Legislature(1993 - 1994)
05/02/1994 10:15 AM Senate FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 128(FIN) An Act relating to paternity determinations and acknowledgements. Co-chair Pearce directed that CS SSHB 128 (Finance) be brought on for discussion and referenced a $43.3 fiscal note from Vital Statistics and a zero note from the Dept. of Health and Social Services for AFDC. She further pointed to support for the legislation from the Hospital and Nursing Home Association, a sponsor statement, a sectional analysis, and various articles concerning the bill. (Co-chair Frank arrived at the meeting at this time.) AL ZANGRI, Chief, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Division of Public Health, Dept. of Health and Social Services; and PHIL PETRIE, Operations Manager, Child Support Enforcement Division, Dept. of Revenue, came before committee. Mr. Petrie said that the bill would make little change in what is currently being done in state child support enforcement efforts. It responds to a federal mandate that states pass laws establishing a hospital based paternity program. The state has been using an acknowledgment form which is subsequently used to establish support orders. The division presently has 7,900 paternity cases pending. The federal omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993 mandates use of an acknowledgment program. The federal government funds both the education portion as well as program operations within vital statistics. Mr. Zangri explained that when the mother and father sign an affidavit of paternity, the father's name is placed on the birth certificate, and he has all the rights of any father in Alaska. He is also responsible for supporting the child. Senator Kerttula voiced concern that women would be pressured by the system to sign mandated forms. Mr. Petrie responded that mothers would be encouraged to sign the form and educated regarding the ramifications of doing so. Senator Kerttula asked if mothers who refuse to sign would be removed from welfare, if they happen to be on the program. Mr. Petrie acknowledged that the mother's welfare grant would be reduced if she refused to sign. Senator Kelly referenced arrangements between men and women whereby a couple decides to have child and the man acknowledges paternity but does not assume support obligations. He then asked how that type of arrangement would be accommodated. Mr. Petrie alluded to possible contractual agreements that may or may not cover the cited arrangement. He advised that he was not an attorney and could not speak to that aspect. He stressed that when a woman goes on public assistance, "Somebody's going after whoever she has named as the father." Senator Kelly asked if the bill relates to public assistance only. Mr. Petrie responded negatively. He reiterated that in the majority of instances, fathers sign affidavits of paternity and assume the associated responsibilities. If the mother or father do not apply for welfare or services through the child support enforcement division, signing the affidavit will have no effect other than to establish who the parents of the child are. The affidavit alone does not create a duty of support. A parent would have to apply for services with the division or seek support through the court. If a parent applies for welfare, then the division would seek a court order for support in order to reimburse the state and federal AFDC program. In further discussion of mistaken paternity, Mr. Petrie advised of ability to appeal the paternity and request blood tests. Mr. Petrie stressed that signing the form is a "presumption." Senator Rieger inquired concerning legal rights created by establishment of a parent/child relationship. He specifically noted instances where the presumptive father might harass the mother and child or contest custody. Mr. Petrie said that a father could not contest custody based on the acknowledgment form. The father would have to take affirmative action and go to court to establish custody, visitation rights, etc. The affidavit provides a basis for that by establishing who is the father. It further makes the child subject to benefits from the social security administration, other benefits from government programs, etc. Senator Kerttula again voiced concern that women would be forced to sign the form in instances where they want no further contact with the father. Mr. Petrie alluded to $10 million in CSED funding as well as AFDC moneys that the state will forfeit if the mandated program is not initiated, and Alaska is found to be out of compliance with federal law. He concurred that issues of custody and visitation are extremely sensitive. The division does not deal with those issues. They are left to the courts. Mr. Petrie acknowledged that some mothers who wish to receive AFDC benefits do not wish to commence a case with the division or provide the names of the fathers of their children. The federal government has taken the position, however, that if one wants to receive public funds, the individual must cooperate with state and federal governments in recovery of moneys. Senator Kelly asked if the bill is restricted to AFDC payments. Mr. Petrie responded negatively. He added that the federal government requires that it be extended to other individuals. The division serves two clientele: AFDC recipients and "anyone that makes application to the agency." The division must provide equal services to both. The national social perspective is that states should provide these services to people who need them. Discussion followed between Senator Kelly and Mr. Petrie concerning false claims of paternity. Mr. Zangri stressed that no father could be forced to sign the affidavit of paternity. Signature is voluntary on the part of both parents. In response to further concerns relating to harassment, Mr. Petrie reiterated that failure to name the father of the child would result in a reduced AFDC payment. A reduction would be made in the adult payment rather than the child's portion (the bulk of the money) of the grant. Division experience indicates that few cases fall into the harassment category. Provisions in public assistance regulations allow for hearings "for good cause." If good cause is granted, the division has two choices: 1. Enforcement of the case if that can be done without threatening the safety of the mother or child. 2. Cease action on the case if there is a threat to the mother or child. Mr. Zangri distributed the currently used affidavit of paternity for members' review. He advised that it had been in use for approximately ten years. End, SFC-94, #80, Side 1 Start, SFC-94, #80, Side 2 Senator Kelly voiced need for an amendment to make provisions for private arrangements between couples and asked that he be given a day to develop appropriate language. Co-chair Pearce directed that the bill be HELD in committee for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45 a.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|