Interview with Andrea Reid Esq: How Florida Alimony Reform Can Be Successful

Sydney Mitchell:

Hi. My name is Sydney Mitchell.

Matthew Brickman:

Hi, I’m Matthew Brickman, Florida Supreme court mediator. Welcome to the Mediate This! Podcast where we discuss everything mediation and conflict resolution.

Matthew Brickman (00:13):
Okay. So, so two things I wanna finish up with. Two things. Number one, from the family law section point of view, you know, you’ve been heavily involved and whatnot. How should something of this, I mean, this, this is a huge, huge, huge, huge undertaking. I mean, when you’re talking about alimony reform, when you’re talking about time sharing, these, I mean, these are so emotionally charged. They both involve money. They, you know, I mean, you know, they could have dire consequences, um, on, on someone’s livelihood or the, you know, uh, the, I mean, you know, we’re, we’re struggling with mental health with children these days. I can’t imagine what something like this putting children in a bad situation could also do. Right. Um, so I mean, how, like, just if, if you were to just quickly bullet point, like how would you make something like this fly successfully? What needs to be done?

Andrea Reid Esq (01:18):
So, I won’t speak for the family law, I don’t speak for the family law section on any of this, but, but from, from my perspective, from, from, from my perspective, um, we need to respect the sanctity of contracts. Um, whatever Bill goes forward has to respect the fact that deals were done. Yeah. Agreements were made and people made commitments and, and gave their words that they would abide by those. It’s

Matthew Brickman (01:44):
A contract also under contract, not family law, contract law.

Andrea Reid Esq (01:49):
And we have to honor that. But unfortunately, here’s the problem. There are no alimony reformers without folks who just want to change their agreements. And I mean that like this. Yeah. Like, it is the, the, the folks who want alimony reform want and need it retroactively.

Matthew Brickman (02:14):
Yeah.

Andrea Reid Esq (02:15):
Um, you just can’t attach that. You can’t, you can’t, you can’t. It’s, it’s not working. So any kind, you know,

Matthew Brickman (02:22):
Any type of forward looking reform, it has to be windshield oriented only. No rear view mirror whatsoever.

Andrea Reid Esq (02:31):
Yes.

Matthew Brickman (02:32):
Correct. Yeah.

Andrea Reid Esq (02:34):
Yes. Let’s look forward. Do you wanna improve the statute? Let’s improve the statute. You wanna codify pi, Let’s codify what PI actually said. Like, you want to change the statute for the future for the folks going forward, for the folks living and breathing in it go forward.

Matthew Brickman (02:49):
Yeah. So, so really alimony reformers really need to be, I mean like, like if, if there was an attitude that we could like talk about, okay, what’s the attitude? The attitude would be be like, you know, I have an agreement. It may not be the best agreement, but I’ve got the agreement. But you know what, I don’t like my agreement, but you know what, I wanna make a better tomorrow so other people don’t end up like me. If that was the attitude and the bill was drafted, it’s sort of like Andrea, why I became a mediator. You know, I went through an easy divorce and everyone knows, listen to my podcast, went through an easy divorce and then 12 years of litigation post divorce, which I learned, guess what? I’m gonna help people every day not be me. I can’t go back and undo my past, but my past actually made me who I am today.

Matthew Brickman (03:40):
And I’m going to, I’m gonna learn from what was wrong. Like, for example, I did not have an enforcement clause in my agreement. You know, well every single agreement is getting enforcement clause cuz I spent $20,000 chasing down violation after a violation. Right. I can’t go back and put an enforcement clause in my agreement. But you know what? I can tell people, Hey, if you’re gonna go get an agreement, make sure you have an enforcement clause. If that’s the viewpoint and the attitude. If there’s no, hey, we’re gonna, I’m, I’m, I wanna do this cuz I wanna get out of my own. If it’s, I wanna help people. So there’s a better tomorrow. That would be a successful mindset to get some sort of reform moving forward. Correct?

Andrea Reid Esq (04:28):
Correct. Correct. Correct. Yeah.

Matthew Brickman (04:31):
And, and I guess the same with time sharing as well. Now time sharing. Do you, do you believe the time sharing should be a separate in, in a separate bill than alimony reform? Or should it all

Andrea Reid Esq (04:42):
Be left? Um, yeah, no, I mean, look, I get why it always gets attached.

Matthew Brickman (04:47):
Okay. Why? I don’t understand that. Why <laugh> other than it’s a political move, but why?

Andrea Reid Esq (04:53):
Well, it’s all chapter 61, right? So it’s all chapter 61. So they’re,

Matthew Brickman (04:59):
Okay. So they’re trying to just fix all the problems of chapter 61 in a reform bill that addresses chapter 61. Correct.

Andrea Reid Esq (05:10):
Let’s just say this, the alimony bill never starts with equal time sharing on it and the equal time sharing bills never start with alimony on it. But somehow they all always end up together.

Matthew Brickman (05:20):
They always end and they need to be separate.

