Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/23/1997 09:01 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
April 23, 1997
9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Wilken, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chairman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation: Board of Dispensing Opticians, Barbara Landi
SENATE BILL NO. 154
"An Act relating to paternity determination and child support;
relating to reporting of and access to financial or other
information for child support purposes; making changes to laws
relating to occupational, recreational, or other licenses, permits,
certificates, or other authorizations issued by the state to
facilitate administration of child support laws; relating to the
interest rate on judgments or decrees for child support; relating
to immunity from civil liability for good faith compliance with
reporting or other requirements for child support purposes;
relating to voiding fraudulent transfers and to penalties for
noncompliance with orders for child support purposes; amending
Rules 4, 5, 35, 52, 58, 60(b), 78, 90.1, and 90.3, Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure; amending Rule 901, Alaska Rules of Evidence;
amending Rules 3 and 5, Alaska Bar Association Rules; repealing the
effective date of sec. 45, ch. 107, SLA 1996; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to welfare to work tax credits under the Alaska
Net Income Tax Act; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 154 - No previous Senate action to record.
SB 116 - See Senate State Affairs Committee minutes dated 3/25/97,
3/27/97.
WITNESS REGISTER
Myrna Maynard, Staff
Senator Pearce
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed SB 154.
Glenda Straube, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained SB 154.
Marilyn May
Assistant Attorney General
Collections & Support
Department of Law
1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
Dan Branch
Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
Susan Haymes, Law Specialist
Limited Entry Fisheries
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
Gary Roth
Alaska Bankers Association
119 N. Cushman
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested clarification of the definition of
a "financial institution".
Jodie Olmstead
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed her child support case.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-42, SIDE A
Confirmation: Board of Dispensing Opticians
Number 001
CHAIRMAN WILKEN called the Senate Health, Education & Social
Services Committee (HES) to order at 9:01 a.m. and announced that
the Confirmation for the Board of Dispensing Opticians nominee
would be the first order of business.
The committee took a brief at ease.
BARBARA LANDI , nominee for the Board of Dispensing Opticians,
informed the committee that she was educated as a teacher and
attended college in New York. Ms. Landi worked many years in the
Mat-Su Valley, but more recently she and her husband operate a
small business in Anchorage. Ms. Landi has worked for the Alaska
State Fair and for a farm and garden supply company. Ms. Landi is
also a free-lance writer. Ms. Landi enjoyed her experience as a
member of the Board of Veterinary Examiners for the last four years
and therefore she applied to be on another board.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN noted that Ms. Landi's resume states that she has
taught every grade from K-12. Chairman Wilken said that was
testimony to Ms. Landi's patience.
SENATOR GREEN commented that she and Ms. Landi had crossed paths in
substitute teaching and work at the Alaska State Fair. Senator
Green wished Ms. Landi luck.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that the hearing results would be passed to
the Senate President. Chairman Wilken congratulated Ms. Landi.
SB 154 CHILD SUPPORT & PATERNITY
Number 076
CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced that SB 154 was the next order of
business before the committee.
SENATOR WARD moved that CSSB 154(HES) be adopted for consideration.
Without objection, it was adopted.
MYRNA MAYNARD , staff to Senator Pearce, informed the committee that
Senator Pearce sponsored SB 154 on behalf of the Child Support
Enforcement Division (CSED). Ms. Maynard directed the committee to
the preamble of the bill which relates the intent of the bill. Ms.
Maynard deferred to Ms. Straube for further comments.
GLENDA STRAUBE , Director of CSED in the Department of Revenue,
noted that in the Fall of last year, Congress passed the Personal
Responsibility, Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Along with
the effort to put people to work was an emphasis on child support
efforts. This bipartisan effort to strengthen child support laws
recognizes the responsibility of all parents to support their
children. The federal act makes substantial changes to the child
support mandates for all states. Ms. Straube reviewed the changes
created by the federal act. The federal act requires all employers
to report new hires/rehires within 20 business days. Currently,
that is only required when there are 20 or more employees and the
time limit is 30 days. Within seven days of receiving that
information, CSED must send that data to the federal government.
