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 116 PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Number 406
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 116 as the next order of business
before the committee.
GLENDA STRAUBE, CSED, stated that SB 116 would provide for the
administrative establishment for paternity. Currently, all
paternity cases must be handled by the Alaska Court System which is
backlogged. CSED does the genetic work and identifies the punitive
father, then the case goes to the court. Only after the case
returns to CSED can the amount of money owed be determined and
collections received. Paternity establishment must be determined
before collections can take place.
Ms. Straube pointed out that the federal regulations have changed
and in order for CSED to conform, CSED must establish 75 percent of
their orders in six months and 90 percent of their orders in 12
months. She reiterated that in order to do the orders, paternity
must be established first. Establishment of paternity alone could
take two and half to three years. She commented that CSED is doing
other administrative things in an attempt to solve this problem.
Currently, the court portion of this could take up to six months.
Under SB 116, CSED would use the same standard as the court which
is already the case. She explained that a case is not sent to the
court unless it meets the standards set forth in AS 25.20.050.
Those standards review if there has been a voluntary
acknowledgement or if there is a 95 percent chance or better
through the genetic test that the person is the father. SB 116
would still allow due process with the option of judicial review.
Ms. Straube reiterated that this legislation would alleviate some
of the backlog in the courts. She indicated that most people
would not use judicial review if CSED uses the same standards as
the court in the establishment of paternity.
Currently, there are 3,200 cases in progress regarding the
establishment of paternity, approximately 70 percent of those cases
are AFDC cases. SB 116 would eliminate at least six months of the
process and perhaps even more. Ms. Straube asserted that CSED
would not be able to meet the federal standards unless this
legislation is passed as well as many in-house and inter-
governmental changes.
Ms. Straube discussed a scenario in which a child born in wedlock
is the child of a third person who acknowledges that he is the
father; everyone agrees that the third person is the father. By
law, CSED cannot accept those affidavits, only the court can accept
those. Currently, those people would have to go to court and file
a paternity action. SB 116 would allow CSED to take the word of
these three people through affidavit; there are other similar
situations in which SB 116 would help. Ms. Straube did not foresee
any problems with SB 116 nor the process.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the definition of tribunal. AL ZANGRI,
Chief of the Bureau of Vital Statistics for DHSS, directed the
committee to page 2, line 18 of the bill.
SENATOR SALO asked if the application of this referred to CSED.
GLENDA STRAUBE replied yes, CSED is the administrative agency; we
would be the tribunal.
Number 481
SENATOR SALO expressed concern with the six month period in which
a case would sit in the court, but the two years in which it may
take to establish parentage would be of more concern. What are
some of the things being done to deal with this problem? GLENDA
STRAUBE stated that a portion of the governor's welfare reform
deals with co-location. The goal is to place people in the public
assistance office during intake hours in order to do the affidavits
correctly as well as doing the genetic testing. Doing an affidavit
through the mail could take up to six months. Ms. Straube noted
that the Attorney General's Office is also making some changes to
expedite the process on their end.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there would be any point in the process in
which a persons' rights would be infringed upon. GLENDA STRAUBE
clarified that people would have the same rights that they
currently do. Currently, the process begins with an informal
hearing and then a formal hearing and finally, if the person
remains unsatisfied, they could go to court.
SENATOR SALO mentioned the possibility of the mother being
unwilling to name the father; why would that be? GLENDA STRAUBE
informed the committee that of the 3,200 paternity cases, 2,600 of
those have names of the father and 639 do not have the father's
name. Of those 639 cases without names, 482 are AFDC cases. In
her opinion, women do not name the father for reasons ranging from
fear to the desire to not have the father be a part of their life.
Some women do not feel the need to name the father at a particular
time. Ms. Straube also proposed the psychology of protection as
another reason not to name the father.
SENATOR SALO commented that in all the reasons Ms. Straube had
cited the notion that women do not name the father of their
children in order to receive more AFDC was not mentioned. GLENDA
STRAUBE did not believe that a mother would collect more AFDC if
she did not name the father. Ms. Straube explained that the family
receives the first $50 of any child support. They would also
receive anything over the grant.
