HB 242 - UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT GLENDA STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, said HB 242 relates to all the procedures the division must go through to collect money for child support in other states. The most difficult cases for CSED to collect are interstate cases. Those types of cases comprise 44 percent of the caseload. Most noncustodial parents know the best way to get away from paying child support is to cross state lines. CO-CHAIR BUNDE had to speak as a sponsor of a bill in another committee. He turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Toohey, and said he would return promptly. It was 3:01 p.m. MS. STRAUBE said HB 242 would provide a tool to help the CSED to collect in those cases. Probably the most important thing the bill will do is eliminate the multiple order system that already exists. This is a problem. For example, one party has a support order in Colorado, and one party has a support order in Alaska. There really is no clear guidance on which support order the CSED should enforce. MS. STRAUBE stated HB 242 would eliminate that problem. It would make it very clear as to who has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. It would promote efficiency by using the same federal forms for all interstate cases. It would also allow direct income withholding from one state to another. One of the most frequent complaints CSED receives from obligees/custodial parents is that the other state is not collecting any money, and/or not collecting it fast enough. This bill would make it easier for the CSED to withhold income, and not depend so much on whether or not another state's child support office is operating very well. Number 700 MS. STRAUBE continued that there are no expenditures forecasted for this bill. However, the bill would collect $340,000 per year for the state's share of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) reimbursement. There would also be another $680,000 that would go directly to children. MS. STRAUBE said when the CSED collects money, it does it in two different ways. One way is that the money is collected and it goes to reimburse the CSED for AFDC costs. Or, if the money is not an AFDC case, the money goes directly to the children. This bill is very important, and basically the federal government has mandated this type of action. There are at least 21 states that have already approved this action, and Ms. Straube felt that number had increased. Alaska is the only state left in Region X (ten) that had not passed this type of legislation. CO-CHAIR BUNDE returned to the meeting at 3:05 p.m. MS. STRAUBE said this bill was up last year, but it did not make it all the way through before the end of the session. There were no problems with the bill, and no one testified against it, but it simply got lost in the shuffle. She added that it was originally introduced in the House. Number 798 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said she has gotten several letters on child support enforcement, and she has passed those letters on to Ms. Straube. She asked if the maximum amount the state is allowed to withhold from a delinquent father is uniform across the U.S., or does the amount vary from state to state. She asked how the amount would be kept fairly uniform, and what is the state's percentage. MS. STRAUBE answered that on arrearages, the state's percentage is up to 50 percent. That is different than what the state would be receiving if the enforcement was ongoing. If the enforcement is ongoing, a percentage of the delinquent parent's salary is taken. MS. STRAUBE said for one child, the amount of income withheld is 20 percent. Two children is 27 percent, three children is 33 percent. Number 851 CO-CHAIR BUNDE shared, for the committee's information, that he has spoken to a guardian in Anchorage who looks after the interests of a man who has sired 20 children and pays zero child support. He then reassumed the gavel, and asked for further testimony. ART PETERSON, Attorney, Dillon and Finley Law Firm, said he was testifying in his role as a uniformed law commissioner for Alaska. He said that in the uniform laws conference, his organization began working on this type of legislation in 1989, having had by that time several decades of experience with the current (now old) Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. Several decades of experience brought to light numerous problems. The primary problem is the one of inconsistent, multi-state court orders. MR. PETERSON said HB 242 removes that problem. That is the single most significant provision in the bill. By removing that problem, the system is made more efficient so the courts and the administrative agencies funding these issues can deal with them more expeditiously. It makes the system easier to understand and thus fairer to both parties, the obligors and the obligees. It also provides a better way to get support for these kids, which is the primary purpose of all such legislation. Number 968 MR. PETERSON noted that HESS Committee members have just received his letter of April 25, 1995, to which he attached some amendments. Those actually set out the amendments that are mentioned in a letter from Marilyn May of the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Peterson said he would be happy to answer any questions, and expressed his strong support for this bill. The sooner this bill is placed on the books, the better off the state government and the people involved in the child support system will be. Number 1002 CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the proposed amendments were simply conforming amendments with Title 9 at the request of the Governor. MR. PETERSON answered that was not quite true. The amendments seek to conform with Administrative Title 9 of the court system. It is essentially at the request of the courts, or at the sense of anyone reading what has happened, because the court has already made the change referred to. Therefore, the bill should not refer to those "changes" because they will not be changes. CO-CHAIR BUNDE asked if the amendments were made with the concurrence of the Governor. MR. PETERSON answered that was correct. CO-CHAIR BUNDE said he would call the amendment attached to Mr. Peterson's letter amendment one, and move amendment one. The amendment begins on page 1, line 3. There were no objections and amendment one was adopted. STUART HALL, Ombudsman, State of Alaska, said his office is in very strong support of this legislation and its companion measure in the Senate. The enactment of this legislation would assist many who have sought the help of the State Ombudsman over the last years with the CSED. In FY 94-95, to date, the ombudsman has assisted over 1,660 individuals with complaints about the CSED. Many of the complaints were filed by custodial parents who depend on the division to collect child support from the out-of-state parent. MR. HALL said a large number of those complaints came from single parents concerned about the slow pace of case establishment and child support collection. Enactment of this legislation would streamline the establishment process, which would, in turn, prompt speedier collections. Two things the Ombudsman's Office likes about the bill is the simplification of the process: The elimination of the multi-state, multi-jurisdictional orders; and the ability, under this statute, to go directly from the last order to the employer in Colorado, or wherever. MR. HALL said those elements should cut down on the frustration and confusion and the delay, which are the kinds of complaints most often heard. This legislation is endorsed heavily, and Mr. Hall urged its early and speedy enactment. Number 1187 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved HB 242 from the HESS Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There were no objections, and the bill was moved.