This is the forum in which
Floridians' constitutionally guaranteed
fundamental Right to Privacy, Right to Pursue happiness and property rights are
adjudicated.
Quotes from The Report of
the Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission (1990).
“…gender bias permeates Florida’s legal
system today.” (page 42)
“After reviewing this monograph, the Chief
Justice of Florida and his colleagues on the Florida Supreme Court concluded
that gender bias does in fact exist in the state’s legal system.” (page 42)
“Dislike of family law may lead to being uninformed and
insensitive about family law. Sixty-eight percent of family law
attorneys responding to a Bench-Bar Survey opined that judges were uninformed,
insensitive or both when presiding over family law matters; and more than
seventy-five percent of the family law attorneys agreed that courts have
preconceived notions about family law matters and really do not want to see the
“total picture”:
“Apparently, most judges really do not want to hear family law matters and it
shows…It cannot be comforting to find that the one who holds the future of
your access to your children and your financial future in his or her hands has,
at best, little interest in that role, or, at worst, a distaste for it.” (page
54)
“Most of Florida's circuit court judges
dislike dealing with family law matters. This attitude can affect the outcome of
cases.” (page 6)
“As a result of their almost unlimited
discretion, trial courts distribute marital assets either as property or alimony
with a lack of certainty and consistency. This may lead to inappropriate
property settlements between the parties.” (page 7)
Read the whole
report.
Quotes from the
follow up Gender Bias—Then and Now, Continuing Challenges in the
Legal System, The Report of the Gender Bias Study Implementation Commission (1996)
“However, it is not clear, based on
appellate decisions, whether a trial judge must consider all the statutory
factors and give equal weight to all, or just
the relevant ones.” (page 7)
“The original Commission recommended that the laws dealing with
the amount of spousal support require the trial judges to set consistent
amounts, in all cases, and amounts which comport with the supported spouse’s
marital standard of living, analogous to child support guidelines. This has not
been done. Section 61.08 requires the trial judge to make a laundry list of fact
findings when alimony is asked for and either awarded or denied. It is not clear
whether all the statutory factors must be considered, or only relevant ones, and
whether or not there is any factor or factors which should be given more weight
than others.” (page 7)
Chief Justice Gary Farmer of the Florida 4th DCA
in
Bacon v. Bacon,
819 So.2d 950. 955 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2002)
expresses his imperial bias...
"I think entitlements to alimony ought to be standardized — i.e., set by guidelines
which the trial judge can vary within fixed limits only upon reasons supported by
the record."
"I write, however, to express my view that broad discretion in the award of alimony
is no longer justifiable and should be discarded in favor of guidelines, if not an
outright rule."
"If I were the Legislature setting guidelines for alimony for cases within the essential
facts of this category, 35% of a payor's income could be within a reasonable
range.[fn9] Under the partnership theory of marriage and alimony,[fn10] 35% of
payor's income is not unjustifiable for incomes ranging above $200,000."
Justice Farmer has expressed his bias that alimony is an entitlement and should be
awarded. He even expresses the percentage he feels is appropriate. Such expressed
bias in a judicial opinion casts question about the objectivity of Justice Farmer and his
court to rule on alimony and family law issues.
Justice Farmer has chosen to ignore the Florida Supreme Court's decision in
Connor v. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc., 668 So. 2d 175
(Fla. 1995) which abrogated the doctrine of necessaries effectively making the
parties in a marriage economic independents. Judge Overton, in his dissent explains
the effect of the Connor decision,
“The majority’s abrogation of the doctrine of necessaries appears to shift
the policy of the State by, in effect, requiring each spouse to take care of
himself or herself.”
The Florida Supreme Court should not permit the 4th DCA to rule on alimony decisions
based on the expressed bias of its Chief Justice.
