HB 106-UNIFORM INTER.CHILD SUPPORT;PARENTAGE  2:13:58 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 106, "An Act relating to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, including jurisdiction by tribunals of the state, registration and proceedings related to support orders from other state tribunals, foreign support orders, foreign tribunals, and certain persons residing in foreign countries; relating to determination of parentage of a child; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 106(STA).] 2:14:01 PM CAROL BEECHER, Deputy Director, Anchorage Central Office, Child Support Division, Department of Revenue, advised the Alaska Child Support Services Division is authorized under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and that the agency has been in operation since 1976. The mission of the child support division is to collect and disburse child support of which it collected approximately $112 million in FY14, and approximately 90 percent went directly to families for support and 10 percent reimbursed the state and federal government for public assistance. The case load currently is approximately 49,000 cases. She explained that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) was drafted by the Uniform Law Commissioners and provides universal and uniform rules for the enforcement of family support orders between states. Alaska passed the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act in 1996 and by 1998 all United States jurisdictions had passed UIFSA into law. She opined the rationale for amending UIFSA is that it was clear some revisions were required to clarify jurisdictional and controlling order issues. The Act was amended by the Uniform Law Commission in 2001, but enactment was not required by the states. In 2007, the United States signed The Hague Convention Treaty on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Convention). She advised this Convention contains numerous provisions that establish uniform procedures for processing international child support cases. 2:16:29 PM MS. BEECHER advised that in 2008 the Uniform Law Commission amended UIFSA to incorporate changes required by the Convention. In 2010 the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to the treaty. In September 2014, Public Law 113-183, Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act was signed into law. This act requires that all United States jurisdictions enact UIFSA 2008 in their next legislative session. For example, she noted, for Alaska the date is July 1, 2015. 2:17:36 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there were states that were not doing anything. MS. BEECHER responded that currently all states are either enacting, or it is in their legislature, or it is being drafted. 2:17:45 PM MS. BEECHER continued her presentation and stated that as a condition of the federal financial participation, which is $19 million for Alaska, each state child support agency must have an approved state plan which meets all federal requirements. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement determines whether a state plan is approved and it is requiring states to adopt UIFSA 2008 verbatim. The CS version of HB 106 is because Version A went before the Office of Child Support Enforcement and they prepared amendments so that the bill would be verbatim. She advised this was also reviewed by Legislative Legal and Research Services and the Department of Revenue's legal staff. She opined that this bill will amend UIFSA and that most amendments contain clean up language and clarifying definitions. She pointed out that the primary change is the addition of a new section, Article 7A. [Support Proceedings under Convention] Sec. 96, [AS 25.25 is amended by adding a new section.], page 31. She advised that this new section provides guidelines and procedures for the registration, recognition, enforcement, and modification of foreign support orders from countries that are parties to the Convention. To date, 33 countries have signed onto the Convention. Passage of this bill will provide a better opportunity for Alaska's children to receive child support from parents that live in a foreign country. She noted that Alaska already enforces foreign support cases when the parent provides sufficient documentation, and that there are processes similar to the way the agency currently enforces between states. But, she further noted, this tends to be a one-way street. The agency enforces foreign order orders but many countries will not enforce United States' orders outside of a treaty agreement. The new section of UIFSA will not go in effect until the treaty is ratified. Until then states will continue to enforce orders in the same way it currently enforces. 2:20:34 PM STACY STEINBERG, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Statewide Section Supervisor, Collections and Support Section, Civil Division, pointed out that there are 106 section in the bill and offered an overview sectional analysis. She described the meat of the bill as Sec. 96, which is a new article dealing with foreign support orders from the Convention countries. She reiterated Ms. Beecher in that current law already provides for Alaska to enforce foreign orders and this needs to become a two- way street for the other countries to enforce our orders. Sec. 96, adds 13 new statutes that deal with processing requests from other countries. Basically, she explained, it mirrors the current process in Article VI, which is how orders are registered now. There are a few differences on the time frame for objecting to the registration. She referred to Sec. 20, AS 25.25.104 [Application of this chapter to resident of foreign country and foreign support proceedings] and stated it includes the 2008 changes. There will also be a new section, she explained, that deals with the procedure to register a foreign support order and designation whether using Article VI or Article VII processes, in Sec. 95 of the bill. Another new statute, AS 25.25.402, deals with parentage and was recently moved from what was formerly .701, so only Article VII deals with the foreign support orders. She offered that there are a host of other changes directly related to the new Article VII, of which many deal with definitions. Under the act there is a legal fiction that a foreign country can be a "state," which is being deleted so that a foreign country is truly a foreign country. She remarked that it results in many statute changes, including Secs. 1-16, as there are new definitions. She said she determined there are 21 statutes that will be amended to add either foreign country, or foreign tribunal, or define outside the state, which results in 23 new sections of the bill. She related there is clean up language fixing cross-references, and providing for notice by electronic mail. She opined there are many changes but the meat of it is in Sec. 96. 