Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1995 02:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 244 - PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT Number 1216 MS. STRAUBE testified that right now, there are new federal guidelines that require that 75 percent of all child support orders be established within six months. In order to establish child support orders, paternity must be established. "Paternity," she said, "is taking an eternity." CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented that he thought it only took nine months. MS. STRAUBE said the bad news is, that despite all the work done by the CSED, the CSED then has to give their work to the courts who more or less "rubber stamp it." That is because the CSED uses the court's standards to determine paternity. Sometimes the case sits on the court's docket for six months. Therefore, with the files just sitting in the courts for six months waiting for signature, it is already clear the CSED cannot make the time constraints, because it only has six months to do all their work. MS. STRAUBE said that is why the CSED is very concerned about this issue. The CSED could shave six months off the process if it were able to administratively establish the process. The CSED already uses the court standards as set forth in AS 25.20.050. Those standards are basically either a voluntary acknowledgement, or the genetic test shows that the likelihood of a person being the father is 95 percent or more. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON re-joined the meeting at 3:12 p.m. MS. STRAUBE noted that due process would be assured so the decision would be open to judicial review. The CSED thinks it is a good investment for a yearly general fund investment of $72,700. For that amount, the CSED can bring in $850,000 per year in its share of AFDC reimbursements. It makes sense, therefore, for the state, for the children, and to the federal government. The federal government is moving in that direction. In fact, part of the GOP Contract with America stated it wanted to see more states doing administrative processes and cutting down the time, instead of having to go to the courts for everything. Number 1344 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked who would comprise the "tribunal" as referred to in the bill. MS. STRAUBE said the definition given on page 2, lines 18 through 20 of the bill, is that a tribunal means "a court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial entity authorized by law to determine parentage." CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked to back track. A bill was presented to the HESS Committee members last year by Representative Bettye Davis that tried to establish paternity at birth in the hospitals. She asked if that legislation has had any impact at all. MS. STRAUBE said the hospitals were kind of already doing that. The bill simply made it more likely that the hospitals would do it. It has been more successful. The state cannot force anyone to sign anything, but, Representative Bettye Davis's bill made it more likely as the father would be feeling joyous about the event. MS. STRAUBE said that legislation is working, but there is no similarity between those bills. The bills do not replace each other. Number 1422 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked what percentage of children born have a mother that refuses to name the father. MS. STRAUBE said she could not answer that sufficiently. She said she can tell Co-Chair Toohey how many cases there are in which the parentage is unknown. Whether the mother refuses to name the father or they don't know, the division does not know the difference. Out of about 3,200 paternity establishment in progress cases, 639 are unnamed fathers. About 2,600 fathers have been named. CO-CHAIR BUNDE assumed there are mechanisms to encourage mothers who do know the names of their child(ren)'s father to divulge that information. MS. STRAUBE answered that this is not part of her division's job. However, she does know that Public Assistance has the right to deny public assistance to those who do not have a very good reason for not naming the father. The CSED does believe, however, that there are those who really do not know the names of the father. CO-CHAIR BUNDE disagreed with her first comment. He said finding out paternity certainly is a job of the CSED. MS. STRAUBE corrected her former statement by saying that the CSED cannot enforce any punitive measures. Only the Department of Health and Social Services can enforce punitive measures. Number 1498 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if there was any way of forcing DNA testing on a group of, say, three people for a child of an unknown father. MS. STRAUBE said if a person does not agree to blood testing, the CSED can default that person as the father of the child. The individual is always free to take the blood test and disprove that paternity. Number 1558 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how often that default paternity is evoked. MS. STRAUBE said that provision is evoked regularly. It is the procedure of the CSED that if the proposed father will not cooperate, he is defaulted. It then takes a long time, but if the paternity is defaulted, the court has to agree to the default, then the order is placed for income withholding, and eventually the child support is hopefully gleaned. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if automatic DNA tests are done if the man admits that he might be the father. She also asked who does the testing. MS. STRAUBE said there was contention in that issue. If AFDC is being received, DNA testing is automatically performed. The CSED pays for that testing. If the case is not AFDC, the CSED does not pay for the test. However, those provisions are being studied anew. Number 1584 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked Ms. Straube to speak to the fiscal note on HB 244. MS. STRAUBE said in a full year, the majority of funds are either federal receipts matching, or they are federal incentives. The CSED did put down a general fund match of $72,700 in the funding source for 1997. She used the example of FY 97 because it is a full year and may be easier to see the figures. MS. STRAUBE said the important thing to remember is that, if one looks at the change in revenues, the bill is bringing in $850,000 to the state coffers. The gains far outweigh any expense to the state. REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY joined the meeting at 3:22 p.m. SHANNON O'FALLON, Assistant Attorney General, Human Service Section, Department of Law (DOL), said her area of work focuses on Child Support Enforcement. If a man has been named in a paternity complaint and the man refuses to be blood tested, one of the things the department can do is go to the court and ask for sanctions. One of the sanctions requested is that the man is defaulted on paternity. The court fairly routinely grants that default as long as the DOL shows that the man is willfully refusing to test. MS. O'FALLON said it must be shown that an appointment has been repeatedly set up for them, and they never show up. With default, the court adjudicates the individual the father of the child without blood testing. MS. STRAUBE said the state cannot test anyone without cooperation. Number 1691 MS. O'FALLON wanted to also note that if a man is excluded through blood testing, he does not pay for blood testing costs. If the case is not under AFDC, and the man is found to be the father through the genetic test, the man then pays the blood test costs. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said his question about the fiscal note was not to indicate anxiety. He simply wanted the fiscal note explained for the edification of the committee, and to put into the record that Ms. Straube anticipates this bill will generate money for the general fund. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the 3,200 figure mentioned for the paternity establishment in progress cases was a per year figure. MS. STRAUBE answered that was the total number of pending cases right now. Those cases involve trying to get affidavits signed by the mother, or trying to get cases signed by the court. Ms. Straube said she did not know how many new cases the division gets a year. However, 3,200 is a huge backlog, and the CSED is working very hard to close that backlog. Everything that can be done is being attempted. MS. STRAUBE said the CSED is doing some collocating with Public Assistance to try and shorten the time period, it is asking for HB 244, it is working with the DOL to shorten the time period, and administrative changes are taking place to take care of that terrible backlog. There are far too many people wondering who the father is in their particular case. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY closed public testimony and asked for the wish of the committee. CO-CHAIR BUNDE moved HB 244 with accompanying "money-making" fiscal note and individual recommendations. There were no objections and the bill was moved.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|