BILL NUMBER:  AB 2240
  VETOED	DATE: 09/26/2002




SEP 26, 2002

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2240 without my signature.

This bill would require additional activities for the local child
support agencies by making changes to the current paternity
establishment process, including a requirement that the summons and
complaint be personally served on the alleged father in any action to
establish paternity.  In addition, the bill would expand the court's
ability to set aside default paternity judgments based on genetic
testing and upon determination of the best interest of the child.

The intent of AB 2240 is to provide relief to individuals who are
victims of paternity fraud.  I recognize that paternity fraud is a
serious issue and has the potential of damaging an individual's
livelihood.  However, AB 2240 is flawed in its attempt to address
this issue.

Personal service, as required in the bill, would establish a higher
standard of service for paternity actions than all other civil
actions.  This higher standard does not directly address paternity
fraud or prevent fraud in the future but instead would adversely
impact the establishment of paternities.  Thousands of paternity
judgments are established timely each year by serving individuals by
substitute service or by mail.  The bill's requirement of personal
delivery service would severely del ay this process, but more
important, would provide biological fathers the ability to evade
service of process, preventing the establishment of paternity in the
majority of these cases and allowing the avoidance of parental
responsibilities.  This would directly impact child support
collections and would jeopardize California's ability to meet
federally required performance measures putting California at risk of
losing up to $40 million in federal funds.

In addition, AB 2240 has substantial federal compliance problems that
would adversely affect California.  The bill's requirement of a
paternity questionnaire, signed by the mother, would prevent the
filing of a paternity action in cases against the father if the
mother is deceased or unavailable, or if she simply refuses to
cooperate.  This would prevent moving ahead on cases even if other
evidence establishes paternity.  This would also apply to foster care
cases where federal law requires the  establishment of paternity and
child support.  AB 2240 would prevent California from proceeding on
a large number, if not most, of foster care cases, putting California
out of compliance with federal law.

Therefore, I direct the Department of Child Support Services to work
with the Legislature and advocates on both sides of this issue to
develop recommendations that will address paternity fraud.

Sincerely,



GRAY DAVIS