Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
04/13/2009 08:00 AM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB96|| HB192 | |
| HB36 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 96 - CHILD SUPPORT/ CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT HB 192 - CHILD SUPPORT/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT 8:06:22 AM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be a hearing on two bills: CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 96(FIN), "An Act relating to nonpayment of child support, to the definition of the term "state" for the purposes of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, to certain judicial and administrative orders for medical support of a child, to periodic review and adjustment of child support orders, to relief from administrative child support orders, to child support arrearages, and to medical support of a child and the Alaska Native family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."; and HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to nonpayment of child support; relating to certain judicial and administrative orders for medical support of a child; relating to periodic review and adjustment of child support orders; relating to relief from administrative child support orders; relating to child support arrearages; relating to medical support of a child and the Alaska Native family assistance program; amending Rule 90.3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 192(HSS).] 8:07:32 AM LYNDA ZAUGG, Staff, Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State Legislature, explained on behalf of the sponsor, the Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee, which is chaired by Senator Davis, that SB 96 would bring Alaska into compliance with the federal Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which requires states to establish guidelines addressing how either or both parents will provide for a child's healthcare needs and to include the term "Indian tribe" in the definition of "state". These two conforming changes will result in procedural changes for enforcement and modification of child support orders from other jurisdictions. If a parent is ordered to pay for healthcare, including cash medical support, the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) must enforce the ongoing medical support obligation as well as collect any cash medical- support arrears. Including the term "Indian tribe" in the definition of "state" will not expand or restrict tribal jurisdiction. Failure to satisfy these UIFSA requirements would jeopardize $85 million in federal funding for Alaska's child support program and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. MS. ZAUGG said that SB 96 adds the terms "Indian tribe" and "United States Virgin Islands" to the definition of the term "state" [as used in AS 25.25]; adds to existing law the authority for a tribunal to order either or both parents to pay cash medical support if warranted; directs the CSSD to review child support orders for modification on a federally-mandated three-year cycle; adds the term "cash medical support" to the definition of the terms "arrearage" and "support order", thereby enabling the CSSD to use its existing enforcement tools to collect a cash medical support obligation on behalf of the child; and removes language limiting who may request the correction of a clerical mistake in an administrative order or request the vacation of an administrative order that is based on a default amount. Senate Bill 96 would put Alaska in compliance with the federal requirements that ensure Alaska's children receive the medical support to which they are entitled, and would ensure that Alaska receives the aforementioned $85 million in federal funding for Alaska's child support program and the TANF program. 8:10:05 AM SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as chair of the Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee, sponsor, and in response to a question, offered that CSSB 96(FIN) now contains some legislative intent language, which is supported by the department. MS. ZAUGG added that the intent language addresses the proposed changes to the definition of the term "state". SENATOR DAVIS, in response to a further question, offered her understanding that Guam would be included under the [existing] definition of the term "state". 8:12:43 AM JESSIE M. ARCHIBALD, Staff Attorney, Tribal Child Support Unit, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (CCTHITA), referred to Amendment 1, and relayed that the CCTHITA objects to its language; Amendment 1 read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, lin2 [sic] 5: Insert new subsection: (b) The proposed changes made in AS 25.25.101(19) under sec. 3 of this Act are conforming amendments that will result in procedural changes in Alaska for enforcement and modification of child support orders from other jurisdictions. UIFSA does not determine the authority of an Indian tribe to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order. In Alaska, the scope of tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order is an unsettled legal question, due in part to the lack of Indian country in most of the state. In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction to enter, modify, or enforce child support orders, and the amendments are not intended, either directly or impliedly, to acknowledge, expand, or restrict tribal jurisdiction. MS. ARCHIBALD said the CCTHITA believes that the language of Amendment 1 is unnecessary because the UIFSA is simply a set of procedures pertaining to interstate processing of child support orders, and does not confer jurisdiction to the tribe; instead, the UIFSA deals with the contents of petitions, nondisclosure of personal information, special rules for interstate transmission of evidence and discovery, streamlining interstate processes, and allowing for child support orders to be created administratively rather than just by the court. Furthermore, the UIFSA already has built-in procedures for the non-registrant to raise objections about the issuing tribunal's subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and other matters that might limit the recognition and enforcement of an order by Alaska's tribunals. The language of Amendment 1 would set out tribal child support orders for particular scrutiny, implying that such scrutiny should be hostile, and suggesting that the legislature is prejudging the validity of an objection based upon unsettled jurisdictional issues and the nature of Indian tribes in Alaska. MS. ARCHIBALD offered her belief that the intent language essentially endorses the principle that a child support obligor can get out of paying his/her child support simply by objecting on the basis of unsettled jurisdictional issues and the nature of Indian tribes in Alaska. The legislature should instead leave those issues