Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/17/2015 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE
8:04:31 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act, including jurisdiction by tribunals of the state,
registration and proceedings related to support orders from
other state tribunals, foreign support orders, foreign
tribunals, and certain persons residing in foreign countries;
relating to determination of parentage of a child; and providing
for an effective date."
[Before the committee as a working document was the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 106, Version 29-GH1897\W,
Glover, 3/2/15.]
CHAIR LYNN asked for a sectional analysis.
8:05:19 AM
CAROL BEECHER, Director, Child Support Services Division,
Department of Revenue, stated that HB 106 would amend the
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). She said Ms.
Steinberg, Department of Law, would offer a sectional analysis.
She said the major change to the bill in Version W was a section
added at the end that addressed international cases. She opined
that HB 106 was a good bill, because it would provide the
framework for allowing families to have the opportunity to
select support from non-custodial parents who lived in a country
that was a signer to "The Convention."
8:06:44 AM
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Collections
and Support Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law (DOL), noted that Legislative Legal and Research Services
had produced "clean-up" languages regarding drafting and style
changes specific to Alaska. Further, she said the federal
Office of Child Support found some discrepancies between the
original version of HB 106 and the Uniform Law version.
8:07:32 AM
MS. STEINBERG presented the sectional analysis for Version W
[dated 3/4/15, provided by the bill drafter from Legislative
Legal and Research Services, and included in the committee
packet]. She began with Sections 1-19, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Secs. 1 - 16. Amend definitions and add new
definitions applicable to AS 25.25 relating to the
Uniform Family Support Act.
Sec. 17. Designates the child support services agency
created in AS 25.27.010 as the support enforcement
agency of the state.
Sec. 18. Amends AS 25.25.103 to clarify that
cumulative remedies do not affect the recognition of a
support order on the basis of comity.
Sec. 19. Adds a new subsection to AS 25.25.103 to
establish that the bill does not establish the
exclusive method for establishing support orders in
the state and that it does not grant the state the
ability to issue an order related to custody or
parenting time under this chapter.
8:08:23 AM
MS. STEINBERG added that child custody is completely separate
from this section. She returned to the sectional analysis,
continuing on from Section 20, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 20. Requires a tribunal of the state to apply
specified sections of the bill and law to proceedings
involving foreign support orders, foreign tribunals,
or obligees, obligors, or children residing in a
foreign country.
Sec. 21. Makes clarifying amendments to AS 25.25.201
pertaining to jurisdiction over nonresidents.
Sec. 22. Explains that the laws of the state may not
be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a
tribunal of the state to modify a child support order
of another state, or a foreign support order, unless
certain requirements are met.
8:09:14 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:09 a.m.
8:09:30 AM
MS. STEINBERG continued with the sectional analysis, picking up
at Section 23, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 23. Repeals and reenacts AS 25.25.202 to provide
that the state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
to modify or enforce its order if certain requirements
are met.
Sec. 24. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.203
pertaining to initiating and responding tribunals.
Sec. 25. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.204
pertianing to simultaneous proceedings.
Sec. 26. Clarifies that jurisdiction is based on
residency at the time of filing and that the state can
have continuing jurisdiction with the consent of all
parties even when the parties no longer reside there.
Sec. 27. Clarifies when the state may not exercise
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child
support order issued by a tribunal of the state.
Sec. 28. Requires a tribunal of the state to
recognize continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the
tribunal of another state that has issued a child
support order under a law substantially similar to
this chapter.
Sec. 29. Allows a tribunal of the state to serve as
the initiating tribunal to request the tribunal of
another state to modify a support order issued in that
state.
Secs. 30 and 31. Clarify when a tribunal of this
state can act as an initiating or responding tribunal
to enforce a support order.
Secs. 32 - 37. Amend procedures for determining which
order is the controlling order if two or more support
orders have been issued for the same obligor and
child. Adds requirements for controlling support
orders.
Sec. 38. Adds "foreign country" to AS 25.25.208
pertaining to orders for two or more obligees.
