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.