Andrea Reid Esq (05:24):
Sure. Well, if they’re not separate, they still need to be evaluate. They need to be given due consideration. Yeah. Um, especially when we’re talking about children and, and look, I, I don’t, I don’t believe there’s a one size fits all for time sharing. I think that every family is unique. I think there’s a lot of families where, you know, 50 50 is not good. It’s not safe. And you know, my background is domestic violence, right? I spent years, you know, representing victims of domestic violence and I know the kind of damage that children can endure in a violent situation. Now, there are some exceptions. You can, you can craft some exceptions into an automatic equal time sharing. But when we have some of the best child psychologists in the state telling us 50 50 is really not good for anyone, Um, 50 50 is just what’s happening.

Andrea Reid Esq (06:13):
You know, You know, let’s be more creative about it. You and I do it all the time in mediation. You know what, you know what, uh, Adam is having a hard time in school. And so it would be better if he spent four consecutive days in one house as opposed to the other. Let’s look at what’s better for Adam and Julie and Jenny. Let’s look at each kid and each family and decide what’s better. And then when you have two parents who are absolutely toxic with one another and you’re forcing an equal time sharing schedule, you are going to ultimately punish those kids.

Matthew Brickman (06:46):
Well, and and what a lot of people don’t understand too is, you know, as we look at each family uniquely, uh, with, with the time sharing, just like you’re saying is, you know, okay, well then maybe you know, the child and, and look, and I’ve, I I’ve had it, look, we’re we’re in 2022. I’ve had it where, you know, mom and dad because again, there’s no presumption for or against, I’ve had it where the children are primarily with dad. I’ve, I’ve had it where, you know, maybe he’s the school parent just because whatever reason, it’s no longer gender, you know, specific at

Andrea Reid Esq (07:22):
All. I mean, dads are stepping up like crazy, man. I mean, that’s the coolest part.

Matthew Brickman (07:27):
Yeah. And so, and so, you know, what, what people don’t understand is in the negotiations of mediation is, you know, we may say, Okay, fine, just like you said, you know, maybe the child needs to be with one parent more during the school, but then, you know what, we’ll trade and do majority holidays maybe with the other parent. We may even trade and can’t do this outside of a mediation agreement. But in mediation everything is fair game. And we may even say, Look, we’ll do 50 50 timesharing for child support purposes, but we’re not doing 50. Maybe it’s a 55, 45 for, for, you know. And so we get creative for that particular family, but at least we have clear direction. Because you need to be able to tell people, I always tell people, Look, you have to understand the power of the court when you’re negotiating.

Matthew Brickman (08:19):
We can negotiate anything, but you have to understand the power of the court. But understand the power of the court means we have clear direction of what is the court going to do. And that was a problem with this particular bill, was all of a sudden the court didn’t have clear direction. You didn’t have clear direction. And so it would make even negotiations for all of it more difficult because when there’s no clear direction, cuz we, we can negotiate anything in mediation, but you have to understand, if you don’t get creative and settle it, then this is potentially what can happen.

Andrea Reid Esq (08:51):
Well, right. And that’s why I stay involved with this stuff because this is it. At the end of the day, I, I just wanna make sure that, that my colleagues and, and my friends who are going to family lawyers, you know, like that everybody knows what, what they’re getting into and that every, that we have a statute that’s clear. I mean, these things have to be clear. Um, because it, it’s, it just affects families so much, you know.

Matthew Brickman (09:17):
Okay. So, so I’ll end it with this. Thank you so much for joining them.

Andrea Reid Esq (09:22):
Oh, you’re so welcome. It was my pleasure.

Matthew Brickman (09:24):
So I’ll end it with this. I did a mediation, I’ve talked about this on, on my podcast before, but I did a mediation in Sweden a a number of years ago. Okay. Sweden has the highest co-parenting numbers, like off the chart of anywhere in the entire world. Their laws almost mirror Florida law with a couple of exceptions. Number one there is 50 50, everything is 50 50 timesharing. Period. End of story, it’s 50 50. Number two, it’s equitable distribution data, marriage data filing 50 50 straight across the board. Here’s one thing they don’t have. There is no of any type of, any form for anybody ever. It simply doesn’t exist. But here’s what’s interesting. They have the highest co-parenting of anyone after, because if you, if there is no alimony, well then you make completely different choices within the confines of your marriage. Maybe you don’t quit your job, maybe you don’t sacrifice to help your spouse’s career.

Matthew Brickman (10:34):
I’m not giving up anything of mine for you because I’m not getting paid later. Therefore, if there’s a divorce, there’s no resentment. There’s no entitlements, there’s no, nobody gave, So nobody gave anything up. And so what’s amazing is, you know, a lot of people talk about alimony as an entitlement program. It’s just another government entitlement program potentially. But if there’s no alimony, so, you know, look, I, you know, when we go into mediation, when you’re representing a client, we check our own opinions, beliefs, everything at the door. We’re there to help the parties do what they want to do, right? But if I was in charge, nobody would want me in charge. Um, but if, if I were in charge, there’d be no alimony. Um, I’d be like, No, you know what, no alimony every, because look, alimony also discourages work. And I was raised in the Midwest, I was raised, You don’t work.