Sec. 39. Clarifies language regarding credit for
payments.
Sec. 40. Adds new sections regarding proceedings
involving nonresidents who are subject to personal
jurisdiction, and regarding jurisdiction for modifying
spousal support orders.
Sec. 41. Makes clarifying revisions to AS
25.25.301(c).
Sec. 42. Amends AS 25.25.303 to remove "including the
rules on choice of law . . . ."
Sec. 43. Amends AS 25.25.304 relating to the duties
of a tribunal of this state to specify the amount of
support sought from a foreign country and to convert
the amount into foreign currency.
Sec. 44. Allows a tribunal of this state to determine
the controlling child support order.
Sec. 45. Provides the process for a tribunal of this
state to convert a foreign support order into the
equivalent amount in dollars.
Sec. 46. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.306.
Secs. 47 - 48. Makes clarifying revisions and adds
sections to the duties of child support agencies
regarding foreign support orders and income
withholding orders.
Sec. 49. Adds a new section setting out the duties of
the Department of Revenue under the Act.
Sec. 50. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.310.
Sec. 51. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.311.
Sec. 52. Changes requirements regarding when a court
may seal information to protect the health, safety, or
liberty of a party or a child.
Sec. 53. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.313.
Sec. 54. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.314.
Secs. 55 - 59. Make clarifying revisions to AS
25.25.316.
Sec. 60. Adds a new section providing that a
certified copy of a voluntary acknowledgement of
paternity is admissible to establish paternity.
Sec. 61. Allows tribunals to communicate through
electronic mail under the Act.
Sec. 62. Amends AS 25.25.318 to apply to tribunals
outside this state.
Sec. 63. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.319.
Sec. 64. Adds sections relating to the duties of the
support enforcement agency of this state or a tribunal
of this state when the child support services agency
of this state receives payments under a support order
and neither the obligor, the obligee, nor the child
resides in this state.
Sec. 65. Allows a responding tribunal of this state
to issue a support order if the tribunal has personal
jurisdiction over an individual residing outside of
the state.
Sec. 66. Clarifies when a tribunal may issue a
temporary child support order.
Sec. 67. Authorizes a tribunal of this state to serve
as a responding tribunal in a proceeding to determine
parentage.
8:15:14 AM
Sec. 68. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.501.
Sec. 69. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.502.
Sec. 70. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.503.
Sec. 71. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.504.
Sec. 72. Makes clarifying revisions to AS 25.25.505.
Sec. 73. Clarifies how an obligor can challenge the
enforcement of an income withholding order issued in
another state and received by an employer of this
state.
Secs. 74 - 77. Add "foreign support order" as an
order that can be registered in this state.
Sec. 78. Provides procedures for registering an order
when more than one order is in effect.
Sec. 79. Adds "foreign support order" to AS
25.25.603, dealing with effect of registration for
enforcement.
Sec. 80. Provides that the law of the issuing state
or country governs certain proceedings relating to
support orders.
Sec. 81. Provides that a responding tribunal in this
state shall apply the procedures and remedies
available in this state to collect and enforce a
support order from another state or foreign country
but will prospectively apply the law of the state or
foreign country that issued the controlling order.
Sec. 82. Adds "foreign support order" to AS
25.25.605, regarding notice of registration of order.
Sec. 83. Adds new subsections relating to procedures
required when a registering party asserts that two or
more orders are in effect.
Secs. 84 - 85. Make conforming amendments to AS
25.25.606.
Sec. 86. Adds "the alleged controlling order is not
the controlling order" to the list of defenses
available to a party contesting the validity or
enforcement of a registered support order.
Secs. 87 - 89. Make conforming amendments.
Sec. 90. Prohibits a tribunal of this state from
modifying the duration of the obligation of support
under a support order that could not be modified under
the law of the issuing state.
Sec. 91. Makes clarifying amendments to AS
25.25.611(d).
Sec. 92. Adds new subsections providing that the law
of the state that issued the controlling support order
governs the duration of the obligation of support.