2:24:37 PM MS. STEINBERG continued her analysis in that by adopting the 2008 version, the committee would be in essence adopting the 2001 changes by the Uniform Law Commission. She reiterated Ms. Beecher in that the state is currently under the 1996 version because that is what the federal government has mandated for funding, and Alaska is required to update the 2001 changes. In the statute, she remarked what is related to the 2001 changes and in essence, she related, are clarifying changes to the laws already on the books. In 2001, the state had been using UIFSA for approximately 15 years and the drafters realized certain areas needed to be "tweaked," she opined. As part of the 2001 changes there will be 3 new statutes, in that there is a change in Sec. 40, AS 25.25.280 which deals with the application of the act to a non-resident subject to the state's personal jurisdiction. Another new statute, AS 25.25.615 deals with jurisdiction to modify a child support order of a foreign country, if that foreign country either lacks jurisdiction or refuses jurisdiction to modify in Sec. 95. AS 25.25.281 deals with spousal support in that a state can modify spousal support. When is also in Sec. 40, of the bill and is not a new section as these provision are already in current law in AS 25.25.205(f) and .206(C). She explained that the drafter pulled those sections out and put them in their own stand alone section. For example, the court that sets spousal support will always have jurisdiction over spousal support and is the only court that can modify it, which is different from the rules on modifying child support. She pointed out that 21 sections of the bill deal with more clarifying amendments, for example, what court should determine the controlling order. The clarifying amendments touch 29 different statutes and there are 51 sections in the bill that deal with that, she explained. 2:28:10 PM MS. STEINBERG responded to Chair LeDoux that the bill is something she and Ms. Beecher work with everyday and do not find it confusing. She noted it is an excellent vehicle for child support as when it was enacted in 1996, it was problematic dealing with enforcing child support orders through different states. Under this uniform law enacted in 1996, it made the process much more efficient with the states communicating with the same laws. She remarked that this bill expands it beyond just the states in taking it to a more global level with the main intent that children do get support no matter where the parent resides. 2:29:53 PM CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she sees the good intent of the bill but it bothers her somewhat that if the legislature does not pass this bill verbatim that "it's no good." MS. STEINBERG responded that is her understanding as they have worked closely with the Federal Office of Child Support. Congress changed the law that applies to child support agencies, and basically, in that law, changed the language to the states' requirement to adopt from UIFSA 1996 to UIFSA 2008. She advised she has been contact with the Federal Office of Child Support and it has interpreted it to mean that each state must adopt this in its next legislative session in order to continue to be eligible. She explained that as part of its funding, the state must provide a state plan and the state plan must be in compliance in order to continue to receive funding. CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she is uncomfortable to have the federal government say "you have to adopt this in exactly the form we want it in, or it's no good." Within most uniform rules there are differences between Alaska and California and Iowa, even though they may be small differences, and are all substantially the same. She asked that an attorney from the federal government who deals with child support and this statute attend the next meeting. 2:31:40 PM MS. STEINBERG replied that in previous committee hearings someone from the Federal Office of Child Support testify regarding the verbatim requirement and how that affects funding. Also available will be Ms. Lindsay Beaver, Uniform Law Commission, to explain the uniform laws. Part of the reasoning, she remarked, regarding uniformity amongst the states is related to a uniform processes and mentioned that a few tweaks were allowed as "we call it the bracketed language." For example, not every state calls their child support agency the Child Support Services Agency, but the actual substance of the bill cannot be changed. CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the foreign countries are adopting something that is absolutely identical to the bill. MS. STEINBERG answered that the foreign countries have signed the Convention, and as part of the Convention or treaty, they have to agree to do certain things. The Convention is outlined as an exhibit to the committee's packet, which is similar to Article VII regarding documents that must be provided and due process. 