Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/06/2012 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB134 | |
| Presentations: Citizen Review Panel & Office of Children | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 134-CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS
1:31:38 PM
Chair Davis announced that the first order of business would be
SB 134, Child Support Awards.
1:35:29 PM
SENATOR ALBERT KOOKESH, sponsor of SB 134, explained that this
measure would put the Child Support Civil Rule 90.3 guidelines
into statute. Alaska Supreme Court Civil Rule bills can only be
changed every four years. One of the advantages of putting Child
Support Civil Rule 90.3 into statue is that it can then be
changed at the whim of the legislature. He summarized that SB
134 addresses the amount of money a child could receive through
custody cases.
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY, staff to Senator Kookesh, reported that SB 134
changes how child support is allocated from a percentage-of-
income system for only the non-custodial parent, to an income
shares model where both parents' income is used to calculate the
amount of child support. The bill came about due to frustrations
following the statewide review process of Rule 90.3 in 2008. Ms.
Shockley related that she was advised to put the guidelines into
statute so that people could have a voice in custody support
hearings. The Alaska Supreme Court admitted that it was a
substantive law and could be replaced any time.
MS. SHOCKELY added that Senator Kookesh's office has received
many calls from people who feel there are problems with custody
procedures and guidelines. It was suggested that the new
guidelines use the income shares model. She noted that 35 states
consider the income of both parents in determining child support
payments. She said the main goal of the legislation is to give
people a voice and to be fair, as well as provide for the
child's best interest.
1:38:11 PM
CHAIR DAVIS requested a sectional analysis.
MS. SHOCKLEY described the information in the sections of the
bill. She related that Section 25.28.010 provides guidelines for
calculations regarding primary physical custody cases. It also
contains an economic table. Section 25.28.020 provides child
support guidelines for shared, divided, and hybrid custody
awards. Section 25.28.030 provides for a margin of error in the
economic table where exceptions to support awards may be needed.
Section 25.28.040 addresses health care expenses. Section
25.28.050 provides confidentiality annual income documentation
requirements. Section 25.28.060 provides for travel expenses.
Section 25.28.070 provides modification to child support awards.
Section 25.28.080 addresses third-party custody. Section
25.28.090 provides for dependent tax deductions. Section
25.28.300 is the definitions section.
1:42:55 PM
MS. SHOCKLEY read from the following sponsor statement:
SB 134 puts the Child Support Civil Rule 90.3
guidelines into statute. In 1987, the Alaska Supreme
Court enacted Civil Rule 90.3. The Supreme Court
admitted this was a substantive law that the
Legislature could replace at any time. In the 25 years
since then, the legislature has not replaced civil
rule 90.3 with an actual law. This bill proposes to
correct that long-standing deficiency.
One of the major problems with having the child
support guidelines set by a court rule is the people
affected by current guidelines have not had the
opportunity to speak to the individuals with the power
to make changes. Instead every four years they are
encouraged to write letters or testify before a review
committee made up of lawyers and judges who then
submit their recommendations to the Supreme Court
Justices who make the final decisions. With the rule
in statute, individuals will have the opportunity to
speak to lawmakers who have the power to make changes.
Proposals to amend can be made in the future through
the legislative process.
The bill proposes enactment of the current rule into
statute with the exception of how the child support
obligation is calculated. Currently, the non-custodial
parent's support obligation is based solely on his or
her income, without regard to what the other parent
makes. With this bill it will be changed to an income
shares model which calculates support as the share of
each parent's income estimated allocation to the
child, if the original household were intact.
According to 2005 statistics (Legislative Research
Report, November 2010):
Twenty four (24) states establish their child support
guidelines statutorily through their legislature while
16 states use court rule only, and 11 states use a
combination of rule, commission and or agency.
Thirty five (35) states consider the income of both
parents in determining child support payments.
SB 134 changes the word 'court' to 'tribunal' in some
cases back to 'court' and adds number (6) to the
definition in Sec. 25.28.300 (page 18) to read
'tribunal means the superior court or the child
support services agency created in AS 25.27.010.'
1:45:38 PM
MS. SHOCKELY noted the removal of a section which ordered one or
more grandparent to pay child support. Also removed were
sections that dealt with the support order form and the
commentary.
1:47:18 PM
STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Attorney General, Department of Law, addressed legal issues in
SB 134. She stated that the Department of Law does not take a
position on the bill. She explained that Section 25.28.040, the
health care expenses section, requires a definition of
"reasonable cost", which is necessary to meet federal
regulations. One option is to define it as "the cost of
insurance does not exceed 5 percent of the net monthly income of
the parent required to purchase insurance."
1:49:44 PM
MS. STEINBERG addressed a federal provision which states that
child support cannot be retroactively modified, which is
addressed in two sections of SB 134, Section 25.28.050 and
Section 25.28.070. The first instance refers to when a parent
can request information about the other parent's income. A
sentence on page 15, in lines 29 - 31, "If a party has made a
reasonable demand for documentation under this subsection, a
tribunal may modify a child support arrearage retroactively,"
violates a federal law on retroactivity. She recommended
deleting that sentence.
MS. STEINBERG said the second instance where child support
cannot be retroactively modified is on page 16, lines 24 and 25.
There is a violation of federal law in the sentence, "A tribunal
may not modify a child support arrearage retroactively, except
as authorized by AS 25.27.1666(d) and AS 25.28.050(b)." This
could be corrected by deleting "and AS 25.28.050(b)."
MS. STEINBERG addressed the advantages of having a delayed
effective date of about a year. The new legislation changes the
formula for calculating child support. Potentially, this could
result in a large number of modifications. She spoke of court
modifications that would be necessary. There are currently about
20,000 existing child support orders, of which half are expected
to request some sort of modification. Of those, half would be
court modifications and would be an increase of up to 5,000 from
700 a year. Regulations would also need to be changed, which
would take time. She suggested a one-year delay for the
effective date.
1:55:37 PM
MS. STEINBERG addressed a fourth issue. Federal law requires
revisions to Child Support Guidelines every four years to ensure
that guidelines meet current regulations, reality, and the
economy. The revision process is currently conducted by the
Court System; however, if SB 134 becomes law, the Court System
would no longer be responsible for that service. That is another
issue to consider before passage of SB 134.
1:57:33 PM
CHAIR DAVIS asked if the sponsor agrees with the changes.
CHAIR KOOKESH said he did agree with the changes and pointed out
that amendments addressing the changes are forthcoming. He had
no problem with a delayed effective date. He stressed the
importance of the income share model, which is the ultimate goal
of the bill.
MS. SHOCKLEY explained the fiscal notes. Child Support Services
will need an additional 24 temporary staff for a total of $6
million, $4 million of which would be from federal receipts and
$2 million in general fund. The Department of Law fiscal note
shows an increase in 19 temporary staff the first year in order
to process modifications.
2:00:36 PM
CHAIR DAVIS requested more information about the effect of the
bill on Court System positions.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, addressed a
potential fiscal note from the Alaska Court System. She
anticipated a need for temporary employees to address the
expected influx of parental requests for modification of custody
orders. She said she thought changing the current four-year
review responsibility to the legislature would not save the
court money because it does not cost money. The Chief Justice
appoints an existing sitting judge to chair the review
committee, which is comprised of six or seven volunteer
attorneys.
2:04:41 PM
CHAIR DAVIS suggested that the amendments could be incorporated
into a new Senate Health and Social Services Standing Committee
CS, which would give departments time to work on fiscal notes.
2:05:58 PM
SCOTT CAULDER, testifying on behalf of himself, spoke in favor
of the bill. He shared a negative personal experience related to
child custody. He referred to a letter from Beth Adams which he
said contains excellent suggestions. He thought SB 134 would
correct some of the problems with the guidelines and provide
greater justice and fairness. He suggested a revision on page
18, lines 18 and 26, to change "shall" to "may".
2:08:42 PM
SENATOR KOOKESH called the bill simple, but complicated. He was
amazed by the cost of the fiscal notes. He said his intent is to
benefit the child and he hoped the fiscal note would not
discourage passage of this legislation. He said he would
continue to work with the Attorney General's Office on the
amendments. He said he had no problem with a delayed fiscal note
by the Alaska Court System.
2:10:48 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked if there were negative impacts from this
type of legislation in any other states and if there was any
opposition in Alaska to this bill.
SENATOR KOOKESH replied that there had been no opposition to the
bill. He said the growing trend is the shared model, as depicted
in the bill.
SENATOR DYSON asked if there had been any challenging suits in
other states.
SENATOR KOOKESH didn't think so.
CHAIR DAVIS offered to provide that information at the next
meeting.
SB 134 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB134 Bill.pdf |
SHSS 2/6/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |
| 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 |
| SB134 CSSD Comments.doc |
SHSS 2/6/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 134 |