Christopher Foster, Appellant v. Leah Foster, Appellee — Wood, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Wood concurred in affirming the attorney-fee award but dissented from the majority’s treatment of rehabilitative alimony. She would have reversed and remanded because the circuit court awarded support to maintain Leah Foster’s income and accommodate childcare needs without requiring a plan directed toward education, training, employment, or self-support. Chief Justice Brill, dissenting separately, would have held that the award was permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony and should not have been affirmed under the rehabilitative-alimony statute.