Sec. 93. Requires that when an order issued by a
tribunal of this state is modified by another state,
this state shall only enforce the original order for
the purposes of arrears and interest prior to
modification.
Sec. 94. Amends AS 25.25.613(b) to include references
to new sections added by this bill.
Sec. 95. Adds new sections relating to jurisdiction
and procedures to modify child support orders of
foreign countries.
Sec. 96. Adds a new article, Article 7A, dealing with
proceedings under the Convention on the International
Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family
Maintenance. New sections include definitions,
applicability, initiation of support proceedings,
registration of convention support orders, contesting
orders, recognition and enforcement of orders, foreign
support agreements, modification of convention support
orders, and other sections.
Secs. 97 - 100. Make clarifying revisions to AS
25.25.801, AS 25.25.802, and AS 25.25.901.
Sec. 101. Repeals AS 25.25.101(7), AS 25.25.205(f),
AS 25.25.206(c), AS 25.25.301(b), AS 25.25.401(c), and
AS 25.25.701.
Sec. 102. Provides that this Act applies to
proceedings begun on or after the effective date of
this section.
Sec. 103. Requires the Department of Revenue to adopt
transition regulations.
Sec. 104. Directs the revisor to make conforming
amendments to various article headings and section
catch lines.
Sec. 105. Provides that sec. 103 takes effect
immediately.
Sec. 106. Provides that the Act, except as provided
in sec. 105, takes effect July 1, 2015.
8:20:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested a description of all the
statutes that would be repealed under Section 101 of Version W.
8:21:36 AM
MS. STEINBERG said AS 25.25.101(7) dealt with "initiating
tribunal," and she explained that under Version W there was a
new definition in Section 3. She noted that AS 25.25.205(f)
dealt with continuing exclusive jurisdiction for spousal
support, and she said AS 25.25.206(c) also addressed spousal
support.
8:22:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what changes were being proposed
to spousal support.
MS. STEINBERG answered that "Section 281" would be added as
Section 40 in the proposed legislation. She said AS 25.25.401
would still cover spousal support, but it would appear in (a)
rather than (c). In response to a follow-up question, she said
the rules about spousal support would remain basically the same.
8:24:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether The Convention and the
federal laws that would implement it under the Uniform Act would
also cover the enforcement of spousal support.
MS. STEINBERG answered that she believed the enforcement of
spousal support from foreign countries would be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the enforcement of spousal
support would be made easier or more difficult, or whether it
would be the same, under the proposed law.
MS. STEINBERG answered it would be the same as it was under
existing law. She suggested that it might actually be easier
coming from a foreign country covered under The Convention,
because that country would provide better documentation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to know before HB
106 was heard by the House Judiciary Standing Committee whether
there was any change in the ease or difficulty of enforcing
spousal support. He emphasized the importance of having spousal
support along with child support.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that they went together in many cases.
8:26:12 AM
MS STEINBERG noted that AS 25.25.301(b) would be deleted,
because it was not necessary.
8:26:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if HB 106 would change the standards
of child support enforcement at all or if it would just
incorporate the foreign entity. He mentioned reading language
that a tribunal with no jurisdiction could initiate an action,
and he asked if that would be new. He said he would like to
know if the standards between states would be changed. He
further requested a general statement about changes and a list
of those changes.
8:28:35 AM
MS. STEINBERG responded that the proposed legislation would not
make huge changes from current methods of child support. She
listed two major changes under HB 106 as: the 2008 amendments
to the Uniform Law, which would address foreign countries that
had signed on to The Convention; and the 2001 changes that
Alaska did not adopt. The latter, she said, made clarifying
changes to existing law. For example, when there were multiple
orders there was a question of which tribunal would do the
controlling order of determination. She indicated that the
states contributed ideas that they thought would be helpful in
changing the law.
8:30:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Bock v. Bock, 824 P. 2d 723
(1992), a custody case in which the question arose as to which
state's judge would have jurisdiction, which he said caused much
confusion. He said the legislation at hand broached the issue
of control, and he asked if there had been similar confusions in
any other states.
