04/27/1995 02:05 PM House HES

 HB 242 - UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT                              
                                                                               
 GLENDA STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division                  
 (CSED), Department of Revenue, said HB 242 relates to all the                 
 procedures the division must go through to collect money for child            
 support in other states.  The most difficult cases for CSED to                
 collect are interstate cases.  Those types of cases comprise 44               
 percent of the caseload.  Most noncustodial parents know the best             
 way to get away from paying child support is to cross state lines.            
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE had to speak as a sponsor of a bill in another                 
 committee.  He turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Toohey, and said             
 he would return promptly.  It was 3:01 p.m.                                   
                                                                               
 MS. STRAUBE said HB 242 would provide a tool to help the CSED to              
 collect in those cases.  Probably the most important thing the bill           
 will do is eliminate the multiple order system that already exists.           
 This is a problem.  For example, one party has a support order in             
 Colorado, and one party has a support order in Alaska.  There                 
 really is no clear guidance on which support order the CSED should            
 enforce.                                                                      
                                                                               
 MS. STRAUBE stated HB 242 would eliminate that problem.  It would             
 make it very clear as to who has continuing, exclusive                        
 jurisdiction.  It would promote efficiency by using the same                  
 federal forms for all interstate cases.  It would also allow direct           
 income withholding from one state to another.  One of the most                
 frequent complaints CSED receives from obligees/custodial parents             
 is that the other state is not collecting any money, and/or not               
 collecting it fast enough.  This bill would make it easier for the            
 CSED to withhold income, and not depend so much on whether or not             
 another state's child support office is operating very well.                  
                                                                               
 Number 700                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. STRAUBE continued that there are no expenditures forecasted for           
 this bill.  However, the bill would collect $340,000 per year for             
 the state's share of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children              
 (AFDC) reimbursement.  There would also be another $680,000 that              
 would go directly to children.                                                
                                                                               
 MS. STRAUBE said when the CSED collects money, it does it in two              
 different ways.  One way is that the money is collected and it goes           
 to reimburse the CSED for AFDC costs.  Or, if the money is not an             
 AFDC case, the money goes directly to the children.  This bill is             
 very important, and basically the federal government has mandated             
 this type of action.  There are at least 21 states that have                  
 already approved this action, and Ms. Straube felt that number had            
 increased.  Alaska is the only state left in Region X (ten) that              
 had not passed this type of legislation.                                      
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE returned to the meeting at 3:05 p.m.                           
                                                                               
 MS. STRAUBE said this bill was up last year, but it did not make it           
 all the way through before the end of the session.  There were no             
 problems with the bill, and no one testified against it, but it               
 simply got lost in the shuffle.  She added that it was originally             
 introduced in the House.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 798                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she has gotten several letters on child                  
 support enforcement, and she has passed those letters on to Ms.               
 Straube.  She asked if the maximum amount the state is allowed to             
 withhold from a delinquent father is uniform across the U.S., or              
 does the amount vary from state to state.  She asked how the amount           
 would be kept fairly uniform, and what is the state's percentage.             
                                                                               
 MS. STRAUBE answered that on arrearages, the state's percentage is            
 up to 50 percent.  That is different than what the state would be             
 receiving if the enforcement was ongoing.  If the enforcement is              
 ongoing, a percentage of the delinquent parent's salary is taken.             
                                                                               
 MS. STRAUBE said for one child, the amount of income withheld is 20           
 percent.  Two children is 27 percent, three children is 33 percent.           
                                                                               
 Number 851                                                                    
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE shared, for the committee's information, that he has           
 spoken to a guardian in Anchorage who looks after the interests of            
 a man who has sired 20 children and pays zero child support.  He              
 then reassumed the gavel, and asked for further testimony.                    
                                                                               
 ART PETERSON, Attorney, Dillon and Finley Law Firm, said he was               
 testifying in his role as a uniformed law commissioner for Alaska.            
 He said that in the uniform laws conference, his organization began           
 working on this type of legislation in 1989, having had by that               
 time several decades of experience with the current (now old)                 
 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.  Several decades of            
 experience brought to light numerous problems.  The primary problem           
 is the one of inconsistent, multi-state court orders.                         
                                                                               
 MR. PETERSON said HB 242 removes that problem.  That is the single            
 most significant provision in the bill.  By removing that problem,            
 the system is made more efficient so the courts and the                       
 administrative agencies funding these issues can deal with them               
 more expeditiously.  It makes the system easier to understand and             
 thus fairer to both parties, the obligors and the obligees.  It               
 also provides a better way to get support for these kids, which is            
 the primary purpose of all such legislation.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 968                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. PETERSON noted that HESS Committee members have just received             
 his letter of April 25, 1995, to which he attached some amendments.           
 Those actually set out the amendments that are mentioned in a                 
 letter from Marilyn May of the Attorney General's Office.  Mr.                
 Peterson said he would be happy to answer any questions, and                  
 expressed his strong support for this bill. The sooner this bill is           
 placed on the books, the better off the state government and the              
 people involved in the child support system will be.                          
                                                                               
 Number 1002                                                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the proposed amendments were simply                   
 conforming amendments with Title 9 at the request of the Governor.            
                                                                               
 MR. PETERSON answered that was not quite true.  The amendments seek           
 to conform with Administrative Title 9 of the court system.  It is            
 essentially at the request of the courts, or at the sense of anyone           
 reading what has happened, because the court has already made the             
 change referred to.  Therefore, the bill should not refer to those            
 "changes" because they will not be changes.                                   
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the amendments were made with the                     
 concurrence of the Governor.                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. PETERSON answered that was correct.                                       
                                                                               
 CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would call the amendment attached to Mr.               
 Peterson's letter amendment one, and move amendment one.  The                 
 amendment begins on page 1, line 3.  There were no objections and             
 amendment one was adopted.                                                    
                                                                               
 STUART HALL, Ombudsman, State of Alaska, said his office is in very           
 strong support of this legislation and its companion measure in the           
 Senate.  The enactment of this legislation would assist many who              
 have sought the help of the State Ombudsman over the last years               
 with the CSED.  In FY 94-95, to date, the ombudsman has assisted              
 over 1,660 individuals with complaints about the CSED.  Many of the           
 complaints were filed by custodial parents who depend on the                  
 division to collect child support from the out-of-state parent.               
                                                                               
 MR. HALL said a large number of those complaints came from single             
 parents concerned about the slow pace of case establishment and               
 child support collection.  Enactment of this legislation would                
 streamline the establishment process, which would, in turn, prompt            
 speedier collections.  Two things the Ombudsman's Office likes                
 about the bill is the simplification of the process:  The                     
 elimination of the multi-state, multi-jurisdictional orders; and              
 the ability, under this statute, to go directly from the last order           
 to the employer in Colorado, or wherever.                                     
                                                                               
 MR. HALL said those elements should cut down on the frustration and           
 confusion and the delay, which are the kinds of complaints most               
 often heard.  This legislation is endorsed heavily, and Mr. Hall              
 urged its early and speedy enactment.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 1187                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 242 from the HESS Committee with                
 individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.  There              
 were no objections, and the bill was moved.