CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 302 (UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT) as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs Committee. Joining the committee from the Department of Revenue is Ms. Derr, Mr. Mallonee, and Ms. Page. Number 469 LARAINE DERR, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, says the department has provided the committee members with a comparison between ERISA and UIFSA. CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Ms. Derr for the comparison and says he has looked through it. The chairman asks Mr. Kirk to testify. Number 489 KENNETH KIRK, testifying from Anchorage, states he is speaking for himself, though he does work with and act as legal counsel for Family Support Group. He also emphasizes that he is in favor of SB 302 and UIFSA, though it may not sound like it because he intends to air some very specific criticisms of SB 302. UIFSA is needed because the present URISA system has a real potential to ruin people's lives. Mr. Kirk says he has seen situations where there are two different orders from two different states, both of which are valid and enforceable, which are completely inconsistent with one another. MR. KIRK states he faxed a copy of a letter, which was originally sent to William Grant Cowell (sp?), about the original draft of the legislation before it was put into SB 302, to the Senate State Affairs Committee on March 22, 1994. Mr. Kirk does not know if he sent it in time for it to be included in the bill packets, but he hopes the committee had time to look at it, because most of the criticisms he has are contained in that letter. Number 503 MR. KIRK states he will review his biggest concerns. First, it does not appear anyone has taken the time to harmonize SB 302 with AS 25.27, which is the CSED (Child Support Enforcement Division) statute. He thinks there are potential problems related to conflict between the provisions of SB 302 and AS 25.27. He suggests legislative counsel review AS 25.27 for purposes of making AS 25.27 more consistent with UIFSA. His second concern relates to specific things he thinks should be changed in SB 302, without causing any harm to the overall intent of the bill. On page 4, line 24, the language gives the state jurisdiction over the non-resident. That language is not constitutional, pursuant to a case called Burnham (sp?) v. Superior Court. It is also bad public policy, is unfair, and should be eliminated. For instance, someone who has never had any connection with Alaska, but their ex-spouse moved here with the kids, flies up to Alaska periodically to see the children or to accompany them out of state. When the out-of-state parent flies up to see the children, they can then be handed a complaint and summons in a child support case, and will then be subject to Alaska's laws on child support, rather than the laws of the place in which that person actually resides. So Mr. Kirk sees a problem with that, as a public policy matter. MR. KIRK also sees a problem on page 10, line 9, subsection (b) regarding tribunals. Mr. Kirk states there are several powers contained in SB 302 which are not proper for administrative agencies of the state to have, including citing a person for criminal contempt, and the issuance of bench warrants. Mr. Kirk would hope that if SB 302 is passed, CSED will recognize that they do not really have that authority, and they will not try to issue bench warrants and hold people in criminal contempt. It would be much easier to simply delete that provision from SB 302, rather than go to court over it. Since the bill states CSED can use any other remedies already in law, that provision could be left out. MR. KIRK's next concern is with Section 25.25.312 on page 13, starting on line 16, NONDISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Mr. Kirk states this is inconsistent with 25.27.275, which states the agency shall relate the information about the location of a child if the obligor is current in child support and there is a visitation or joint custody order in effect. His second concern with Section 25.25.312 is that it is ex parte, which means the obligor does not even get a chance to present their side of the story. The custodial parent can simply tell the enforcement officer that the non-custodial parent is dangerous, or scares them, or something like that, and without any contest, all of a sudden there is what appears to be a permanent order in place. There is no provision set up for appeal at a formal hearing, so the non-custodial parent might not even get to contest that order. Finally, there are no real standards for it, it is a very broad statement. CSED does not have any expertise with regard to issues relating to the health, safety, or liberty of the child, or of domestic violence. That should be left with the courts, not with CSED. Or at the least, there should be better standards and an appeals process. MR. KIRK states he also has a concern with the next section of the bill, Section 25.25.313, COSTS AND FEES. What this provision would essentially do is require the obligee, when they lose an appeal, to pay the entire attorney's fee bill for the other side. But if the obligee wins, all the obligee is entitled to is, at most, about one-quarter to one-third of attorney's fees. So SB 302 would basically set up unequal standards for the custodial parent to the obligee. The mind-set between too many of these laws is that the obligee is the "bad guy". All the obligee has ever done wrong, necessarily, is that some judge decided at some time that the obligee's children would be better off spending most of their time with the other parent. There may not even be that, if there has never actually been a court case, such as if the child was born out of wedlock or the marriage was terminated through dissolution. That whole section, 25.25.313, should be dropped. Number 565 MR. KIRK states Section 25.25.608, which precludes any further contest of the order with respect to a matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration, should be "softened" up a bit in default cases. In both court cases and administrative cases, if a person has a good-faith reason for not responding, you will often be allowed to re-open a case. Situations like this are common in Alaska. A person gets served the day before going out on a crab processor for six months, and in the meantime defaults on an order. This section would appear to completely preclude a person from any opportunity to re-open the matter later for redetermination. Number 574 MR. KIRK states he will be in Juneau March 24th and 25th for a Correctional Industries Commission meeting and would be glad to meet with legislators or staff to help work on SB 302 any time the commission is not taking care of business, if anyone wishes to do so. He acknowledges the complexity of SB 302, and is not always sure himself how the bill will play out in practice, but recognizes that some people may be less sure of it than he, and so would like to make himself available to work on it. He can be reached at the above phone number. MR. KIRK thanks the committee members for their time. Number 580 CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if the Department of Revenue could meet with Mr. Kirk to discuss his concerns. TAPE 94-19, SIDE B Number 583 MS. DERR says the department has not talked to Mr. Kirk before, and would like to review his suggestions before commenting on them. The department can meet with Mr. Kirk while he is in Juneau. DONNA PAGE, Senior Hearing Officer, Department of Revenue says the department has considered some of the concerns mentioned by Mr. Kirk and can explain them to him. CHAIRMAN LEMAN gives Ms. Page a copy of the letter faxed to the committee by Mr. Kirk. The chairman asks if anyone else wishes to testify today on SB 302. Hearing none, he announces the committee will hold SB 302 over to work on.