03/23/1994 09:08 AM Senate STA

 CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 302 (UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT            
 ACT) as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs            
 Committee.  Joining the committee from the Department of Revenue is           
 Ms. Derr, Mr. Mallonee, and Ms. Page.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 469                                                                    
                                                                               
 LARAINE DERR, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, says the            
 department has provided the committee members with a comparison               
 between ERISA and UIFSA.                                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Ms. Derr for the comparison and says he has             
 looked through it.  The chairman asks Mr. Kirk to testify.                    
                                                                               
 Number 489                                                                    
                                                                               
 KENNETH KIRK, testifying from Anchorage, states he is speaking for            
 himself, though he does work with and act as legal counsel for                
 Family Support Group.  He also emphasizes that he is in favor of SB
 and UIFSA, though it may not sound like it because he intends             
 to air some very specific criticisms of SB 302.                               
                                                                               
 UIFSA is needed because the present URISA system has a real                   
 potential to ruin people's lives.  Mr. Kirk says he has seen                  
 situations where there are two different orders from two different            
 states, both of which are valid and enforceable, which are                    
 completely inconsistent with one another.                                     
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK states he faxed a copy of a letter, which was originally             
 sent to William Grant Cowell (sp?), about the original draft of the           
 legislation before it was put into SB 302, to the Senate State                
 Affairs Committee on March 22, 1994.  Mr. Kirk does not know if he            
 sent it in time for it to be included in the bill packets, but he             
 hopes the committee had time to look at it, because most of the               
 criticisms he has are contained in that letter.                               
                                                                               
 Number 503                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK states he will review his biggest concerns.  First, it               
 does not appear anyone has taken the time to harmonize SB 302 with            
 AS 25.27, which is the CSED (Child Support Enforcement Division)              
 statute.  He thinks there are potential problems related to                   
 conflict between the provisions of SB 302 and AS 25.27.  He                   
 suggests legislative counsel review AS 25.27 for purposes of making           
 AS 25.27 more consistent with UIFSA.                                          
                                                                               
 His second concern relates to specific things he thinks should be             
 changed in SB 302, without causing any harm to the overall intent             
 of the bill.  On page 4, line 24, the language gives the state                
 jurisdiction over the non-resident.  That language is not                     
 constitutional, pursuant to a case called Burnham (sp?) v. Superior           
 Court.  It is also bad public policy, is unfair, and should be                
 eliminated.  For instance, someone who has never had any connection           
 with Alaska, but their ex-spouse moved here with the kids, flies up           
 to Alaska periodically to see the children or to accompany them out           
 of state.  When the out-of-state parent flies up to see the                   
 children, they can then be handed a complaint and summons in a                
 child support case, and will then be subject to Alaska's laws on              
 child support, rather than the laws of the place in which that                
 person actually resides.  So Mr. Kirk sees a problem with that, as            
 a public policy matter.                                                       
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK also sees a problem on page 10, line 9, subsection (b)               
 regarding tribunals.  Mr. Kirk states there are several powers                
 contained in SB 302 which are not proper for administrative                   
 agencies of the state to have, including citing a person for                  
 criminal contempt, and the issuance of bench warrants.  Mr. Kirk              
 would hope that if SB 302 is passed, CSED will recognize that they            
 do not really have that authority, and they will not try to issue             
 bench warrants and hold people in criminal contempt.  It would be             
 much easier to simply delete that provision from SB 302, rather               
 than go to court over it.  Since the bill states CSED can use any             
 other remedies already in law, that provision could be left out.              
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK's next concern is with Section 25.25.312 on page 13,                 
 starting on line 16, NONDISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IN EXCEPTIONAL              
 CIRCUMSTANCES.  Mr. Kirk states this is inconsistent with                     
 25.27.275, which states the agency shall relate the information               
 about the location of a child if the obligor is current in child              
 support and there is a visitation or joint custody order in effect.           
 His second concern with Section 25.25.312 is that it is ex parte,             
 which means the obligor does not even get a chance to present their           
 side of the story.  The custodial parent can simply tell the                  
 enforcement officer that the non-custodial parent is dangerous, or            
 scares them, or something like that, and without any contest, all             
 of a sudden there is what appears to be a permanent order in place.           
 There is no provision set up for appeal at a formal hearing, so the           
 non-custodial parent might not even get to contest that order.                
 Finally, there are no real standards for it, it is a very broad               
 statement.  CSED does not have any expertise with regard to issues            
 relating to the health, safety, or liberty of the child, or of                
 domestic violence.  That should be left with the courts, not with             
 CSED.  Or at the least, there should be better standards and an               
 appeals process.                                                              
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK states he also has a concern with the next section of the            
 bill, Section 25.25.313, COSTS AND FEES.  What this provision would           
 essentially do is require the obligee, when they lose an appeal, to           
 pay the entire attorney's fee bill for the other side.  But if the            
 obligee wins, all the obligee is entitled to is, at most, about               
 one-quarter to one-third of attorney's fees.  So SB 302 would                 
 basically set up unequal standards for the custodial parent to the            
 obligee.  The mind-set between too many of these laws is that the             
 obligee is the "bad guy".  All the obligee has ever done wrong,               
 necessarily, is that some judge decided at some time that the                 
 obligee's children would be better off spending most of their time            
 with the other parent.  There may not even be that, if there has              
 never actually been a court case, such as if the child was born out           
 of wedlock or the marriage was terminated through dissolution.                
 That whole section, 25.25.313, should be dropped.                             
                                                                               
 Number 565                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK states Section 25.25.608, which precludes any further                
 contest of the order with respect to a matter that could have been            
 asserted at the time of registration, should be "softened" up a bit           
 in default cases.  In both court cases and administrative cases, if           
 a person has a good-faith reason for not responding, you will often           
 be allowed to re-open a case.  Situations like this are common in             
 Alaska.  A person gets served the day before going out on a crab              
 processor for six months, and in the meantime defaults on an order.           
 This section would appear to completely preclude a person from any            
 opportunity to re-open the matter later for redetermination.                  
                                                                               
 Number 574                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK states he will be in Juneau March 24th and 25th for a                
 Correctional Industries Commission meeting and would be glad to               
 meet with legislators or staff to help work on SB 302 any time the            
 commission is not taking care of business, if anyone wishes to do             
 so.  He acknowledges the complexity of SB 302, and is not always              
 sure himself how the bill will play out in practice, but recognizes           
 that some people may be less sure of it than he, and so would like            
 to make himself available to work on it.  He can be reached at the            
 above phone number.                                                           
                                                                               
 MR. KIRK thanks the committee members for their time.                         
                                                                               
 Number 580                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if the Department of Revenue could meet with              
 Mr. Kirk to discuss his concerns.                                             
                                                                               
 TAPE 94-19, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 583                                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. DERR says the department has not talked to Mr. Kirk before, and           
 would like to review his suggestions before commenting on them.               
 The department can meet with Mr. Kirk while he is in Juneau.                  
                                                                               
 DONNA PAGE, Senior Hearing Officer, Department of Revenue says the            
 department has considered some of the concerns mentioned by Mr.               
 Kirk and can explain them to him.                                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN LEMAN gives Ms. Page a copy of the letter faxed to the               
 committee by Mr. Kirk.  The chairman asks if anyone else wishes to            
 testify today on SB 302.  Hearing none, he announces the committee            
 will hold SB 302 over to work on.