Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 09:40 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 115
"An Act relating to the establishment, modification,
and enforcement of support orders and the determination of
parentage in situations involving more than one state;
amending Alaska Rule of Administration 9; amending
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and 82; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-chair Halford took up SB 115, mentioning that SB 116 has
been rolled into SB 115. Both bills are governor bills and
have related topics. Senator Phillips MOVED to adopt SB 115
(FIN), 4/30/95, version G. No objection having been heard,
the proposed CS to SB 115 was ADOPTED.
Glenda Straube and Marilyn May, from the Department of Law,
were invited to join the committee. Co-chair Halford
elaborated on the changes in the proposed CS to SB 115. He
spoke to disestablishment and how it applies. The bill is a
result of a commission on uniform law.
Art Peterson was asked to join the committee. He testified
as a uniform law commissioner for Alaska. The original SB
115 was a product essentially of the National Conference of
Commissioners and Uniform State Laws. It is the body that
produced the URESA. URESA has been established in all 50
jurisdictions. The bill, revised act, started out as
amendments to URESA, cleaning up incidentals that had
occurred over the 4 decades since URESA was first
promulgated. The most significant was the elimination of
multi-state and thus, the potential for conflicting, court
orders. The advantage is the ease in understanding for both
the obligor and the obligee. It makes certain that the
appropriate amount of support goes to the child, the one we
are protecting, and makes the system efficient and easier to
administer for both the agency and courts involved. It is a
result of several years of committee drafting work involving
debate and consultation with people in the areas of social
services, adoption law, and child support law. The bill
then went to the national conference and was fully debated
for two years resulting in this product. Mr. Peterson asked
Co-chair Halford, where in the uniform act there are
changes? Co-chair Halford responded that there were no
changes unless they were made by the administration or
previous to this committee's action. He stated that there
were references to differences. Mr. Peterson stated that he
knew of one difference from the national version that was in
the original bill in the definition of the word, "state".
Marilyn May stated that in the original draft of the bill,
the primary changes were in the definition of the word,
"state". She noted that there is the removal of a section
within the uniform act, which provided oversight by the
attorney general's office on the child support agency. She
stated that it was never in the bill presented here, but in
the national version there was a section that said, "duty of
attorney general, if the attorney general determines that
the support enforcement agency is neglecting or refusing to
provide services to an individual, the attorney general may
order the agency to perform its duties under this act, or
may provide those services directly to the individual." She
stated that it will not be handled that way in Alaska. Mr.
Peterson stated that the removal of that particular section
would not be opposed, or the elimination of the references
to tribes in the definition of state. He stated that he has
sent the original bill to the chair of the national drafting
committee and he has indicated that it was acceptable in
that form. Mr. Peterson stated that there is opposition to
any further significant changes to the Uniform Act. He
mentioned that uniform acts should not be changed. To
achieve the benefits of the uniformity, it is essential for
those dealing with the law, to maintain the consistency
throughout the nation. Anything that deviates significantly
from the national version would be opposed, but would
receive attention, item by item. Co-chair Halford asked the
definitional question on tribes? Mr. Peterson responded
that in the national version, the definition of state
includes tribes. He read the language in the bill,
"includes an indian tribe and includes foreign
jurisdiction". He stated that the purpose was to pick up
native tribunals. He said, if a particular tribe has a
tribunal, or native court, then the decisions of that court
will be treated as though they were the decisions of a state
court. He emphasized that there have been several questions
raised. He cited an example whereby, under federal law, 9th
circuit decision, states are required to give full faith and
credit to tribal tribunal decisions. The deletion of the
word tribes, does not mean that natives are not covered by
the paternity provisions, or by the support provisions.
Co-chair Halford spoke to the "Alaskan independence"
attitude. Mr. Peterson stated that the attitude of "Alaskan
independence" has nothing to do with the relationship with
people, businesses, or governments in other states, and that
is what the uniform acts deal with. He stated that Alaska
could not operate in commerce without the uniform commercial
code, nor would Alaskans be protected without the child
support enforcement act. Co-chair Halford asked to have
explained, "limited immunity of petitioner"? Mr. Peterson
responded that someone who comes to Alaska, responding to a
proceeding, to appear in court or before the agency, is not
subjecting himself to the general jurisdiction of this
state.
End Tape #58
Start Tape #60
The meeting RECESSED at 11:45 a.m.
The meeting RECONVENED at 12:20 p.m.
Present were Co-chairs Halford and Frank, along with
Senators Rieger, Sharp and Zharoff. Senators Phillips and
Donley joined the committee shortly after it began.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|