to individual litigants and the courts. Collecting child support is hard enough without having legislative intent language that could allow deadbeat parents to get out of paying their child support obligations. The CCTHITA, she relayed, would like to propose the following alternative legislative intent language [original punctuation provided]: (b) The legislature recognizes that child support enforcement programs are administered by Federal, State, and Tribal entities that address the establishment of paternity and enforcement of support orders with the intent of promoting the general economic welfare and the best interest of dependent children. UIFSA provides a vehicle for the non- registrant to raise objections about the issuing tribunal's subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and other matters that may make a specific order not entitled to recognition and enforcement in Alaska's tribunals. The intent of the legislature is that tribal child support orders should be subject to the same types of objections, and to the same extent, as child support orders from tribunals of other jurisdictions. It is the intent of the legislature is [sic] to provide a procedural vehicle for Tribal child support orders for such orders to be registered in Alaska state tribunals in the same manner child support orders from other tribunals are registered. This legislation is not intended to prejudge the validity of any specific order or the validity of any objections to a specific order. 8:19:40 AM MS. ARCHIBALD said that the CCTHITA's goal is to ensure that Tlingit and Haida children receive the financial and emotional support of both their parents, and that the UIFSA's goal is to provide for efficient, streamlined processing of child support orders. However, the CCTHITA is of the opinion that the current language of Amendment 1 will instead result in Alaska being out of compliance with the UIFSA, and thus not eligible for the aforementioned federal funding. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that Amendment 1 just preserves the status quo and therefore doesn't really matter. MS. ARCHIBALD, in response to comments and questions, provided further information about the UIFSA, and reiterated that the CCTHITA objects to the current language of Amendment 1 believing it to be both unnecessary and likely to be used by child support obligors to get out of paying their child support orders. SENATOR DAVIS expressed a preference for leaving the language of SB 96 as is, without the language Amendment 1 is proposing to add. MS. ARCHIBALD, in response to a question, said that the language in Amendment 1 regarding the UIFSA is unnecessary because it's only stating the already-known fact that the UIFSA does not determine the authority of an Indian tribe to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order; furthermore, the statement that there are unsettled legal questions in Alaska regarding the scope of tribal authority is problematic because child support obligors could use that legislative intent language to refuse to pay a child support order from the tribe on the basis that even the legislature thinks that tribes don't have clear jurisdiction to issue such an order. Again, the language in Amendment 1 could be used by those wishing to get out of paying child support. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed a preference for adopting Amendment 1, offering his belief that it would provide necessary clarification regarding the proposed changes to the definition of the term "state". CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that Amendment 1 be amended by deleting the language that reads, "UIFSA does not determine the authority of an Indian tribe to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order". MS. ARCHIBALD, in response to a question, said she also objects to the language of Amendment 1 that reads, "In Alaska, the scope of tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order is an unsettled legal question". Again, that language could give a child support obligor a chance to get out of paying his/her child support order. Regardless that there is some jurisdictional conflict, child support obligors shouldn't be given any ammunition to say, "Well, the legislature even agrees that we're not sure you have any authority, so why should I have to pay my child support?" With regard to the language of Amendment 1 that reads, "the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction", she pointed out that the legislature doesn't have the authority to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction, and thus that language is incorrect. In response to a question, she again reiterated that the CCTHITA's view is that Amendment 1 is unnecessary. 8:36:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. 8:36:49 AM GINGER BLAISDELL, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), in response to a question, explained that the Department of Revenue (DOR) sent a request that intent language, made up of two paragraphs, be added to SB 96. The first paragraph was added to CSSB 96(FIN) but the second paragraph - the language now contained in Amendment 1 - was left out because the drafter thought it merely described the first paragraph. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the language of Amendment 1 is not supported by Senator Davis. 8:38:23 AM PETER PUTZIER, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), in response to a question, relayed that the intent of the language in Amendment 1 is simply to preserve the status quo of the State not taking a position on the scope of tribal jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction, particularly with regard to domestic relations, is being contested in court and will continue to be contested. The concern, therefore, is that without clarification, the State would have to spend time in superior court arguing the legislative intent of the bill, and that's not something the State wants to do. He added that Amendment 1's language is not intended to address how the UIFSA is enforced or to change the UIFSA's processes. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the language of Amendment 1 would call into question the authority of a tribe to administer child support orders. MR. PUTZIER indicated that the language is simply stating that the legislature is not taking a position on the scope of tribal jurisdiction, thereby leaving that issue to be addressed by the courts. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL again expressed a preference for adopting Amendment 1, characterizing its intent language both as necessary and as neutral with regard to the issue of tribal jurisdiction. 8:44:09 AM MR. PUTZIER, in response to a question, explained that AS 25.25 doesn't speak to the authority of a particular tribunal. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether not adopting Amendment 1 would change the DOR's position. MR. PUTZIER said it would not, but cautioned that not adopting Amendment 1 could make the State's position significantly more difficult to defend. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Putzier if he would support Amendment 1 if it were amended to say [in part], "UIFSA does not determine the authority of the State of Alaska to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order on Indian land". MR. PUTZIER pointed out that there isn't any Indian country in Alaska except for Metlakatla and potentially some allotments or other kinds of lands not at issue. In response to further questions, he indicated that if the correct term were used, and if the new language said that the bill doesn't add to or subtract from the State of Alaska's authority, he doesn't think such language would be objectionable, though he would have to look at the specific language first to be sure. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that the DOL would be amenable to language that says the bill does not modify the State's authority over Alaska Native villages. MR. PUTZIER said he is unable to confirm that because language regarding Indian law issues must be very precise, and the suggested change is not yet that precise. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether the language of Amendment 1 that now reads, "In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction to enter, modify, or enforce child support orders, and the amendments are not intended, either directly or impliedly, to acknowledge, expand, or restrict tribal jurisdiction" ought to instead read [in part], "In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict the State's jurisdiction to enter, modify, or enforce ...". In other words, should Amendment 1 be amended such that it addresses the State's jurisdiction rather than tribal jurisdiction? MR. PUTZIER indicated that that's difficult to answer because such language would raise the question of whether it's the State's jurisdiction within Alaska that's being addressed via Amendment 1. He added, "The state of tribal jurisdiction in the State of Alaska, where there's not Indian country - except for Metlakatla and certain other exceptions - in play here -- the situation you're talking about just doesn't exist." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a preference for holding the bill over in order to further research Amendment 1 and the issues it raises. 8:48:19 AM MR. PUTZIER, in response to a question, said he doesn't agree that the current intent language of Amendment 1 is improper; "it's straightforward and it says that the State is not taking ... [a position on] either expanding tribal jurisdiction or restricting it." In response to other questions, he indicated that altering Amendment 1 such that it says the bill is not intended to expand or restrict either the State's or the tribes' jurisdiction could potentially result in the status quo being maintained in the event of litigation. The goal is to have the intent language clarify that the bill is only making conforming amendments in response to a federal requirement. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her understanding that the language in Amendment 1 that reads, "In Alaska, the scope of tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order is an unsettled legal question" is more controversial than the rest of Amendment 1's language. She asked, therefore, whether deleting that sentence would undermine the goal of the proposed intent language. MR. PUTZIER offered his belief that if the language that reads, "In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislature does not intend to grant or restrict tribal jurisdiction to enter, modify, or enforce child support orders, and the amendments are not intended, either directly or impliedly, to acknowledge, expand, or restrict tribal jurisdiction" were to remain in Amendment 1, then the aforementioned sentence could probably be deleted while still maintaining and advancing the overall goal of the proposed intent language. MS. BLAISDELL, referring to SB 96, relayed that it requires the obligor to either provide medical insurance for children in the custody of a custodial parent or to pay cash medical support; it requires a three-year review [of support orders] - this change wouldn't impact the CSSD and typically such a review occurs more frequently anyway; it contains technical changes so that the CSSD can make clerical corrections to child support orders; and it adds the term "Indian tribe" to the definition of the term "state". CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on SB 96. 8:57:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES made a motion to amend Amendment 1, to delete the language that reads, "In Alaska, the scope of tribal authority to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order is an unsettled legal question.". REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that amending Amendment 1 as she is proposing would not undermine the effect of the proposed intent language, but would address Ms. Archibald's concern that the proposed intent language could give people additional ammunition for refusing to comply with child support orders. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he does not object to the amendment to Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that Ms. Archibald had characterized that sentence as unnecessary. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said her understanding is that that characterization was instead directed at the language that read, "UIFSA does not determine the authority of an Indian tribe to enter, modify, or enforce a child support order". REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection. CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that Amendment 1 was amended. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the issue of jurisdiction needs to be addressed carefully, particularly given that not speaking to the issue will, in and of itself, raise still further questions. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES mentioned that she would be following the wishes of the bill's sponsor and thus be voting against Amendment 1, as amended. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he opposes Amendment 1, as amended, because he is concerned that including it would jeopardize the whole bill, and he believes that it is not essential, particularly given that the bill passed the Senate without it. 9:01:54 AM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Gatto, Lynn, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended. Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 5- 2. 9:02:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSSB 96(FIN), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 96(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. [CSHB 192(HSS) was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|