Number 147
SENATOR LEMAN asked if all businesses, even those who employee only
one, would be required to report. GLENDA STRAUBE replied yes.
GLENDA STRAUBE noted that currently an employer has 10 days to send
the employee's withheld money to the federal government. Under the
federal act, no prior notice is necessary to the obligor when the
withholding order is sent. Currently, prior notice is given. Under
the federal act, financial institutions and like entities must
match data with CSED quarterly. CSED already has access to bank
information and the ability to lien. The matching of data
quarterly would reduce the need for the use of subpoenas to acquire
that information. Ms. Straube noted that this has been done in
Massachusetts for some time. Both the child support agency and
banks have become comfortable with the system.
Ms. Straube explained that under the federal act an occupational
license can be revoked for noncompliance of a child support order
as well as for noncompliance of a subpoena or warrant.
SENATOR GREEN said that currently CSED does not revoke a license
when a person does not comply with a subpoena or warrant, but would
under the federal act. GLENDA STRAUBE agreed. SENATOR GREEN aske
if the revocation would be automatic. GLENDA STRAUBE replied no,
license revocation is a last resort.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to which license revocations were
included under Senator Green's bill last year and those under the
federal mandates. GLENDA STRAUBE specified that the federal
mandate included the occupational, drivers license, and
recreational license. The recreational license was not included
under Senator Green's bill last year because it is difficult to
administer. Also last year's bill did not include commercial
fishing crewman's licenses.
In response to Chairman Wilken, GLENDA STRAUBE pointed out that the
list in the committee packet with the bullet beginning with
"Ensures child support judgements" and those bullets underneath
were requested and are not mandatory; those bullets are Alaskan
provisions. The bullet beginning with "Drops time limitation" and
up are federal requirements.
Number 221
SENATOR WARD asked if the license revocation provision included a
commercial crewman's license. GLENDA STRAUBE said that was
exempted per the request of the limited entry commission. The
division agreed to that because of the enforcement difficulties.
The crew license can be purchased in some very remote locations.
The division was trying to move away from those licenses that would
be difficult to enforce and not cost effective. Under the federal
act, the hunting for non-personal and the fishing for non-
subsistence use licenses as well as the commercial crew members
fishing license can be revoked.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if this revocation of licenses provision
actually was partially an Alaskan provision not federally mandated.
GLENDA STRAUBE clarified that the federal mandate allows the
revocation of all occupational, drivers, and recreational licenses.
Ms. Straube said that if hunting and fishing licenses fell off the
list, then a request for an exemption for commercial crew members
fishing licenses could be requested. Ms. Straube did note that
exemptions for child support do not occur very often. With regards
to hunting for non personal use, Ms. Straube was not sure how that
would be determined because there are no subsistence hunting
provisions or license whereas fishing does have subsistence and non
subsistence licenses.
Ms. Straube pointed out that there will be a change in how the
money is dispersed once collected. Past AFDC recipients must
receive all child support payments before the state can reimburse
itself. Ms. May and Mr. Branch noted that this did not require a
statutory change and could be done by regulation. Ms. Straube
stated that there are many things mandated by federal law that are
not in this legislation because the department already has the
ability to do that mandate per existing statute and can merely do
a regulation. Ms. Straube continued with the next federal mandate
which requires social security numbers on state licenses, permits
and other documents.
Number 297
SENATOR LEMAN said that requirement caught his attention. A
person's social security number is not for identification purposes.
GLENDA STRAUBE noted that the federal law dealt with some
controversial issues and believed that Congress felt that if people
were to be taken off welfare, then the other side must pay their
part as well. SENATOR GREEN asked if the mandate meant that the
social security number would now be on a person's drivers license.
A discussion ensued regarding whether that already occurs.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that this would probably receive further
discussion at a later time and he encouraged such discussion.
