Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/12/1995 09:10 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 115 UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT
Number 002
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:10 a.m. and introduced
SB 115 as the first order of business before the committee.
GLENDA STRAUBE, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), informed the committee that the Administration has
identified as a priority, a welfare package which is cost
effective, equitable, and ensures that the needs of children are
met. Child support is a critical portion of welfare reform. SB
115 addresses interstate collections which are the most difficult
cases in which to collect. She noted that interstate collections
comprises 44 percent of the division's caseload. She said that
most non-custodial parents know that crossing state lines is the
best manner in which to avoid supporting their children. The
federal government has recognized this and the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA) has already been passed by approximately
21 states. Most other states will be passing UIFSA this session.
SB 115 provides a tool to collect in those interstate cases as well
as minimizing the confusion with multiple orders. Ms. Straube
explained that SB 115 would end multiple state orders; the bill
defines a continuing exclusive jurisdiction state. The bill also
provides a long arm jurisdiction allowing the division to reach
out-of-state obligors. SB 115 would allow administrative actions
in paternity modifications and enforcement of child support orders.
In response to Chairman Green, Ms. Straube explained that often the
courts have to be involved in particular, when the support order
comes from the court. She commented that some states must have
everything go through the court. Any time there are modifications
to an order which was originally established through the court,
those modifications must also go through the court; the court has
a tremendous backlog.
Ms. Straube explained that CSED uses the same guidelines and rules
as the court which is why SB 115 would allow administrative actions
in paternity modifications and enforcement of child support orders.
Usually when someone is out-of-state, the income withholding takes
time and often many individuals have moved on to another job.
SB 115 would allow direct income withholding. She noted that there
is a portion of the bill which deals with federal forms, computer
networks, and others which are all aspects of efficiency. The
elimination of the multiple orders alone is reason enough to pass
SB 115. Ms. Straube predicted that CSED would increase their
collections by approximately $170,000.
Number 119
SENATOR LEMAN asked if SB 115 was the same bill that was before the
legislature last year and if so, what happened with that bill.
GLENDA STRAUBE said that last year's bill did not pass.
ART PETERSON, Attorney with Dylan and Finley, informed everyone
that he was appearing in his capacity as a Uniform Law Commissioner
for Alaska. In response to Senator Leman, SB 115 is the same bill
as last year's with a few technical changes. That bill of last
year was stuck in committee due to other matters that seemed of
higher priority and the bill was never heard again.
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to the significance of the technical
changes to the bill; would this create difficulties when applied
nationally? ART PETERSON said that if everyone begins from the
same base. For example, Alaska has certain drafting requirements
which are non-substantive and would not create a significant
deviation from the national version. Other states have similar
requirements. The greatest degree of uniformity is always
attempted in order to achieve the interstate benefit from these
acts. SB 115 is practically identical to the national version.
Mr. Peterson noted a slight difference in the definition of state
which does not specifically refer to Indian tribes however, that
issue could be dealt with in other ways. The Chair of the drafting
committee of the Uniform Laws Conference indicated that the
difference in definition is not a significant deviation that should
hold up the act.
GLENDA STRAUBE pointed out that the federal government has asked
states to pass this act and the Congressional House of
Representatives has passed out their welfare reform legislation,
including child support. With that passage, UIFSA is being
mandated.
Number 184
ART PETERSON informed the committee that the drafting committee of
the National Conference began work on this issue due to the
Congressional action of 1975, 1984, and 1988. The National
Conference addressed support guidelines, enforcement procedures,
wage withholding, tax intercepts, and credit reporting which are
all federally required. As the drafting committee worked on the
project, the need for a comprehensive revision of the Uniform
Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) became more apparent.
Every state and jurisdiction has adopted URESA; now they would all
be adopting UIFSA. The main beneficiaries of the adoption of UIFSA
would be the children. Mr. Peterson noted that the system would be
less confusing, more efficient, and most importantly there would
less conflicting court orders. Multiple court orders has been a
major problem under URESA. SB 115 assures that a court which
obtains jurisdiction would keep that jurisdiction. The more
efficient system should benefit the government agencies.
