more and more post-nups as a result of situations that people just encounter in their lives. One spouse says to the other, I would like to take off three years and work on my master's degree or do a residency after law school that will require you to work harder and basically carry me so that we, together, will have a better life after I'm finished with my schooling.

REHM

10:56:52
And how many people did we hear from, in my generation, who helped husbands go through medical schools and then their husbands left to marry someone else? So I think you're right on, Cheryl, with the idea of the post-nup as well as the prenup. And that's got to be, sadly, the last word. I hope Stephanie takes that into account. Warren Farrell, Ann Sundt, Cheryl Lynn Hepfer, thank you all so much.

FARRELL

10:57:34
Diane, it's a pleasure being with you again.

HEPFER

10:57:34
Thank you. It was a pleasure.

SUNDT

10:57:36
My pleasure, Diane.

REHM

10:57:36
Thank you, Warren, and thanks to all of you for listening. I'm Diane Rehm.
Transcripts of WAMU programs are available for personal use. Transcripts are provided "As Is" without warranties of any kind, either express or implied. WAMU does not warrant that the transcript is error-free. For all WAMU programs, the broadcast audio should be considered the authoritative version. Transcripts are owned by WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio and are protected by laws in both the United States and international law. You may not sell or modify transcripts or reproduce, display, distribute, or otherwise use the transcript, in whole or in part, in any way for any public or commercial purpose without the express written permission of WAMU. All requests for uses beyond personal and noncommercial use should be referred to (202) 885-1200.

Our address has changed!

The Diane Rehm Show is produced by member-supported WAMU 88.5 in Washington DC.