GLENDA STRAUBE continued the review of the federal mandates
encompassed in SB 154. SB 154 attempts to address the interstate
problem by requiring that various state agencies provide
information to all child support agencies. However, such
information can only be used for child support purposes. The
federal mandate that grants immunity from prosecution to entities
who in good faith provide information or honor CSED actions
protects private entities. Ms. Straube pointed out that the
federal mandate expands the paternity establishment requirements.
One of the more important expansions deals with the acknowledgment
of paternity. Parents must be informed of rights and consequences
of singing an acknowledgement of paternity, in particular child
support. After 60 days of a signed acknowledgement of paternity,
that can only be rescinded in court and based on fraud, duress, or
material mistake of fact.
SENATOR GREEN inquired as to the current standard of rescinding
paternity. GLENDA STRAUBE pointed out that the administrative
paternity establishment bill passed, Senator Halford included
disestablishment which relates to this requirement. The
disestablishment could occur up to three years after the birth or
the time the person could have known that one was not the father.
SENATOR GREEN clarified that she was referring to the
acknowledgement of paternity of unwed parents. DAN BRANCH
explained that the current statute provides that if a putative
father acknowledges in writing that he is the parent of the child,
that legitimates the child. If SB 154 is adopted, that finding of
paternity could not be set aside by a court unless the court found
that there was fraud in obtaining the acknowledgement form. SB 154
limits what can be argued in court.
GLENDA STRAUBE informed the committee that there are cases in which
a person signing an acknowledgement of paternity knew that he was
not the biological father. Then after a break up, that father does
not want to pay child support and with this there would be grounds
to go to court to say that he was not the biological father.
In response to Chairman Wilken, DAN BRANCH explained that
"putative" means thought or assumed to be the father.
Number 390
GLENDA STRAUBE explained that under current statutes a putative
father does not have the right to request blood tests and
establishment of paternity, but under SB 154 he will. Under SB
154, Ms. Straube believed that Public Assistance would reserve the
right to decide "good cause" exceptions to genetic testing. The
bill will also require that employer information must be provided
when establishing paternity in order to decrease the time between
the paternity and order establishment.
Under current interstate laws, the location of a custodial parent
or children is not released if there is risk to the health, safety
or liberty of the children. That has been added to the domestic
law per the federal mandate. There have been changes to comply
with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. SB 154 provides
the department the authority to contract out child support
disbursement functions. SB 154 provides the state with the
authority to require delinquent obligors, in AFDC cases, to
participate in appropriate work activities. Ms. Straube pointed
out that states that did welfare reform a few years ago find that
once notices go out, people, who were once working under the table,
suddenly report work activities. SB 154 would void fraudulent
transfers when used to evade child support collections which Ms.
Straube said occurs frequently.
In response to Senator Green, GLENDA STRAUBE informed the committe
of a case of fraudulent transfer in which an obligor owned a
trucking company, but suddenly his girlfriend owned a trucking
company not the obligor. SB 154 requires that entities in Alaska
recognize liens from other states. If the delivery of legal
documents in person has been unsuccessful, legal service can be
considered by first class mail.
Number 438
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that Section 91 says that "An
administrative subpoena shall be delivered by first class mail."
Why would delivery in person of that subpoena be disallowed?
MARILYN MAY believed that the language was used in order to convey
that it is unnecessary to provide personal service of a subpoena.
GLENDA STRAUBE interjected that her comments to first class mail of
legal documents is not limited to subpoenas. Section 91 is the
subpoena section. Ms. Straube indicated that the use of first
class mail is in another section that could be specified.
GLENDA STRAUBE continued with the federal mandates included in
SB 154. Under SB 154, there is no "statute of limitations" on
reporting arrears to credit bureaus. Even if the arrears are paid,
that remains on the credit report.
In response to Senator Green, MARILYN MAY stated that Section 144
refers to this issue. Ms. May clarified that Section 144 does not
relate to the notification that an arrearage has been paid. There
is no statutory obligation on that matter.
GLENDA STRAUBE explained that currently, if an obligor pays all the
arrears that is removed from the credit report. Ms. Straube is
uncomfortable with that practice because all other debts, even if
paid, remain on the credit report. SB 154 would bring the
department into conformance with the reporting of most delinquent
credits. Ms. Straube noted that concluded the federal mandates
included in SB 154.