2:33:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the whole topic of collecting child support internationally became the subject of The Hague Convention Treaty that basically said if both sides of the countries sign onto the treaty that both sides can collect in each other's country. MS. STEINBERG responded "That is essentially correct," in that prior to The Hague Convention the Federal Office of Child Support would contract with different countries with Bi-Lateral Treaties or Reciprocating Agreements with specific countries like Canada and the Canadian Provinces. The problem is that it is very time consuming and each treaty had different provisions on the forms. She described that currently there is a "new age" approach where instead of trying to negotiate with each individual country that the countries come together and all agree to the same set of forms and processes. 2:34:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN confirmed that The Hague Convention was the means as opposed to the United States making one deal with Canada and another with Mexico. The countries could sign on to The Hague Convention, with the United State Senate, and that all countries refer to The Hague Convention as a means of dealing with this. MS. STEINBERG responded in the affirmative and said it makes it more efficient. She noted that part of the reason it is critical for each state to adopt this language verbatim is that this language is needed to implement the provisions of the Convention because all of the states enforce child support. The federal government directly does not address it through their federal courts. In order for the United States to do the final ratification process the United States must be prepared to say it can do all the steps required under the Convention. Basically it does not allow another country to come into the United States - it allows that the United States will provide services to them and will enforce their order, and likewise will send a foreign order to the Polish central authority to enforce the United States' child support against one of their citizens. Another provision is that even though the United States does some enforcement of foreign countries because law already provides for it, it makes it better due to translation costs, which can be very expensive. Some of the provisions will be very helpful just in assisting the Child Support Services Division with its enforcement. She noted that the Child Support Services Division had to pay $1,500 for three different translations in order to register an order in Alaska and enforce it. Under Article VII, if it is one of the Convention countries, it reads that the country must provide a copy in their native language and a certified translation in English. 2:37:42 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked why Child Support Services Division pays for the cost of translation currently, as normally if a plaintiff presents an order to the court the plaintiff pays the translating fee. MS. STEINBERG responded that Child Support Services Division provides services to parents and is required to enforce an order for the parent which means the order must be registered in court before enforcing it. Child Support Services Division is required to obtain the translation so it can be enforced for that parent. MS. STEINBERG, in response to Chair LeDoux, stated that the statute does not require that the state pay for the cost of translating, but it is part of registering an order and the parties must understand what it says. 2:38:55 PM CHAIR LEDOUX said that Child Support Services Division could require the parent to have the order translated, if it wanted to. 2:39:11 PM MS. BEECHER responded that Chair LeDoux is correct in that the agency could require the parent to pay, but the custodial parent is requesting services so she/he can receive child support and the expense is so high they cannot afford it, the agency does view it as a service it provides. CHAIR LEDOUX quiered if there was a means test to determine whether a custodial parent can use the agency's services. MS. BEECHER responded "There is not." CHAIR LEDOUX assessed that a custodial parent could have a $200,000 income and the state would still pay for the translation services. MS. BEECHER answered that it is possible. 2:39:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the federal government is telling the states they all have to adopt the same provisions. He said he is sensitive to government overreach but this is more on an international level. He opined that it would be more difficult if every state took a different path in its child support rules. MS. BEECHER answered in the affirmative. 2:41:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether it is part of the scenario today, without adopting this legislation, that there are countries that come to Alaska and collect child support from Alaska residents, but because Alaska has not adopted statutes that would allow enforcement of The Hague Convention that Alaska cannot go to some countries and collect child support from that country. MS. BEECHER offered that the scenario is possible, but she does not have a specific example. Due to the fact that many countries will not collect without a treaty provision, it is possible they will not collect for Alaska. 2:42:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that Poland is a country in which it can collect in Alaska today, but because the statute is not in line with The Hague Convention, Poland does not necessarily enforce Alaska's orders. MS. BEECHER offered to provide more specifics on that issue, but in a general sense the situation is that the United States has the structure, including Alaska, for collecting child support. She noted that even in the area of enforcement with other states there are disagreements on what can be collected and how to go about it. She assessed that the same situation occurs when Child Support Services Division attempts to enforce a support order to another country. 