THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, February 15, 1997 TAG: 9702150002
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 35 lines
In her Feb. 4 letter to the editor, Betty Frailey makes a plea to stop House Bill 2131. From her account, the bill would allow judges to consider awarding three years of rehabilitative alimony to a wife of less than 20 years.
Would she prefer they didn't? In cases of marriages over 20 years, wives are already positioned for higher and more enduring alimony benefits.
Ms. Frailey misses this point when she says, ``No matter that she had been out of the work force for 20 years and had no particular skills when she was young.'' There is no language in the proposal regarding spousal support solely for rehabilitative purposes, or any mention of three years.
I support the position that the cost of a homemaker's work-force-placement training should be borne by the primary income provider when there was no overriding cause for separation. While the bill doesn't stipulate this, it does provide guidance that would allow for spousal support to be used at the discretion of the recipient.
Personal choice is a good thing. The bill provides guidance to judges for awards of spousal support for marriage periods of less than five years, between five and 20 years and for more than 20 years.
Judges now have wide latitude to choose how husbands will or will not be financially responsible for their former spouses. When irreconcilable differences are cited, most judges award no spousal support. How well a petitioner fares in court often depends on a combination of random choices and circumstances. It's a lot like casino gambling. Wouldn't it be better if the judges and commissioners had better guidance?
RICHARD J. MULLER
Chesapeake, Feb. 7, 1997