Ms. Straube moved to the areas in SB 154 which are recommended
changes from CSED or the AG's office. The division deals with two
and sometimes three different interest rates with child support.
The recommendation is to use one rate of interest on child support
related debts and judgements. Ms. Straube emphasized that this
change is merely an administrative issue.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the change to one interest rate would be an
incentive or disincentive for an obligor to pay. GLENDA STRAUBE
said that, personally, she regretted this request because it is
lower than other interest rates. Ms. Straube indicated that the
six percent interest rate could place the debt at the bottom of the
list which could be a disincentive. SENATOR LEMAN understood the
intent, but wanted to review that issue.
Number 510
GLENDA STRAUBE stated the next recommendation which would allow the
correction of a child support order if based on fraudulent
information. Currently, nothing can be done retroactively if a
person hid income in the past; no retroactive modification can be
done nor can there be a change in the child support. CSED wants to
be able to do what was passed in welfare reform last year which
allows the division to vacate and reestablish an order when someone
lied to avoid child support payments.
SENATOR GREEN asked if a child support order is determined to be
based on erroneous information and the payment should have been
less; would the division repay that individual for overpayments?
GLENDA STRAUBE replied yes. Ms. Straube explained that CSED cannot
retroactively modify an order. An order is established on factual
information provided to CSED by the obligor or the Department of
Labor data. Ms. Straube said that the concern last year was that
CSED could not help those with a large arrearage who were actually
not making enough to cover the debt. That can be done, but that
would require going to court and many resources.
SENATOR GREEN asked if an ex-spouse makes claims that the spouse is
making more than the spouse actually does, would that information
be used to determine a child support order. GLENDA STRAUBE said
that CSED does not base the order on that information. However on
a default order when the obligor will not provide information, the
division would review the best data for the industry with which the
obligor is employed to determine the order.
SENATOR GREEN asked if Ms. Straube has observed any difference
since last year with regard to people working with CSED on default
orders. GLENDA STRAUBE said that the division has just begun to
deal with the defaults. The division has not dealt with the
default orders enough to provide any observations. Ms. Straube
hoped that once an obligor's debt is based on the obligor's actual
earnings, that obligor would be more likely to pay ongoing child
support and arrears.
SENATOR WARD inquired as to the meaning of the federal mandate that
allows CSED to contract out child support disbursement functions.
What is the current practice? GLENDA STRAUBE explained that under
federal welfare reform, each state is required to have a central
location for collection and disbursement of child support. If a
state does not have the capacity to do so, the federal mandate
provides the authority to contract out those functions. Ms.
Straube said that Alaska already has a centralized location, but
the issue is being reviewed to contract out.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN pointed out that the next committee of referral for
SB 154 is Senate Finance. Chairman Wilken suggested that any
concerns be mentioned for Ms. Straube to address. Those concerns
should be addressed in SHES.
TAPE 97-42, SIDE B
SENATOR GREEN asked what would happen if SB 154 did not pass this
year or next year. GLENDA STRAUBE said that SB 154 has to pass
this year. The Congressional legislation passed late in the
Congressional session which has left states and the federal
government scrambling. The federal government can impose penalties
such as all of the CSED budget. In further response, Ms. Straube
said that there is no waiver process. Ms. Straube believed that
there is no way to get this through, but the legislation must pass
next year or there would not be any excuse. Without passage,
public assistance would lose $3.2 million from its budget.
GLENDA STRAUBE continued with the CSED and AGO's recommended
changes. The current employer penalty of $1,000 is changed to
$10,000 when an employee is fired due to an income withholding
order. Ms. Straube noted that some employers refuse to collect the
money while others collect the money and use it themselves.
SENATOR WARD inquired as to how many times employers have been
fined $1,000. GLENDA STRAUBE said that the division has not fined
anyone because the requirements for proof are so strict. MARILYN
MAY was not aware of such a case. Ms. May indicated that the small
penalty, the difficulties of making a case, and the cost of such a
case have not been worth pursing such a case. The current penalty
is not much of a disincentive to employers.
