We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
John Cleese got divorced in California about fifteen or twenty years ago, and the divorce court took him to the cleaners.
I don't think that divorce court settlements should be decided by a Judge. They should be decided by a Jury. The Jury can decide how much each person gets. But the Government hates Juries; Judges are always trying to tell people what they "can" consider, what they "can't" consider. It's the long-term goal of our government to get rid of Juries altogether. Why? Because there is never a guarantee that Juries will decide in the right direction. The State must always win!
I predict that, if not overturned or repealed, this innovation will turn out to be a big improvement. For one thing, it will mean that dispute resolution mechanisms used in other areas of contract law, such as arbitration, will be available to replace divorce courts.
My sister used to be the Executive Director of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. This organization teaches attorneys how to mediate a divorce; so that couples can save the expense of hiring two lawyers.
Surprisingly, attorneys had a tough time selling this solution to couples who were planning a divorce. My sister told me that when people are divorcing, the relations between them are so bitter that they would rather fight it out in court.