With regards to Mr. Peterson's statement that the children would
benefit, SENATOR LEMAN asked if the children would actually receive
more money or would this be a timing issue? ART PETERSON explained
that typically the amount owed by the debtor parent is
substantially more than AFDC receipts. Therefore, the child would
benefit and benefit earlier without the uncertainty of the current
system.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that the fiscal notes are prepared with regards
to the bill's impact on the state. There is probably a cash flow
that far exceeds the amount designated in the fiscal note that
would be a benefit to children.
GLENDA STRAUBE explained that the fiscal note shows the money that
would come back to AFDC, but the fiscal note does not illustrate
the money returned to the children. In response to Senator Leman,
Ms. Straube said that half of CSED's cases are AFDC which would
assume that the other half would be a similar amount.
Number 253
MARILYN MAY, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Alaska
representing CSED, informed the committee that she had assisted in
the drafting of SB 115. She reiterated the importance of
eliminating multiple orders with UIFSA. Under UIFSA, one state
would have continuing exclusive jurisdiction. UIFSA also sets
forth the rules determining which state has the continuing
exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore if an obligor moves to another
state, the new state can only enforce the order while the original
issuing state still has the continuing exclusive jurisdiction. She
reiterated that this bill would eliminate much time and confusion
expended in dealing with multiple orders. SB 115 would up date the
current situation of the law regarding child support.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the degree that UIFSA would deal with
custody determinations. MARILYN MAY informed Senator Salo that
UIFSA deals strictly with child support and spousal support, UIFSA
does not deal with custody determinations at all.
SENATOR SALO asked how the state of jurisdiction portion of SB 115
would affect the Laura Bach case. MARILYN MAY was not familiar
with the child support aspects of the Laura Bach case. That case
had conflicting multiple court orders from multiple states; that
type of situation in a child support setting would be eliminated
under UIFSA.
SENATOR SALO asked if knowing which state has jurisdiction during
custody battles was an issue. GLENDA STRAUBE replied yes, there is
similar confusion across state lines with custody battles as well
as child support matters.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to why that issue had not been dealt with
nationally. ART PETERSON mentioned that the National Conference is
currently working on a project to revise the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Act which should be completed in 1996.
In regards to Senator Leman's earlier question, GLENDA STRAUBE
explained that the division would collect $340,000 total, of which
half would go to the state. Ms. Straube assumed that if half of
the cases were AFDC, then approximately $340,000 goes to the
children because that amount would match the AFDC amount.
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that the amount was actually $680,000 per
year, but this fist year is half the fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented on the potential for the system to become
more efficient.
JOAN CONNORS, from the Ombudsman's Office, said that Stuart Hall is
in Juneau with introductory comments.
Number 348
STUART HALL, Ombudsman, informed the committee that the Office of
the Ombudsman supported this legislation. He noted that he had
addressed a letter to the committee on April 5th. The enactment of
this legislation would assist many of those who have sought the
help of the Ombudsman regarding CSED. From the fiscal year 1994 to
date, the Ombudsman has assisted approximately 1,661 individuals
with complaints against CSED with a significant portion of that
being custodial parents who rely on CSED to collect child support
from an out-of-state parent. Mr. Hall emphasized that the
enactment of UIFSA would streamline case establishment which would
result in quicker collections. He urged passage of SB 115.
BEA HAGEN, Deputy Ombudsman, emphasized the importance of direct
wage withholding in other states. Many of the complaints received
in the Ombudsman's Office are regarding the lengthy time that CSED
takes with wage withholding. Often this is not CSED's fault
because the division cannot do this directly, the process can be
lengthy. SB 115 would make direct wage withholding possible.
ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director of the Judicial Branch of
Government, stated support for this legislation from the Judiciary.
The multiple laws among states are complex and can lead to
problems. Furthermore, the Judiciary also agrees that the only
manner in which to change an order that has been imposed by a
judicial officer is to return to court which increases the courts
work load. The system in SB 115 would be fairest to all people.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that SB 115 be moved out of committee with
accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no objections, it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|