alimony.jpg

Gov. Chris Christie has signed a bill (A845) that makes significant changes to New Jersey's alimony law.

(Star-Ledger file photo)

For the most part, the alimony reform bill signed by Gov. Christie doesn't make our system better. It encroaches on the discretion of judges in favor of a more formulaic approach.

But look at it this way: it could have been much worse. Disgruntled reformers -- mostly men paying alimony and their latter wives -- were ardently pushing the narrative that our current system is utterly broken, sentencing them to lives of indentured servitude.

They would have us believe that the solution needs to be draconian, too. Rather than simply making it easier to adjust a payment when circumstances change, they set out to impose strict caps on the initial alimony award.

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed. This new law is a compromise. The best thing it does is correct the misnomer of "permanent alimony." It changes that term -- what critics dubbed "lifetime alimony" -- to better reflect what it actually is: An indefinite award that can be reduced or terminated when circumstances change.

The number 1 complaint from payers was that it was too difficult to get alimony relief in such situations. This bill helps by giving judges more guidance on what to look for when adjusting alimony due to a job loss or retirement. A man who loses his job can come to court after 90 days and seek to have his alimony reduced or temporarily lifted. All good.

But here's the problem: The bill also imposes a numerical formula for marriages under 20 years, saying the total length of alimony shall not exceed the length of the marriage, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

It's illogical to tie alimony to the length of a marriage. Research shows that women who take time out of the workforce experience a permanent loss in earning potential. Think of the lawyer who gives up her one chance at making partner to stay home and take care of kids.

This new law doesn't eliminate judicial discretion entirely, but it does reduce it. So judges must take seriously their obligation to bring about a fair result. The law also invites judges to suspend or terminate alimony when a recipient cohabitates, regardless of whether the financial needs have actually changed. What if a live-in boyfriend is out on disability and can't contribute financially?

More reason not to limit the scope of a judge's freedom to decide what to do. Divorce is messy and the courts don't always get it right. But there are harrowing stories on both sides of the alimony equation -- and none mean you'll see fairer results with a formula.

FOLLOW THE STAR-LEDGER: TWITTER • FACEBOOK