Number 547
GLENDA STRAUBE informed the committee that employers have indicated
their dislike of the withholding orders. The next recommended
change is a clarification that parents owe a duty of support
whether or not a support order has been entered. The courts do
that now.
Currently, the Supreme Court makes changes to the Child Support
Guidelines which necessitates CSED to promulgate regulations
conforming to the Supreme Court changes. This recommendation would
make the Supreme Court changes automatically become CSED
regulations.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked if Senator Ward's question regarding the
revocation of commercial fishing crewmen's licenses had been
answered.
SENATOR WARD asked who determined that there was a similarity
between a recreational license and crew license. Do crew licenses
fall under this and how many crew licenses are there?
SUSAN HAYMES , Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, said that crew
licenses are covered under the federal mandates. Ms. Haymes was
unsure as to the number of crew licenses issued by the Department
of Fish & Game, but offered to get that information for the
committee. Ms. Haymes believed that the number of crew licenses
would be in the tens of thousands.
GLENDA STRAUBE clarified that the commercial crewmen's fishing
license falls under the occupational licenses not the recreational
license. The single licenses for fishing and hunting are under the
recreational license.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that in several places there is a change from
"court" to "tribunal"; what is the significance of that change?
MARILYN MAY explained that the Welfare Reform Act requires that any
action that can be taken by a court can be taken by any appropriate
tribunal. Alaska already has an agency with administrative
authority to do many things being done by the courts in other
states. The agency's authority over child support enforcement is
almost coextensive to that of a court. When "tribunal" is used, it
is meant to cover the administrative powers of the agency.
Number 487
SENATOR LEMAN posed the scenario in which the State of Alaska is
unsuccessful in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the Venetie
case which would logically result in more Indian country in Alaska.
Would the federal law apply to the tribes? Senator Leman assumed
that the tribes would take on some of the responsibility instead of
child support enforcement; would that require further action or
would that fall under the sovereign to sovereign relationship?
MARILYN MAY pointed out that the Federal Welfare Reform Act does
include a section which deals with child support enforcement for
Indian tribes and those states that have Indian country. The
federal act allows for the child support agency to have cooperative
agreements with the tribe or tribal organizations under certain
circumstances such as established courts.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the child support enforcement activities are
required to happen by either the tribe or via these cooperative
agreements. GLENDA STRAUBE explained that the state has the
ultimate responsibility regardless of whether a tribe takes
responsibility for the local child support enforcement. Other
states have tribes in Indian country that already run programs.
The tribe can have child support guidelines that are different than
the state guidelines as well as determining a different due amount.
Currently, Metlakatla has the authority to make such decisions.
Ms. Straube believed that most of the nonprofits will not want to
take over child support. In explanation to the situation in
Metlakatla, Ms. Straube said that Metlakatla is determining how
child support will be established and how much will be withheld.
DAN BRANCH specified that Metlakatla is not directly enforcing
child support, but is raising sovereign immunity in regards to the
child support enforcement agency garnishing wages of anyone working
for the tribal entity. Metlakatla, a recognized federal Indian
reservation, is different than other tribal entities in Alaska.
There is no child support officer in Metlakatla.
Number 438
GARY ROTH , President of Denali State Bank, informed the committee
that he was representing the Alaska Bankers Association. Mr. Roth
directed the committee to Section 76 (D) of the CS, page 30 line
22. Mr. Roth believed that the definition of "financial
institution" is limited to banks, foreign banks, mutual savings
banks, small loans, trust companies, and credit unions. Mr. Roth
suggested that 50 percent of the deposit accounts are held by
brokerage houses and insurance companies. The state would be
missing an opportunity to further recapture these funds without an
amendment. Mr. Roth recommended that on page 30, line 22 after
" financial institutions " insert ", brokerage houses, insurance
companies, and companies doing individual investments, transactions
or deposit accounts in the state". Mr. Roth informed the committee
that his small bank is being asked to cross reference 486 names
which will take about two days to complete. The proposed automated
system will be efficient and shorten the process.
