Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| SB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 134-CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS
2:02:59 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 134, "An Act
relating to child support awards; and repealing Rule 90.3,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
2:03:19 PM
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, staff to Senator Kookesh, introduced SB 134 by
explaining that it puts Court Rule 90.3 into statute, and
changes how child support is allocated. The current percentage-
of-income model that considers just the income of the non-
custodial parent will change to an income share model where both
parents' income is used to calculate child support. She noted
that a section was removed that ordered a grandparent to pay
child support. Sections dealing with the support order form and
the commentary were also removed.
She explained that the bill came about due to frustration with
the child support review process under Court Rule 90.3, because
it appeared that people did not have a voice. In 2008 she was
told that the best way to change the process was to put the rule
into statute.
MS. SHOCKELY relayed that the sponsor's office receives a number
of calls from people who do not mind paying child support, but
feel there are problems with the system. This legislation seeks
to give people a voice, be fair, and provide for a child's best
interest.
2:05:42 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked for an expanded discussion about the
income share model for determining child support. He said he was
also interested in looking at ways to include non-monetary
things in child support orders. For example, there should be a
way to place a value on a contribution of hunting or fishing
efforts.
2:07:27 PM
DAISY STEVENS, representing herself, Fairbanks, AK, said she
always felt that it was unfair for child support to be paid by
just one parent. She cited the cases of her two sons and stated
full support for changing the standard for calculating child
support to include the income of both parents.
2:11:19 PM
DIXIE BANNER, representing herself, Wasilla, AK, testified in
support of SB 134. She described being penalized in the child
support calculation for being a noncustodial parent, and
expressed pleasure at not being in the system any longer.
2:14:38 PM
MICHELLE BAYLESS, representing herself, Copper Center, AK,
expressed sympathy with the previous testimony and said she
supports SB 134 if it helps kids. She discussed single
parenthood and that noncustodial parents were not required to
share the burden.
2:19:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Shockley if she consulted Legislative
Legal about Sections 4 and 5. Section 4 repeals Court Rule 90.3
putting it in statute, and Section 5 addresses the
nonapplicability of a two-thirds vote requirement.
MS. SHOCKLEY replied Legislative Legal indicated the sections
were correct and that they discussed the questions with both the
court and the Department of Law.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Meade to explain how changes to Court
Rule 90.3 are crafted and how an affected member of the public
can get his or her concerns heard.
2:20:34 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
AK, explained that in compliance with federal regulations, the
state reviews its child support guidelines every four years. The
Alaska Supreme Court appoints an eight member committee that
meets for about 18 months prior to the four-year deadline to
consider whether the Court Rule still results in fair child
support awards. She described two ways for the public to
comment. At the beginning of the process the meeting is noticed
in 32 newspapers statewide and in every courthouse. Comments are
submitted and the review committee reads them all before
recommending any changes. At that point the proposed changes are
noticed and comment is again solicited and thoroughly reviewed.
The committee then makes a final decision about any changes. She
noted that the process also provides an opportunity for the
public to testify telephonically. In addition to the scheduled
review, the court rules attorney will consider written and oral
suggestions about court rule changes at any time. Those
suggestions go to the standing committee on family rules and
could eventually go to the Alaska Supreme Court.
2:25:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the Alaska Supreme Court reviews the
proposals or if the review committee has the authority to
promulgate the rule change.
MS. MEADE replied rule changes absolutely must be promulgated by
the court. The review committee prepares a report of recommended
changes and the rules attorney, acting as the intermediary,
presents the report to the five members of the Alaska Supreme
Court along with background information that includes all the
public comments. The court then decides whether or not to accept
the recommendations. She noted that the last review committee
asked the court for interim guidance as to the idea of adopting
the income share model, and the court's suggestion was to stick
with the percentage of income approach and avoid unnecessary
work.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that the idea was dropped when the court
expressed little interest in switching to an income share model.
MR. MEADE added that the request for guidance was accompanied by
a notebook of thoughts on the two approaches and the relative
fairness of each one. She discussed the issue of fairness and
that it was a matter of perspective unless there was empirical
evidence that one model was more fair.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what model the court uses when custody is
shared equally between the parents.
MS. MEADE explained that when custody is shared 50:50, the
current rule calls for a calculation of each parent's income
with an offset payment that accounts for the difference. In
cases where a parent has less than 30 percent custody for one
child, the current rule calls for that parent to pay 20 percent
of their net income to the custodial parent.
2:31:50 PM
CHAIR FRENCH observed that there appears to be ample public
input.
SENATOR COGHILL asked her to elaborate on the court's discussion
and suggestion to stick with the percentage of income model
because of fairness.
MS. MEADE clarified that the court concluded that the percentage
of income approach resulted in child support awards that were
appropriate.
2:33:45 PM
JOHN MALLONEE, Director, Child Support Services Division (CSSD),
Department of Revenue (DOR), offered to answer questions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many child support orders CSSD monitors.