REBECCA EAMES, representing the Division of Public Assistance,
clarified that if the child support exceeds the AFDC needs
standard, then the mother would be denied AFDC. If the amount of
the child support is less than the AFDC needs standard, the mother
would receive $50 and CSED would receive the remainder.
Number 538
RICK KRUEGER, testifying from Fairbanks, related his personal
experience in which he was notified that CSED was looking for him
in 1986. He called CSED and was informed that a woman whom he had
not seen in seven years was claiming that he was the father of her
child. He cooperated with CSED and filled out the paperwork. CSED
said that they would contact Mr. Krueger regarding taking a blood
test. Six years later, CSED is taking Mr. Krueger to court for six
years of arrears for child support and welfare which total $65,000.
He noted that the amount was reduced by half with the help of an
attorney.
Mr. Krueger said that CSED is currently taking half of his take
home pay for the arrears. He explained that he did not have a
problem with paying the child support, but he felt that he should
only have to pay from the time he received the results of the blood
test. He asserted that CSED recognized their fault in this manner,
but they did not care and wanted the arrears. CSED is a
bureaucracy that is out of control and it does not answer to
anyone. He noted that he had talked to various legislators and
there seems to be nothing that can be done. Mr. Krueger expressed
frustration that his situation took six years when he remained in
the same state. In conclusion, Mr. Krueger recommended the state
taking responsibility in a timely manner in 90 days. If a mother
does not name a father when she applies for welfare, the mother
should not receive benefits. The father should be named
immediately.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Krueger if he was ever informed that he
had a child before CSED was in the matter. RICK KRUEGER said he
was not and added that he is not on the birth certificate.
CHAIRMAN GREEN recognized the concern with late notifications which
create large arrearage. That type of situation does seem punitive
and unfair, but it is not necessarily the state's responsibility to
deal with this.
SENATOR SALO pointed out that although one may sympathize with Mr.
Krueger, meanwhile someone is raising his child and it takes money
to do so. The larger issue here is the care of the child which
should be the parents responsibility, but the state should be
available for assistance if necessary.
GLENDA STRAUBE explained that the lengthy time in which someone
could be notified of their child is not in the purview of CSED, it
is part of federal regulations. However, the amount of time
between any blood test and the establishment of paternity, which SB
116 would help, as well as the time between the establishment of
paternity and their notification of the amount owed should be
controlled.
SENATOR LEMAN said that it did not seem unfair to require the
father to participate in raising their child, it is proper.
TAPE 95-30, SIDE B
Number 590
SENATOR LEMAN indicated that for a woman to name a father years
after the child has been born is unfair; the father has been denied
the opportunity to be a father for that time. There should be a
reasonable amount of time to receive back collection, after that
time the back collection would not be possible. Is there such a
limitation in federal or state law? GLENDA STRAUBE did not know.
In response to Senator Leman, MARILYN MAY did not believe there was
a statute of limitations until after the emancipation of the child.
She noted that most courts have went back six years from the date
the paternity complaint was filed; collection of arrears are
allowed that far back. Ms. May did not believe there should be a
limitation. When a man has unprotected sex it is his
responsibility to know the consequences. It is not appropriate to
penalize the child and the mother for the fact that the father did
not know and did not check the results of his action.
SENATOR LEMAN said that he did not have a problem with the father
taking responsibility, but if the father is not informed of his
child that is another situation. In this case, the father has lost
an opportunity to be a father, even a non-custodial father. He
felt that the mother should take on some responsibility with
regards to notifying the father of the child. MARILYN MAY
reiterated that in most cases the father is held for six years of
arrears prior to the time he was notified of the paternity
complaint which seems to be the limitation for what the mother can
hold the father responsible. Ms. May opposed the penalization of
the child, the loss of support of the child, because the mother had
waited a certain number of years to inform the father of his child.
Ms. May recognized the unfairness to which Senator Leman was
speaking however, a greater unfairness would result if a father
could escape responsibility for a child entirely.
GLENDA STRAUBE specified that these cases often happen because the
mother was not on AFDC when it occurred and paternity was not
established at the time. The problem begins when the mother goes
on AFDC, then CSED takes the case and the mother is required to
name the father.
In response to Chairman Green, MARILYN MAY clarified that even in
a case without AFDC, a mother can apply for services and name an
alleged father and go through the paternity establishment process.