2:43:22 PM CHAIR LEDOUX questioned that if the United States is allowing another country to collect and use Alaska courts to collect child support, and the other country is not enforcing Alaska's child support orders, "why not play hard ball with them." MS. BEECHER responded that as a general rule Child Support Services Division is required to provide child support services to people who provide the agency with the appropriate documentation to open a child support [case]. The agency does not view it from the perspective of Alaska and the country, but rather as one person who needs the child support to be collected for them. CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether that would be the person living in the other country collecting from an Alaskan citizen. MS. BEECHER answered that it could be either way wherein the custodial parent lives in Alaska and the agency reaches out to the other country to collect from the non-custodial parent in another country, or the custodial parent could live in another country and contact Alaska to collect for it. 2:44:36 PM CHAIR LEDOUX expressed her concern that Alaskan courts are used to collect money for Alaskan citizens which would go to another country, while the other country was not honoring Alaska's child support orders. MS. BEECHER agreed that the scenario could occur. She clarified that Alaska is an administrative state so most of the "orders we do are administratively administered." CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Beecher to explain her statement. MS. BEECHER explained that the agency has the authority to set up cases and enforce them unless they are set up in the courts. She further explained that someone could go to divorce court and as part of that proceeding child support was set, and the agency could enforce it for the courts, but set it up in court. CHAIR LEDOUX questioned that in a child support proceeding, if the custodial parent lives in Alaska wouldn't the parent simply use Alaska courts to obtain another child support order. She further questioned why the agency would enforce the child support order from Poland, or Brazil, or Cuba, in that why wouldn't the parent just have one from here. 2:46:09 PM MS. STEINBERG answered that statute reads if there is no existing child support order, the court will set one. She further answered that if there is already an existing child support order Child Support Services Division will enforce it. Unless there is something wrong with the foreign order, the order will be enforced and not put another order on top of it, she said. It goes against the whole principle of the uniform act which reads "there should be one order in time for the child," so it is clear. She explained there are rules set out in the act of when another jurisdiction can modify that order. CHAIR LEDOUX asked how it works if a child support order from another jurisdiction is more generous than a child support order from Alaska. Different countries, different cultures, may have different views of divorce, and the obligation to support children, she pointed out. MS. STEINBERG replied that under the current process Alaska has that problem within other states. She explained that each state is required to have their own set of child support guidelines and the requirement is that they have to be numeric and have to be considered on an economic basis. She said it is permitted under the current system so if Child Support Services Division has the child support order it will enforce it and often the order is in different amounts. That order is enforced until it is modified and there are a set of rules as to what point in time another state can modify an order. 2:49:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested clarification in that the treaty is not ratified until the states comply with the bill. MS. BEECHER replied "That is correct." 2:49:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he found it novel as instead of the United States Senate voting to ratify or not ratify, they evidentially changed the law to say that all states must comply in order for it to work. He described the bill in the context of a threat that "if you don't do this we are going to take your money away," and referred to comments by the Department of Law that the bill is for Alaska's benefit because it had input through its uniform commissioners. He opined that Alaskans have more access to Senators Murkowski and Sullivan than they do to the Uniform Law Commissioners. He described it as an odd process put upon Alaska by the United States Congress and it appears heavy handed and also impossible in that all states would pass the legislation verbatim. MS. BEECHER responded that this is an unprecedented way of dealing with what is essentially a treaty. She explained it could be interpreted as being much more beneficial to the states and rather anti-federalist because it puts the vote for ratification in the states' hands by way of requiring each child support agency to adopt the amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act was drafted by the Uniform Law Commission but it was based on input from all of the various states. The language itself is the vehicle of child support agencies across the United States that have worked together to figure out ways to enforce child support across the line. Rather than having language that came down from a signed treaty from the federal government, written by the federal government, telling states they must enforce it and this is the language. Instead, she noted, the federal government chose to use the uniform act that was working well between the states and has been an excellent vehicle in enforcing interstate child support orders. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he found it unsettling as it appears to be an administrative act that Alaska is being told to "rubber stamp" this, and trust us. It comes from the federal system, and everyone has a different evaluation but 18 trillion in debt and climbing ... 