September 2, 2022

Letter: Unhappy with ‘negative presentation’ on alimony ruling

BY AdminMassachusetts Lawyers Weekly

To the editor:

We were surprised and disappointed by the Aug. 22 front-page article “SJC alimony ruling alarms divorce bar.”

Like many family law practitioners, we view the decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, No. SJC-13222 (Mass. Aug. 8, 2022), as a long-needed and well-reasoned resolution to persistent confusion about the availability and distinct purposes of alimony and child support in modest-income cases. 

The article’s negative presentation, highlighting speculation about “costs” and “complications” and raising the ominous specter of “unintended consequences,” undermines the decision and ignores the magnitude of the unintended consequences the ruling corrects.

The Alimony Reform Act was never intended to deny alimony to otherwise eligible spouses on the sole basis that they have children. For years, some Family Court judges and Massachusetts practitioners have endorsed the erroneous interpretation applied by the trial court in Cavanagh “that no alimony could be awarded to the mother for the sole reason that the judge had ‘considered all of [the father’s] gross income in setting the child support order.’” Cavanagh at *4. When the law is applied this way, it is starkly unjust and facially discriminatory against litigants with children.

Perversely, this interpretation has denied relief to many of the very people who need it most. Consider survivors of domestic violence who faced financial, as well as physical, abuse in their marriages; career homemakers whose earning capacities have been forever reduced by years out of the workforce; and spouses who delayed career advancement to care for children and support their spouses’ educations or careers. 

The SJC reminds us that child support and alimony are different forms of support serving different purposes. One simply is not a substitute for the other.   

The Cavanagh decision does not make alimony an “entitlement,” as one quoted practitioner suggests. It merely affirms that the law “allows for the concurrent award of child support and alimony” and requires a “fact-specific analysis of the family’s circumstances.” Cavanagh at *2 and 20. 

Similarly, the prediction by another surveyed practitioner that unallocated support will no longer be permitted and that “flexibility and creativity” in settlement will be curtailed is questionable. Why not consider the increased opportunity for settlement created by clarification that concurrent orders are permissible for all families, not only the very rich?  With clarity and equity in the law, we can do our best work to help families move beyond litigation to stable, productive futures.

We hope Lawyers Weekly will seek more varied perspectives in future articles about significant new case law.

The letter was signed by Steven Anderson-Garrison and Laura W. Gal on behalf of Greater Boston Legal Services; Christina Paradiso on behalf of Community Legal Aid; Rachel B. Biscardi on behalf of Northeast Legal Aid; Abbigail Shirk on behalf of MetroWest Legal Services; Kimberly Yox on behalf of Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts; Jamie Ann Sabino on behalf of Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Lola Remy on behalf of Women’s Bar Foundation of MA; Maritza Karmely, clinical professor, on behalf of Family Advocacy Clinic, Suffolk University Law School; Stephanie Goldenhersh, clinical instructor, Harvard Legal Aid Bureau; Cindy Palmquist and Geraldine Gruvis-Pizarro on behalf of Volunteer Lawyers Project; Amiee Parco on behalf of Casa Myrna; Lori Sherman Johnson and Christina Pavlina on behalf of Jane Does Well; Amy Hamill on behalf of The Second Step — Steps to Justice; Hema Sarang-Sieminski, policy director, on behalf of Jane Doe Inc.