Legislature(1993 - 1994)
05/02/1994 10:15 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 128(FIN)
An Act relating to paternity determinations and
acknowledgements.
Co-chair Pearce directed that CS SSHB 128 (Finance) be
brought on for discussion and referenced a $43.3 fiscal note
from Vital Statistics and a zero note from the Dept. of
Health and Social Services for AFDC. She further pointed to
support for the legislation from the Hospital and Nursing
Home Association, a sponsor statement, a sectional analysis,
and various articles concerning the bill.
(Co-chair Frank arrived at the meeting at this time.)
AL ZANGRI, Chief, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Division of
Public Health, Dept. of Health and Social Services; and PHIL
PETRIE, Operations Manager, Child Support Enforcement
Division, Dept. of Revenue, came before committee. Mr.
Petrie said that the bill would make little change in what
is currently being done in state child support enforcement
efforts. It responds to a federal mandate that states pass
laws establishing a hospital based paternity program. The
state has been using an acknowledgment form which is
subsequently used to establish support orders. The division
presently has 7,900 paternity cases pending.
The federal omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993
mandates use of an acknowledgment program. The federal
government funds both the education portion as well as
program operations within vital statistics.
Mr. Zangri explained that when the mother and father sign an
affidavit of paternity, the father's name is placed on the
birth certificate, and he has all the rights of any father
in Alaska. He is also responsible for supporting the child.
Senator Kerttula voiced concern that women would be
pressured by the system to sign mandated forms. Mr. Petrie
responded that mothers would be encouraged to sign the form
and educated regarding the ramifications of doing so.
Senator Kerttula asked if mothers who refuse to sign would
be removed from welfare, if they happen to be on the
program. Mr. Petrie acknowledged that the mother's welfare
grant would be reduced if she refused to sign.
Senator Kelly referenced arrangements between men and women
whereby a couple decides to have child and the man
acknowledges paternity but does not assume support
obligations. He then asked how that type of arrangement
would be accommodated. Mr. Petrie alluded to possible
contractual agreements that may or may not cover the cited
arrangement. He advised that he was not an attorney and
could not speak to that aspect. He stressed that when a
woman goes on public assistance, "Somebody's going after
whoever she has named as the father." Senator Kelly asked
if the bill relates to public assistance only. Mr. Petrie
responded negatively. He reiterated that in the majority of
instances, fathers sign affidavits of paternity and assume
the associated responsibilities. If the mother or father do
not apply for welfare or services through the child support
enforcement division, signing the affidavit will have no
effect other than to establish who the parents of the child
are. The affidavit alone does not create a duty of support.
A parent would have to apply for services with the division
or seek support through the court. If a parent applies for
welfare, then the division would seek a court order for
support in order to reimburse the state and federal AFDC
program.
In further discussion of mistaken paternity, Mr. Petrie
advised of ability to appeal the paternity and request blood
tests. Mr. Petrie stressed that signing the form is a
"presumption."
Senator Rieger inquired concerning legal rights created by
establishment of a parent/child relationship. He
specifically noted instances where the presumptive father
might harass the mother and child or contest custody. Mr.
Petrie said that a father could not contest custody based on
the acknowledgment form. The father would have to take
affirmative action and go to court to establish custody,
visitation rights, etc. The affidavit provides a basis for
that by establishing who is the father. It further makes
the child subject to benefits from the social security
administration, other benefits from government programs,
etc.
Senator Kerttula again voiced concern that women would be
forced to sign the form in instances where they want no
further contact with the father. Mr. Petrie alluded to $10
million in CSED funding as well as AFDC moneys that the
state will forfeit if the mandated program is not initiated,
and Alaska is found to be out of compliance with federal
law. He concurred that issues of custody and visitation are
extremely sensitive. The division does not deal with those
issues. They are left to the courts. Mr. Petrie
acknowledged that some mothers who wish to receive AFDC
benefits do not wish to commence a case with the division or
provide the names of the fathers of their children. The
federal government has taken the position, however, that if
one wants to receive public funds, the individual must
cooperate with state and federal governments in recovery of
moneys.
Senator Kelly asked if the bill is restricted to AFDC
payments. Mr. Petrie responded negatively. He added that
the federal government requires that it be extended to other
individuals. The division serves two clientele: AFDC
recipients and "anyone that makes application to the
agency." The division must provide equal services to both.
The national social perspective is that states should
provide these services to people who need them.
Discussion followed between Senator Kelly and Mr. Petrie
concerning false claims of paternity. Mr. Zangri stressed
that no father could be forced to sign the affidavit of
paternity. Signature is voluntary on the part of both
parents.
In response to further concerns relating to harassment, Mr.
Petrie reiterated that failure to name the father of the
child would result in a reduced AFDC payment. A reduction
would be made in the adult payment rather than the child's
portion (the bulk of the money) of the grant. Division
experience indicates that few cases fall into the harassment
category. Provisions in public assistance regulations allow
for hearings "for good cause." If good cause is granted,
the division has two choices:
1. Enforcement of the case if that can be done
without
threatening the safety of the mother or child.
2. Cease action on the case if there is a threat to
the
mother or child.
Mr. Zangri distributed the currently used affidavit of
paternity for members' review. He advised that it had been
in use for approximately ten years.
End, SFC-94, #80, Side 1
Start, SFC-94, #80, Side 2
Senator Kelly voiced need for an amendment to make
provisions for private arrangements between couples and
asked that he be given a day to develop appropriate
language. Co-chair Pearce directed that the bill be HELD in
committee for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|