Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 242 - UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT The next order of business was CSHB 242(HES) GLENDA STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), Department of Revenue, explained HB 242. In child support enforcement, the most difficult cases for us to collect on are interstate cases, and that is 44 percent of our caseload. Most noncustodial parents know that crossing state lines is the best way to avoid paying child support. This would provide a tremendous tool for us to collect in those cases. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) has been passed already by at least 21 states, and is being considered in many other states right now. It is also part of, as is HB 244, part of the personal responsibility act, which passed out of the House in Congress recently. This bill would eliminate the multiple order system existing under current law. Right now, we are faced with people who come to us, where one party has got a California order, another has an order from Mississippi, then they are in Alaska, and it is really a mess. It really is up to our discretion to choose, and we do not like to be in that position. Better, that across the country there be only one jurisdiction, what they call continuing conclusive jurisdiction, and that is where the order comes from. That is what the modifications say that is where all the work is done. This bill would take care of that problem. MS. STRAUBE stated the bill also makes their job easier administratively. With this act, we would be using the same federal forms in all interstate cases. This will also provide a long arm jurisdiction to reach out of state obligors and would allow direct income withholding in other states. Currently, you hear complaints from custodial parents, and most of these complaints come from custodial parents in situations where the obligor is out of the state. We have to go through the long process in the other state, getting on their long list, and maybe we are not their priority. Our children are not their priority. It takes a very long time before they will go out to the employer, and withhold some money for the children. This would allow direct income withholding. MS. STRAUBE mentioned that there are no additional operating expenditures for this bill. However, we expect that in the first full year we will be able to collect $340,000, per year, just to reimburse the state's share of Aide to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). We usually do about double that amount, $680,000, per year, that goes directly to the children. We are talking about a lot more collections, and a lot more to reimburse AFDC, and a lot more money directly to the children who deserve this money and support. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why we should have the change in Section 6 of the Health, Education and Social Services Committee substitute CS, which provides an exemption for this law from Civil Rule Procedures 79 and 82. Why should we, under this area of law, give people different consideration in court in terms of getting their attorney fees if they are the prevailing party, as opposed to other areas of law where we have Rule 79 or Rule 82? MARILYN MAY, Assistant Attorney General, Collections and Support Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, answered his question. On page 13 of the CS, line 15, it says that a petitioner who files a petition under this chapter does not have to pay a filing fee or other costs. A petitioner could be either an obligor or an obligee. It is the person who is seeking some kind of relief, and that may be someone who is seeking to have a support order either adopted or enforced, or modified either up or down. That could be either an obligor or an obligee, whoever files the petition, under (a). Under (b) it states that if an obligee prevails, those costs and fees may be assessed against the obligor. She assumed that what Representative Vezey was referring to about the difference in the way it is treated is that it also says the tribunal may not assess fees, costs, or expense against the obligee or the Child Support Agency, except as required by other law, or court rule. She did not know specifically why the uniform law commissioners originally adopted that concept, but it was done without consideration of the way attorney's fees are assessed in Alaska. In Alaska, there are other laws or court rules that provide for the assessment of costs and fees in favor of the prevailing party, so in fact, this language would probably not change the way Alaska already does it. In other states, it would be true that a prevailing obligor could not get costs and fees against an obligee or the CSEA, but since in Alaska there is other laws or court rules that allows for that, then most likely they could get costs and fees. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said Section 6 provides for a tribunal. He said he was not sure how they were defining tribunal. MS. MAY answered that a tribunal is either a court or the agency. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how many states have adopted the provision allowing that they may not require a filing fee. MS. MAY answered that 23 states have so far. Number 370 STUART HALL, Ombudsman, spoke in strong support of HB 242 as well as its companion measurement in the Senate. Enactment of UIFSA would assist many who have sought the Ombudsman's help with the Alaska Child Support Enforcement Division. In fiscal year 1994 and 1995, the Ombudsman has assisted almost 1,700 individuals with complaints against the CSED, many of whom are custodial parents who depend upon the division to collect child support from an out of state parent. Ms. Straube said that 44 percent of her caseload reflected out of state or interstate ramifications. He suspected it was significantly more than that because a large number of those complaints that we see and hear from are from parents concerned about the slow pace of case establishment on child support collection. That occurs most typically in situations where there is not a support order. Under the present system where you have multiple support orders, and where you cannot take an Alaska order and go directly to the employer to collect that support, it is a very time consuming process under the existing uniform act, known as the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Child Support. We think that enactment of UIFSA would streamline the establishment process and in turn, prompt speedier collections. It will allow CSED to deal directly with employers in other states. Those are two very important changes in the law that we think will benefit Alaska's kids. MR. HALL explained that he felt the reason for the change in the Civil Rules is that the Alaska Constitution, which gives the courts the right to establish the Rules of Procedure, does not preclude the legislature from doing so, but says if they do amend or change a rule of court, they have to identify, in the Title, and you get the kind of boiler plate language that appears in Section 6 of the bill. Art Peterson, who was for some years a revisor of statutes, is not here. He is one of the commissioners on Uniform State Law. He could answer that question since he wrote the drafting manual for legislation, and also for Administrative Regulations. CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that Art Peterson, who had to leave, is in support of this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY proposed an amendment that would delete Section 6. CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if someone from the agency would like to speak to this amendment. Number 500 MS. MAY noted that the few very minor changes that have been made thus far from the language of the Uniform Act have been run by the Uniform commissioners and they were approved. The purpose of having a Uniform Act is to make things nearly the same in every state as possible. She did not know whether the amendment would be a change that is so substantive that the uniform law commissioners would now consider this not to be complying with the uniform law, but that would be the concern. The change is so minor to what the current rule says under Alaska Rule 79 and Rule 82, she did not think taking this would make a very substantial difference in what Alaska's current law is. It does in other states. In other states that do not have Rule 79 and Rule 82, this is a really big deal because it gives one party a right to attorney's fees, but in our state both sides have this possible right to attorney's fees. It does operate to amend Rules 79 and 82, but it is a very minor change that the court already has the authority to do. She did not think it is a very good idea, because it then conflicts with the uniform law. She does not remember if Ms. Straube testified to this but the U.S. Congress is looking at mandating the adoption of UIFSA by all states as part of the welfare reform movement. Again, the problem is how far away you can drift from the uniform law and still meet those requirements and be able to get the federal funding. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Vezey and Toohey voted yes. Representatives Finkelstein, Davis, Bunde, Green and Porter voted no. Amendment 1 failed on a vote of five to two. CHAIRMAN PORTER moved his amendment, which would replace the language that was inadvertently left out of the CS which was in the original version. This is on page 1, and would address the change in the definition of the act. Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 242(HES) out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|