MR. MALLONEE replied the division was actively involved in
approximately 48,000 child support cases, but that did not
represent the full universe because some do not go to CSSD for
enforcement.
CHAIR FRENCH asked why a child support order would or would not
fall under the jurisdiction of CSSD.
MR. MALLONEE explained that one of the parties can ask the court
to give the case to CSSD for enforcement or a party can approach
CSSD directly asking it do anything from establish paternity to
establish a court order to enforce a court order. The agency is
able to do all these things administratively.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he had reviewed SB 134.
MR. MALLONEE said yes, and their calculations showed that when
the combined income is up to $31,000 or $32,000, the
noncustodial parent tends to pay more under SB 134 than under
the current Rule 90.3. The reverse is true when the combined
income is above $31,000 or $32,000; the noncustodial parent
tends to pay less under SB 134 than the current Rule 90.3. He
clarified that would not apply in every situation.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he had analyzed what would happen to
current awards if SB 134 were to pass.
MR. MALLONEE explained that because it would be a material
change of circumstances, CSSD estimates that more than 20,000 of
the current orders would be subject to modification.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what the workload is per month.
2:39:26 PM
MR. MALLONEE replied the current staff of 14 does about 3,000
modifications in a year.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the bill would potentially create seven
years of work.
MR. MALLONEE said yes; the fiscal note asks for 24 temporary and
5 permanent positions to accommodate the modifications and the
added work to get information from two parties rather than one.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if this would affect how the division meets
the federal guidelines for child support.
MR. MALLONEE answered no; it actually provides more opportunity
to meet the federal requirements because each case is subject to
modification.
SENATOR COGHILL asked how CSSD makes things fair when the
noncustodial parent is actually the one caring for the child.
MR. MALLONEE explained that the agency can change an order that
was established administratively, but cannot make changes to
orders produced by the court. Those cases have to go back to the
court.
SENATOR COGHILL asked how long it takes to change custody.
MR. MALLONEE replied it should not take no longer than 30-45
days to change an administrative order, but it takes longer than
that to get a new custody order from the court.
2:43:46 PM
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Collections
and Support Section, Civil Division, Department of Law,
Anchorage, AK, said she was in charge of the section that
advises CSSD and represents it in any court actions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had any general comments on the bill
or the previous testimony.
MS. STEINBERG discussed the three formulas for calculating child
support under Rule 90.3 in cases of primary custody, shared
custody, and divided custody. The primary formula takes a
percentage of the noncustodial parent's net income. The shared
formula is a more income share approach because both parents'
income and the percentage of time each parent has the child is
considered. The divided formula is almost a pure offset
approach. It applies when each parent has primary custody of at
least one child.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had any comments on the relative
fairness of one system compared to the other.
MS. STEINBERG said no, but DOL did review the bill looking at
the legal requirements under federal law to ensure that CSSD
continues to receive federal funds.
2:47:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the formulas easily accommodate
changing family dynamics.
MS. STEINBERG confirmed that administrative orders can be
changed more quickly than court orders, but that it is incumbent
on one or both parents to notify CSSD of a change in custody and
ask for the appropriate adjustment. If the order is produced by
the court, one or both parents have to go back to the court to
get a change of custody. As part of the process the court
matches the support amount to the custody arrangement. Court
cases move more or less quickly depending on the situation.
SENATOR COGHILL said he assumes that would not change if the
bill were to become law.
MS. STEINBERG said that's correct; the parents would still have
to advise the court of the custody change and the court would
have to issue a new custody and support orders. Returning to the
fairness issue, she suggested that it would be necessary to look
at the calculations to see if it was more fair to look at both
parents' income.
2:50:53 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if she had any views on Sections 4 and 5. The
repeal of Rule 90.3 and the non-applicability of the two-thirds
vote requirement.
MS. STEINBERG replied she had not looked at the issue
specifically, but her understanding was that those two sections
were correct.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would check on that a bit more.
SENATOR COGHILL said he looked forward to getting more
information on the non-applicability section because the
constitution says two-thirds vote is necessary for the
Legislature to make changes.
CHAIR FRENCH said he'd focus on that as well. He asked Ms.
Shockley if she had any concluding remarks.
2:51:52 PM
MS. SHOCKLEY commented on the 2008 review process and relayed
her dismay that just four or five people attended the statewide
hearing that lasted just 30 minutes.
SENATOR COGHILL discussed the fiscal impact, the possibility of
putting the Rule 90.3 in statute without changing the current
methodology, and the idea of adding enforcement resources to
help people who feel they've been treated unfairly.
MS. SHOCKLEY said the legislation that was introduced three
years ago put the rule into statute and did not change the
model. At that time 35 states used the shared income model.
Although every situation is different, there are cases where it
is more fair. She cited an example.
CHAIR FRENCH held SB 134 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsor Statement SB 134.doc |
SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| HB 80 Sponosr Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| SB134 Memo from Leg Legal.pdf |
SHSS 2/6/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| SB134 11-076 Leg SB134 Research Report Child Support in other states.pdf |
SHSS 2/6/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/7/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |