Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/04/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB180 | |
| SB134 | |
| SB218 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 134-CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS
1:38:14 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." He relayed that he asked the
bar association to solicit input on the bill from family law
practitioners so the emails and statements that committee
members have received from practitioners came at his
instigation.
1:39:16 PM
SENATOR COGHILL joined the committee.
ALLEN BAILEY, family law attorney representing himself,
Anchorage, AK, said his clients tend to be victims of domestic
violence and many are in the lower income bracket. He said he
did not have a preference about placing Court Rule 90.3 in
statute or not. However, it would be a serious loss to adopt an
entirely new method. It would have neither the 25-year history
with the courts nor the legislative history and commentary that
Civil Rule 90.3 has.
He said the concerns the sponsor's staff raised in a letter
commenting on Civil Rule 90.3 could not occur under current law
to child support payors in Alaska. He opined that it should not
be the duty of the court or CSSD to adjust reality for abusive
people they do not have the financial income to support their
irresponsible behaviors. People sometimes undergo financial
reversals, but there are ways to deal with that problem under
current law. He urged the committee to take time with the bill.
1:45:36 PM
RHONDA BUTTERFIELD, family law attorney representing herself,
Anchorage, AK, said 20 percent of her caseload is exclusively
child support and 86 percent involves child support issues. She
expressed concern that the bill would fundamentally change how
child support is calculated and upheave 25 years of case law.
She suggested that if the Legislature wants to place the child
support rule into statute, it should adopt it in full along with
the commentary and case law. The system may have weaknesses, but
there are more serious issues than changing to an income share
model. For example, the unemployed need temporary relief from
their child support obligations. She also pointed out that it
would be difficult for people to get relief from child support
problems when the Legislature is not in session.
MS. BUTTERFIELD said she believes that the Department of Revenue
understated the number of child support orders that would be
subject to modification. After listening to an administrative
law judge speak on the topic, she understood that CSSD has
58,000 child support cases, yet their fiscal note says only
20,000 would be eligible for modification. Her experience is
that most child support orders involve primary physical custody
by one parent so all of those cases would be subject to
modification. She suggested the committee go slowly and look
carefully before taking action on the bill. She said she would
submit additional comments in writing.
1:52:46 PM
MICHAEL SHAFFER, family law attorney representing himself, said
he represents primarily victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault. He echoed the comments of the previous practitioners
and described the bill as profoundly flawed. Although the
calculation is based on the Washington model, it does not
consider the costs directly associated with child rearing. That
significant problem will create a tremendous amount of
additional litigation between custodial and non-custodial
parents. It will make things worse for the custodial parent in
primary custody situations as the income disparity increases.
This is often the mother. Although Court Rule 90.3 is not
perfect, the court acts like a regulatory agency with a rule
change process and it has the most expertise in child custody
and child support.
MR. SHAFFER opined that every parent who thinks they can
reassess their support payment through the new method will
apply. His experience is that very few obligor parents pay
voluntarily; more often, it is through mandatory garnishments.
The bill will have an overall harmful impact to children,
particularly those in the care of a low-income custodial parent.
It will secondarily be harmful to custodial parents and will
benefit non-custodial parents who want to pay less in child
support. That is not and should not be the purpose of the law.
He urged the committee to move cautiously and solicit input from
experts and practitioners in the field before changing the
calculation method.
1:59:49 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Mr. Shaffer was careful to clarify that
he was representing himself, not his employer.
DOROTHEA AGUERO, family law attorney representing herself,
Anchorage, AK, echoed the comments of the previous testifiers.
She said a number of practitioners articulated concern at the
section meeting yesterday that they had not had the opportunity
to provide input on the bill. The impetus for the bill appears
to have come from constituent complaints about fairness of the
current rule and the concerns articulated in Ms. Shockley's
letter to Beth Adams from the Alaska Court System. She agreed
with the previous testimony about consulting experts and
practitioners in the field before making such sweeping changes.
MS. AGUERO said many of her former clients will want to modify
their child support orders if the definition of shared custody
is changed. Considering a parent's expenses may require
extensive evidentiary hearings, which will burden the court
system and cost clients more in attorney's fees. It also appears
that lower income parents will actually pay more under the
proposed changes. Another concern is that the bill disregards
the commentary in Court Rule 90.3 and will result in the
potential loss of 25 years of case law. She urged more
deliberate thought and input before making any changes.
2:06:18 PM
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony.
2:06:29 PM
DORTHY SHOCKLEY, staff to Senator Albert Kookesh, sponsor of SB
134, stated that the bill puts Civil Rule 90.3 into statute and
changes the formula for calculating child support. She reviewed
the sponsor statement and told the committee that she followed
the entire rule review process four years ago. The court
solicited comments, but made limited changes. The statewide
teleconference to comment on the changes received little input.
She recalled that just five people commented in the allotted
half hour. She found the process disappointing and asked how to
change it. An attorney who sat on two of the review committees
suggested that putting the rule in statute would give people
more voice. Another suggestion was to change to a shared income
model.
MS. SHOCKLEY directed attention to the updated Legislative
Research Report in the packet. Twenty-six states have child
support in statute, six states use court rule, and others use a
combination. Thirty-seven states use the income share model.
Responding to previous questions, she confirmed that the
economic table contained in the bill did came from the
Washington model. The Department of Labor and Workforce
Development (DOLWD) indicated what a table specific to Alaska
was not essential because its purpose is to indicate how much a
person at various income levels can afford to support a child or
children. If the bill passes, nonmonetary considerations and the
question of a statute of limitations could be considered. She
concluded that the bill addresses the fairness issue and that
people do not feel they have a voice.
2:15:18 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the percent of income model could be
modified since the income share model did not have case history
in Alaska.
MS. SHOCKLEY said the bill initially did not change the
calculation. The decision to change to the income share model
was based on what most other states are doing. People that have
called the sponsor's office support that change. She
acknowledged that the fiscal notes were daunting.
2:18:46 PM
CHAIR FRENCH held SB 134 in committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|