Matthew Brickman (11:40):
You donate. Like, okay, work, contribute, take care of yourself, Never rely on anybody else, Get a help mate and a partner, but don’t get somebody that you rely on. Don’t give somebody else the power, the the ability over your provision, your sanity, your happiness, your ability to provide, take care of yourself, right? Bring something to the table. The other thing is alimony seems to discourage marriage and relationships. And we are human beings put on this planet for relationship. And when alimony then gets in the way of, Look, Andrea, I would really, really love to be with you, but you know, I love money more than I love you and I’m not giving up my alimony. Well, guess what? That creates resentment going back that can create resentments going forward. And it just,

Andrea Reid Esq (12:29):
You

Matthew Brickman (12:30):
Know, it just, you know,

Andrea Reid Esq (12:31):
Well, I think this is really more of a societal thing. This, you know, society is, is moving away from the single parent household, the single working parent household to a, you know, we, we support working households now a lot more than it was in the past. Um, you know, it’s, it, you know, I tell young girls that I know never give up your career. Never give up your career and become dependent. Uh, you know, and, and look and if you’re going to, because it’s necessary for your children. See, those are the cases where you just, I mean, there are some families where it is necessary for that child to have one of the two parents around the clock or it, it prevents another parent. And, and we still have to believe in

Matthew Brickman (13:17):
Those are your cases. What’s that? Those are your cases. And they’re not unicorn cases because they’re coming more and more where like you may have a child on the spectrum and they’re autistic and they may need both parents around. Right?

Andrea Reid Esq (13:31):
Um, right, Exactly. And, and you gotta think about that. It just, you know, every, but that goes back to it. I know every family needs something different. Every family needs something special,

Matthew Brickman (13:39):
Which is why, which is why you can’t just throw out the baby in the bathwater. You can’t just make 50 50 straight across the board. You can’t just say no alimony. Right. You can’t make, you know, all the things that this bill, while it well, it meant to do good, it’s soaked, entangled. So

Andrea Reid Esq (13:58):
Yeah, I mean I really, I I believe that across the board there were some really good intentions and there were some really good, um, ideas in this bill. Um, but it ultimately, it evolved into something that just really wasn’t good. It, it evolved that way, but it could have, it could be better. Um, you know, the, there were a lot of discussions. There was a lot of, you know, everybody was at the table. There was a lot of working on it, but at the end of the day, the, the retroactivity was always a non-starter. And it’s unfortunate that it went in there, you know,

Matthew Brickman (14:34):
And the retroactivity is unconstitutional.

Andrea Reid Esq (14:39):
Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean I, I appreciate, I appreciate that there, that it may be complicated to understand why it’s unconstitutional, because it doesn’t just flat out say, Hey, we’re gonna apply this retroactively. We’re gonna, it doesn’t look obvious, but it really is. I mean, you just can’t get around the fact that it’s an upheaval of the contract. Um, and if we don’t honor contracts, like what are we doing?

Matthew Brickman (15:07):
So, so Judge Burt in the 15th, I remember, I remember a number of years ago, and this has only happened to me five times in 15 years, but all the parties, um, agreed to set aside confidentiality and they subpoenaed me to come in and testify because the mother wanted to have the agreement set aside. And Judge Burton said to her, I’ll never forget this. He said, Ma’am, is this your initial on the bottom of every page? Yes. Is this your signature on the mediation agreement and the parenting plan? Yes. He said, Ma’am, I’m sorry that today you do not like the contract that you signed previously, but if I undid every contract after somebody signed it, we’d have anarchy. And I can’t do that. And I’m sorry. And that is exactly what you are saying here, is we cannot go back and just undo contracts. I’m sorry that today’s amicable divorce is tomorrow’s blood bath, but you got a contract.

Andrea Reid Esq (16:21):
That’s right. That’s right. That’s right. Anyway, it’s a pleasure.

Matthew Brickman (16:26):
Well, thank you so much and, uh,

Andrea Reid Esq (16:29):
I hope I was helpful.

Matthew Brickman (16:30):
Oh, you were so helpful. You know what, I learned a lot. So <laugh>,

Andrea Reid Esq (16:34):
I’m glad,

Matthew Brickman (16:35):
I’m glad I learned a lot because, you know, look, I was, I simply went and saw it applies beginning July 1st, 2022 and thereafter going, There’s no retroactivity here, not understanding all the ins and outs. Um, and I do this and, and look, I I, I, I do, I I’ve been doing this for 15 years. I know, I know how to read case line, know how to read statutes, and even I was confused. Um, so I can only imagine people that aren’t educated like you where I to do this, how it could be on its face going, you know, all, all the things that we’ve already talked about, all the things that they keep saying and it’s just so convoluted. So thank you for the clarity.

Andrea Reid Esq (17:16):
Oh, you’re so welcome. All right. Take care then.

Matthew Brickman (17:19):
All right. Thanks Andrea. Bye. Right, bye bye.

Matthew Brickman:
Occasionally Sydney and I will be releasing Q & A bonus episodes where we will answer questions and give you a personal shout out.

Sydney Mitchell:
If you have a comment or question regarding anything that we discuss, email us at info@ichatmediation.com that’s info@ichatmediation.com and stay tuned to hear your shout out and have your question answered here on the show.