SENATOR LEMAN believed that everything listed by Mr. Roth would be
included in the definition of "financial institution".
DAN BRANCH informed the committee that the definition of "financial
institution" is provided in the federal statute. These procedures
will be developed through regulation. Section 76 clearly provides
CSED with the regulator authority to establish these procedures.
Mr. Branch believed that the definition of "financial institution"
is defined rather broadly and would include those entities
specified by Mr. Roth.
GARY ROTH asked if information was being routinely requested from
brokerage houses. GLENDA STRAUBE replied yes. Ms. Straube
recalled that at least one brokerage house claimed that it did not
have to comply. Ms. Straube did not disagree with Mr. Roth's
comments.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced that Mr. Roth's suggestion be included in
the forthcoming CS in order to further discuss that issue.
Chairman Wilken requested that Mr. Roth submit any industry numbers
regarding the percentage of money included in those other entities.
Chairman Wilken asked Ms. Straube if she had enough information to
return with a CS.
GLENDA STRAUBE believed that it would be best if there are any
major issues, that those be sent in writing to her. Ms. Straube
said that she only heard one suggested change regarding the
definition of "financial institution".
SENATOR WARD requested that concerns and such be left to the
individual staff.
SENATOR LEMAN expressed the need to revisit the interest rate
issue.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced that SB 116 would not be heard today, but
would be scheduled for Friday.
Number 334
JODIE OLMSTEAD , testifying from Fairbanks, informed the committee
that she has an unresolved child support enforcement case. Ms.
Olmstead suggested the following to CSED in order to improve the
agency. First, parents should be informed in a timely manner. Ms.
Olmstead noted that her own court action started in October, but
she was not informed until March. Ms. Olmstead informed the
committee that in her case her ex-husband is in California and she
is in Alaska; both are cooperating with CSED. The problem for Ms.
Olmstead is CSED in both states. Second, one enforcement officer
should be assigned to a case. Third, an effective grievance
process should be provided. Fourth, check challenged facts and
respond appropriately. Ms. Olmstead noted that her ex-spouse
worked for Fred Meyers. CSED sent a withholding order to store A
which did not act on the order. The order should have gone to the
corporate headquarters per her suggestion. Ms. Olmstead called
Fred Meyer and CSED each month for six months to let them know of
the situation. No child support was ever collected and Ms.
Olmstead and her children went hungry. Fifth, Ms. Olmstead
suggested that the Ombudsman's recommendations be acted upon or
respond as to why. The Ombudsman said that the state and the store
made a mistake and Ms. Olmstead and her children should have
received a minimum of $42,000, but she received nothing.
Sixth, the parent should be advised that the Attorney Generals
Office is present to protect CSED. Ms. Olmstead informed the
committee that the Attorney General made a deal with the store on
behalf of CSED. Ms. Olmstead heard about the deal later through
the Attorney General and her children received $1,400. The deal
protected the agency and avoided setting a precedent. Seventh, Ms.
Olmstead stressed the need to be dedicated to obtaining support
money for children. Ms. Olmstead commented on the over zealousness
of DFYS. Eighth, act when parents point out the need to wait. Ms.
Olmstead noted the frivolous court proceeding in which attempts to
obtain child support from a father who has no money. Ninth, Ms.
Olmstead suggested that the agency should listen when a parent
points out that the agency's actions are unnecessarily driving a
wedge between the parents and hurting the children.
Ms. Olmstead noted that she was a member of Concerned Parents for
Reform. One of the biggest problems in Ms. Olmstead's case was the
communication between California and Alaska. Ms. Olmstead said
that through her group she has heard of numerous situations such as
hers between California and Alaska. Ms. Olmstead discussed her
unresolved situation further. Ms. Olmstead said that many people
are on welfare because of the non-receipt of child support.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN encouraged Ms. Olmstead to fax her suggestions to
the committee and to follow SB 154 which may address some of her
concerns. Chairman Wilken noted that he had a packet of
information on welfare reform and would be happy to provide it to
anyone interested. There being no further business before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|