Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/06/1995 08:30 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL 115
"An Act relating to the establishment, modification,
and enforcement of support orders and the determination
of parentage in situations involving more than one
state; amending Alaska Rule of Administration 9;
amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and 82; and
providing for an effective date."
STEWART HALL, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, spoke in support of
SB 115. He stated that passage of the bill would help many
people who have sought help through the Ombudsman's Office.
He summarized that enactment of the legislation would
streamline the process by providing speedier collection of
payments. He urged favorable consideration of the bill.
GLENDA STRAUBE, DIRECTOR, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained that the proposed
bill was two bills rolled into one. The first bill
addresses the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
which would eliminate the multiple order system. She
commented that the current system is unfair and difficult to
manage. The legislation would establish one continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction and determination would be defined in
that legislation. This was written from the federal
guidelines and has been implemented by other states.
Ms. Straube pointed out that 44% of the agency's caseload
involves inter-state cases. Once another state becomes
involved, the situation becomes complicated because of
individual state laws.
The legislation would also generate additional collection of
$340 thousand per year of the State's share of Alaska
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) reimbursements.
2
Ms. Straube continued, the second portion of the bill would
result in the administrative paternity establishment. New
federal guidelines require that 75% of all child support
orders must be established within six months. She noted
that unfortunately, to establish orders, paternity must be
established. The legislation would allow administrative
establishment of paternity, at the same time providing a
"due process". Without the legislation passed, federal
timeliness will not be met. Ms. Straube pointed out that
the Senate Finance Committee amended the legislation in
order to create a "disestablishment" of paternity and that
the Department is concerned about that change.
Representative Parnell asked if other state exemptions would
be recognized for garnishment by Alaska.
MARILYN MAY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, responded
that the statute provides that in a direct income
withholding situation, the employer should treat the order
which came from another state as if it came from that
specific state. She commented that in Alaska, there are no
exemptions for child support.
Representative Parnell noted that a percentage of the annual
income would be used to determine the amount available for
garnishment. He questioned the concern that the current
Administration has with the "disestablishment" of paternity.
Ms. Straube noted that genetic testing is currently not
required, consequently, the State would be looking at places
of paternity not yet established by the courts. She said
that the State could be faced with people who had done a
voluntarily acknowledgement, following with the default
claimed.
Discussion followed between Representative Parnell, Ms. May
and Ms. Straube regarding the disestablishment of paternity.
Representative Martin asked what was being repealed in the
legislation. Ms. May stated that Chapter 25 is the Uniform
Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act (URESA) and that it is
the precursor to Uniform Law encompassed in SB 115. She
continued, previous to that law, the URESA was the uniform
law enacted by all the States.
Ms. Straube noted that modification occurs when there has
been a significant change either way. In the new
legislation, modification will be taken from the moment that
all parties have served and notified that the process is
occurring. Retroactive modification will not allow a person
3
to go back before filing. Ms. Straube concluded that it is
a federal mandate to allow people to file modifications.
There are no costs associated with filing a modification.
Representative Martin asked why the modification request was
being made. Ms. Straube advised that the Senate Finance
Committee added that portion of the bill and that it
addresses "disestablishment" of paternity. Ms. May directed
that the purpose of that aspect of the legislation was to
allow the person who disestablishes not to be required to
pay arrearage.
Representative Brown asked if all the civil rules of
procedural changes would relate to disestablishment of
paternity. Ms. May stated that they are not all related to
disestablishment. She responded to Representative Brown's
question regarding how the rule was changed. She stated
that under the legislation, if an obligee prevails in a
matter before the court, the obligor may be assessed costs;
if an obligor prevails, the court may not assess fees, costs
or expenses against the obligee.
Representative Parnell asked if a requirement exists that
the father be informed of his right to file a paternity
suit. Ms. Straube explained that the father would need to
respond within thirty days regarding the suit.
Representative Parnell asked if the same circumstances would
exist with the Notice of Repeal. Ms. Straube replied that
when the father is notified that they have lost the appeal,
they are then notified that they have the right to judicial
review.
Representative Parnell examined that one could
administratively start proceedings to determine the
paternity of the child, although at the same time, the
legislation would not allow the father to disestablish their
paternity obligation through the courts. Ms. Straube
explained that portion had not been a part of the original
legislation, although, now that it is included, the
Department is not testifying to have it removed. She
commented that the issue in regards to disestablishment is
far bigger. In order to establish paternity, the court will
look at two concerns:
1. Does the genetic test prove a 95% or better chance
who the father is; or
2. Has the father provided a voluntary
acknowledgment.
If either circumstance has occurred, that person is
adjudicated to be the father.
4
Representative Parnell asked the fiscal impact of the
"disestablishment" section of the bill. Ms. Straube stated
that it will affect the Department and that effect will
depend on the "run" resulting from the action. She thought
that there would be many more requests then currently
exists.
Ms. Straube commented that the courts do not have
established standards. They look at the entire picture.
She felt that it would be a lot of power delegated to that
agency.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt to Amendment #1.
[Attachment #1]. Representative Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Parnell thought that the amendment would
establish a system which could disestablish paternity, then
granting the agency authority to create regulations.
Representative Mulder remarked that the amendment would add
additional unnecessary laws on the books.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out the tremendous
expense to the Department in establishing the paternity of a
child. He spoke in support of the amendment.
Representative Parnell pointed out that the cost of the
genetic testing would be assessed against the petitioner if
paternity was established.
Ms. Straube spoke to the tremendous costs currently within
the Department. She added that punitive fathers have the
right at all times to go to court to "disestablish".
Representative Mulder countered the tremendous expense "to
go" to court.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-115, Side 1).
Representative Brown asked if the Division had fee
establishing authority. Ms. Straube noted that they do have
it for genetic testing. Representative Brown stated that
agencies do not have the authority to establish fees unless
the Legislature provides that authority. She then
questioned the legal recourse that an adoptive parent would
have. Ms. Straube stated that the Senate provided an
amendment on Page 30, Line 30, stating: "...unless
established by court" which would specifically cover
adoption paternity concern.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment #1.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring,
Martin, Mulder, Foster
5
Representatives Navarre and Hanley were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
Representative Therriault distributed and briefly discussed
an amendment provided to the Committee as drafted by Senator
Rieger. [Attachment #2].
CS SB 115 (FIN) was HELD in Committee for further
discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|