Additional Facts in support of Termination of Spousal Support
Legal References in Support of Termination:
1. In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1225, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 642
Spousal support termination date properly set 3 years after original order after lengthy marriage due to changed circumstances.
The standard rule that modifications in support orders may only be granted if there has been a material change of circumstances since the last order was not designed to circumvent the goal that supported spouses become self-supporting within a reasonable period of time. In this case the initial spousal support award was premised, in part, on an expectation that Wife would obtain retraining in order to increase her income and become self-supporting.
However, by three years later Wife had done little, if anything, to obtain retraining to increase her income, and had not otherwise been diligent in attempting to become self-supporting. W’s “failure to diligently pursue retraining in order to attempt to become self-supporting constituted a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the spousal support order.”
Argument applicable to this case:
In our case, the Petitioner has had since 2007[2] to prepare herself for the work market and to take advantage of the generous support from me – (prior to orders, $43,291.33, much of which court considered a gift). Her cut-and-paste Craigslist reports[3] citing one job search per month exemplify a lack of due diligence and leaves me assuming the risk of her lethargy and paying for her contempt. Thus, her failure to seek work only adds to my hardship[4] the court recognizes.
-
MARRIAGE OF Ida and Benson SHAFFER Ida Schaffer, Appellant, v. Benson Schaffer, Respondent. No. G018552. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California. Decided: January 29, 1999 wherein the court was perceptive enough that Ida was abusing the system.
In this case Ida continually sought work in a field the trial court had specifically steered her away from which allowed her continual 3 year extensions for spousal support because of unemployment. The court recognized that this was in part due to the fact that the California Family Judges rotate out of the system regularly and that no one judge had been able to clearly see the entire case for what it was.
But, like a large impressionist painting you have to stand a good distance away from to fully appreciate, the big picture showed a marked reluctance on Ida's part to become genuinely self-supporting by pursuing employment more suited to her temperament. The trial judge here was perceptive enough to realize what was going on and call a halt to the indefinite extensions. He realized that Ida had frittered away (“wasted” was his precise word) at least 10 years during which she might have trained for alternative employment. And on top of that she quit the one job she did obtain in her chosen field and managed to lose another. The record thus fully supports the trial judge's decision and comes nowhere close to an abuse of discretion
Argument applicable to this case:
The court in our case states in regards to Petitioner, “with a good faith effort she will be able to significantly contribute to her needs in the next two years...”[5]
This statement exemplifies how this court was able to see the whole picture and how the judge was perceptive enough to anticipate the potential for abuse by Petitioner, thus defining specific pivotal criteria she must meet.
The court defines the result of good faith effort as:
the ability to significantly contribute to her needs,
and defines the period of time where these efforts will be apparent as
two years.
There is no ambiguity in the court’s use of the word, “will” instead of should. Judge Albers specifically and intentionally uses this word to encourage the court’s broad discretion and understanding when revisiting this case in the future.
Petitioner, by not acting in good faith[6], does not meet the minimal test delineated for her in this order.