Ms. May did not know how far back the support award could go; the
courts have differed in the allowed arrears prior to the time the
mother requested services.
Number 518
SENATOR SALO was confused because she thought there was a six year
back collection limit. MARILYN MAY said that was true for cases
involving AFDC. Ms. May explained that when a mother applies for
AFDC she is required to assign her right to collect child support
to the state, who requires the mother to name the father. There
are no general requirements that a mother must name a father in
order to receive AFDC. Ms. May pointed out that there is leverage
to make the mother name the father because she could be determined
by the court to be non-cooperative. In an AFDC case, the state has
the right to the repayment of those benefits that were paid to the
mother which is why the courts would go back six years from the
claim made by the state. Ms. May offered to check on the
information regarding the court's stance in those cases that do not
involve AFDC.
GLENDA STRAUBE asserted that regardless of the issues that have
come up today, this bill would help establish paternity and notify
these people faster.
SENATOR SALO said that the bill is a step in the right direction in
order to alleviate some of the court time involved and make the
establishment of paternity an easier process. All the other issues
discussed are important to other pieces of legislation.
In order to clarify for Chairman Green, GLENDA STRAUBE explained
that in AFDC cases back arrears can go back to six years, but in
non-AFDC cases the back arrears would depend upon the court.
MARILYN MAY agreed and added that most of the courts have not went
back for arrears in non-AFDC cases.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if CSED and AFDC would go after the non-
custodial parent on their own for fees that CSED or AFDC did not
have anything to do with paying in those years. GLENDA STRAUBE
believed that CSED and AFDC would not. Ms. Straube offered to get
that information to the committee members. Ms. Straube emphasized
that issue does not change SB 116.
MARILYN MAY pointed out that administrative establishment of
paternity would happen upon the advocation from a mother, custodian
or a legal custodian of the child or from the state. The one
person missing from that list would be the punitive father who is
presumed to be the father of the child by operation of law, if the
man and woman are married. In some cases the husband wants
paternity disestablished. SB 116 would not allow for that type of
case, the bill only addresses the normal establishment of
paternity.
SENATOR SALO concluded that such cases would remain in the purview
of the court. MARILYN MAY said yes, this type of case does not
require an administrative establishment of paternity. Such cases
could be done in court.
Number 441
AL ZANGRI, Bureau of Vital Statistics for DHSS, stated that SB 116
focuses on two primary issues: the three party affidavit and the
establishment of the administrative procedure for the establishment
of paternity. The three party affidavits recognized are voluntary
establishments of paternity by everyone involved. Currently in
statute, there are two party voluntary affidavits of paternity that
are being used. He informed the committee that approximately 30
percent of the births in Alaska are to single mothers which means
that approximately 3,100 children have one named parent.
Approximately 1,400 affidavits are processed in voluntary paternity
every year. The remaining go through involuntary processes through
the court, SB 116 would allow CSED to utilize an administrative
procedure.
Mr. Zangri noted that the other dissatisfied clients would fall
under the three party affidavits. Under current law, three party
affidavits cannot establish paternity. Approximately 300 or 400
people are affected by three party affidavits. By the time the
Bureau of Vital Statistics receives a call, the client is very
upset. Often there is nothing that can be done. When a man and a
woman remain married after many years of separation, if the woman
has a child by another man, the woman's husband must be placed on
the birth certificate and must be give parental rights although, he
is not the father. The husband is legally the father of the child.
Mr. Zangri discussed various scenarios in which the biological
father is not legally recognized as such. The bill would help
these situations. The department supports SB 116.
GLENDA STRAUBE informed the committee that she could have answers
to the committee's questions within an hour.
MARILYN MAY stated that CSED does not seek back payments prior to
the time of the paternity complaint in cases that do not involve
AFDC. If there are cases in which the courts have went back with
arrears, then it is very rare and does not represent the norm.
GLENDA STRAUBE commented that the reason for that is that AFDC is
a federal regulation that CSED does not control.
BEA HAGEN informed Mr. Krueger that could call the 800 number for
the Office of the Ombudsman in Anchorage since Fairbanks does not
have an office.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that SB 116 be reported out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|