2:53:38 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Congress will ratify this Convention once the states have adopted the bill, or is the ratification automatic after the states have adopted the bill. MS. STEINBERG responded that President Barack Obama signed the treaty, then the treaty goes through the ratification process and noted that the Senate already gave its advice and consent. The next step is that all states adopt the implementing language for the Convention because the United States has to say it is going to do these things, and the things it agrees to do are in the bill. After all 50 states have adopted the legislation, it goes back to the President Obama to officially sign the Instruments of Ratification that are then deposited with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Normally with a treaty it is ratified by the United States Senate and it gives its advice and consent. This is a different approach in that the states have the implementing language so basically the United States can say it has all of the procedures in place to enforce "your" child support orders. She reiterated Ms. Beecher in that from the child support perspective it is seen as a good thing because child support agencies had input, and state law commissioners drafted the changes specifically. 2:55:57 PM MS. STEINBERG responded to Representative Gruenberg that if Alaska is going to set a divorce and the father lives in Poland and has never been to Alaska, Alaska will not have jurisdiction to set a child support order over him. Alaska does not have personal jurisdiction in that situation so the mother could come to Child Support Services Division and ask for its assistance. Child Support Services Division would then ask the Poland authorities to set a child support order for the mother. CHAIR LEDOUX assessed that even the existence of the child is an action as to the conception of the child being an action of the person in Poland. That action, having impregnated the woman living in Alaska, would it not be enough to confer personal jurisdiction. In many cases, personal jurisdiction meant the person had to be there in order to confer, and then the courts expanded that with "minimum contacts." She asked whether the existence of the child in Alaska would be enough to confer minimum contacts according to Alaska laws. 2:59:52 PM MS. STEINBERG related that the mere existence of the child in Alaska would not be sufficient minimum contacts. Alaska does have strong "long arm" provisions when a person is not in Alaska setting up the fictions as minimum contacts. Under this scenario if the father has never been to Alaska, Alaska courts do not have personal jurisdiction. Alaska has due process standards and Poland could look at the Alaska order and determine that the Polish citizen was not given notice, and Alaska does not have jurisdiction over him so would not enforce the order, 3:00:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined it would not make a difference if there was notice, as notice does not confer jurisdiction. He pointed out that within the Alaska Civil Code of Procedure an article that deals with jurisdiction in Jonz v. Garrett/AireSearch Corp., 490 P.2d 1197 (Alaska 1971), which basically says the same as the California long arm statute, and if there is jurisdiction under the United States Constitution there is jurisdiction in Alaska. Under child custody it's more of an in rem situation and if the child is in Alaska for six months there is jurisdiction even if the other parent is not in Alaska. He advised support works like this and it is somewhat antiquated 3:01:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what exactly the United States Senate did when it considered the bill. He further asked how it can take up the bill for consideration but not give advice and consent and somehow do something "wrung off." He requested more information about exactly what the United States Senate did and how it fits in. The legislation is dealing with international situations and the notion that every state "gets" to do its own thing in the international context is appealing from the state's power, but is not consistent with the notion that "we are one nation and we work with other nations." MS. BEECHER asked whether Representative Claman was referring specifically to the United States Senate advice and consent to the treaty. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said it appears the United States Senate took some action in 2010, but it was different from ratification. He stated there was a vote in the Senate that approved it, but it is more complicated than simply saying here is the treaty, it was approved and given advice and consent. He offered that it did something less than that and would like to understand what it did. 3:03:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN requested a simplistic answer to his question of what would happen if this bill failed to pass the Alaska legislature. MS. BEECHER offered that the Alaska Child Support program is required to have an approved state plan and it must be in line with federal requirements. Public Law 113-183 mandated that all states adopt UIFSA 2008 by the end of its first legislative session. MS. BEECHER responded to Representative Lynn that Public Law 113-183 was passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Obama on September 29, 2014. The consequences are that Alaska would not be eligible for the 66 percent match, and it would also follow into the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant which is at $45 million that the state receives. She explained that would also be at risk because Alaska is required to have an approved child support agency in order to receive the grant funds. The federal government told the agency that Alaska funds are at risk and it is mandated to follow the law in order to be eligible for those funds. 3:04:48 PM CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether the treaty becomes law if only 49 states pass the legislation, or can Alaska hold it up if it so chose. MS. BEECHER answered it is the agency's understanding that all United States jurisdictions must pass UIFSA 2008 to ratify the treaty. Essentially, she noted, the treaty would not pass until Alaska conceded to that vote. CHAIR LEDOUX advised she is holding the bill over and requested that a federal attorney experienced in UIFSA attend the next meeting. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that a uniform commissioner also attend the next meeting. [HB 106 was held over.] 3:05:58 PM