MS. STEINBERG replied that she was not aware of any cases;
however, she said the proposed law included provisions
pertaining to cases with simultaneous proceedings. She
emphasized that custody jurisdiction could be different from
child support jurisdiction. She stated that UIFSA had been in
place in Alaska since 1996 and within all states since 1998, and
it had been helpful in ensuring that every state was "on the
same page."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that during the aforementioned
case, it was not a question of having the laws on the books, but
rather of how the courts interpreted those laws. He questioned
whether there had been similar cases, and he explained he hoped
no other state had to go through what he and others involved had
endured. He offered further details related to the case to
further illustrate an example of what he said he would like to
avoid in the future.
8:36:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN thanked the testifiers.
8:36:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to the definition of
"support order" on page 4 of HB 106, [Version W], which included
"a child, a spouse, or a former spouse". She observed that in
many other sections of the proposed bill, there was no reference
made again regarding support of spouses or former spouses until
page 13. She said she would like to see an analysis of which
sections pertained [only] to child support. She asked if it was
the intent of HB 106 to exclude spousal support from certain
sections.
8:38:56 AM
MS. STEINBERG responded that in general, the proposed
legislation was designed to cover both child support and spousal
support orders; however, there had to be provisions included
specific to each. She added that a support order could include
both child and spouse.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ reiterated that many sections did not
mention spousal support, while others specifically did. She
stated, "A judge looking at this would say the more specific
statutory provision will override anything else." She said she
could not understand the inconsistency, and she opined that the
discussion of the proposed legislation could not proceed without
the analysis she had previously requested.
8:40:31 AM
MS. STEINBERG referred to language from AS 25.25.401(a), (b),
and (c), which she indicated originally addressed child support
orders and spousal support orders separately. She explained
that under HB 106, the language would be changed such that AS
25.25.401(a) dropped the word "child" in order that "support
order" would include both child and spousal support orders.
[The proposed amendment of AS 25.25.401(a) was on page 21, in
Section 65 of Version W.] She stated as follows:
They do have different provisions on when you can
modify a spousal support order as opposed to a child
support order and when ... the court ... can establish
a spousal support order, so we have specific sections
on that; but everything else dealing with enforcement
would apply to whether it's a spousal or child support
order. And so, it's only designating these specific
sections when there's something perhaps different or
we want to specifically address a spousal support
order.
8:42:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to page 8, beginning
on line 8, which spoke to the modification of a child support
order, but never referred to a spousal support order. She
reiterated her observance that there were numerous places within
HB 106 that referred only to child support orders.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that the testifiers could bring
the information requested by Representative Vazquez to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
8:45:12 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:45 a.m. to 8:47 a.m.
8:46:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recognized that the bill was complex,
and, in the interest of time, suggested that Representative
Vazquez could be included in the discussion of HB 106 when it
was before the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ responded that would be fine. She
reemphasized her desire to receive the aforementioned analysis.
8:48:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to language on page
4, lines 22-23, [of Version W], to highlight the point that
Representative Vazquez had made. He noted that in the
definition of "support order" included there, was "reimbursement
for financial assistance provided to an individual obligee in
place of child support". He said he was not sure if the concept
should also include spousal support, because he said he knew
that in a number Alaska Supreme Court cases, one aspect of
spousal support had been financial assistance, such as
reimbursement for college tuition or training. He expressed his
desire that the proposed legislation would include as much
support for spouses as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG brought up the issue of extending
rights to couples who legally could not get married. He
indicated that he would want to pursue the issue further within
the House Judiciary Standing Committee, in order to ensure
constitutionality.
8:50:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed appreciation for the
correspondence from Senator Lisa Murkowski, which had been
provided to the committee. She remarked that it had cleared up
at least a couple unanswered questions she had had.
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 106.
8:51:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 106, Version 29-
GH1897\W, Glover, 3/2/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 106(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 18 CSHB106 Sectional Summary to v.W.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 19 HB106 Action Transmittal for AK to adopt UIFSA 2008 verbatim.pdf |
HSTA 3/17/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |