BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair 2005-2006 Regular Session AB 2781 A Assembly Member Leno B As Amended June 22, 2006 Hearing Date: June 27, 2006 2 Family Code 7 GMO:rm 8 1 SUBJECT Private Child Support Collectors DESCRIPTION This bill would require private child support collectors (PCSCs), as defined, to comply with some basic consumer protections to ensure that child support obligees have clear information about the contract they are entering into, have some basic rights to cancel the contract, receive meaningful notice of collections made and the amount of the collections kept by the private agency as its fee, require PCSCs to follow the debt collection practices that apply to collectors of other types of consumer debt, and provide remedies when PCSCs do not comply with these requirements. BACKGROUND In California and elsewhere, a burgeoning industry of private child support collectors (PCSCs) has developed, largely because governmental entities that collect child support debt is continually hampered by budget and personnel constraints. These PCSCs promise faster or more complete results than the local child support agency can provide. When these companies contract with child support obligees, they have the obligees assign their rights to arrearages and future support payments to the companies for collection. In return, the companies pay any collected amounts to the obligees, after subtracting their collection (more) AB 2781 (Leno) Page 2 fees. As the private child support collection business has grown, complaints about private collectors have increased as well, alleging excessive fees, false and deceptive advertising, and failure to disclose important rights forfeited by child support obligees when they assign these debts to private companies. In 2003, SB 339 (Alpert) was introduced to address these complaints by regulating aspects of the private child support collection business. Among other things, the bill sought to protect obligees and obligors in the following manner: 1) capping the amount of child support collections PCSCs could retain as their own fee; 2) defining the type of collections from which fees could be retained; 3) requiring specified disclosures in advertisements and solicitations; 4) setting forth provisions that must be included in contracts; 5) defining the opportunities for obligees to cancel a contract; 6) subjecting PCSCs to the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; 7) ensuring that PCSCs could not take a percentage of collections attributable to actions of the government child support entity; 8) requiring PCSCs to send specified notices to the support obligee, obligor, and the local child support agency; and 9) prohibiting the PCSC from misrepresenting itself, its rights, or the responsibilities of the obligor or others to pay past due child support. SB 339 was vetoed by the Governor, whose message was: While I support ensuring parents are not taken advantage of in securing child support payments, this bill will have the effect of severely limiting a consumer's choice to go to a private collection agency when government efforts to collect the owed child support falter. ?I welcome many of the provisions in this bill that would ensure families are protected when they choose to contract with a private agency; however the provisions such as capping the amount a collection agency can charge and prohibiting a person from contracting with a private collection agency when they have received partial payment in the last six months are particularly onerous to the industry and to parents seeking choices. AB 2781 (Leno) Page 3 Last year, SB 896 (Runner, 2005) was introduced to once again try to institute some consumer protections for support obligees while attending to the Governor's veto message. That bill was sponsored by Supportkids, Inc. SB 896 was heard and passed by this committee with amendments. However, it was gutted and amended by the author on May 18, 2006 before it was heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Many of the provisions in SB 896 are now in AB 2781, as are more of the protections contained in SB 339. Thus, AB 2781 attempts to bridge the difference between SB 339 and SB 896, and includes some more provisions addressing issues raised by other interested parties. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW 1.Existing law governs the collection of child support by local child support agencies. (Family Code Section 17000 et seq.) (All references are to the Family Code.) This bill would require a PCSC to meet some basic consumer protections in its dealings with the support obligees in contracting for the collection of past due child support. Among other things, this bill would: a. Definition of PCSC: The bill would define a PCSC as a person, corporation, attorney, or other nongovernmental entity who is engaged by an obligee to collect court-ordered child support for a fee or other consideration. A PCSC does not include attorneys who deal with ongoing child support issues in the course of representing a client in a family law matter. A PCSC does include a private nongovernmental attorney whose business is substantially (at least 50% of time spent or remuneration received) comprised of child support collections. [Proposed Sec. 5610(a).] b. Written contract requirements: The bill would require contracts to be in 10-point type and disclose all of the following: (1) the fees imposed by the contract and an example of how they are calculated; (2) the amount of fees to be charged set by the agency and not set by state law; (3) the PCSC cannot charge AB 2781 (Leno) Page 4 fees on current support if the obligee received any current child support during the six months preceding the contract with the PCSC; (4) the nature of services to be provided; (5) the expected duration of the contract; (6) how the contract may be canceled; (7) the address and other access information for the PCSC; (8) that the PCSC is not a government entity, and government child support agencies in California provide services free of charge; (9) the PCSC collects only money owed to the obligee and not support assigned to the state or county due to the receipt of CalWORKs or Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF); (10) the PCSC will not take a fee from collections that are primarily attributable to the actions of a government entity or another and the PCSC is required by law to refund any fees improperly retained; (11) that the obligee may seek, or continue to use the services of a government child support agency and the PCSC will not require or request that the obligee cease or refrain from engaging in those services; and (12) the PCSC is required to keep and maintain case records for four years and four months after the expiration of the contract and prior to destruction or disposal of those records the obligee may retrieve portions of the records that are not confidential. This bill also would provide the form of a statement on the first page of the contract that details items that the obligee understands and agrees to with respect to the contract, including that the money to be collected is owed to the obligee and not to the state or county, that the child support to be collected is not assigned to the state or county, and that the obligee would inform the PCSC if the obligee applies for benefits under CalWORKS or TANF. This bill also would specify the form statement to be placed immediately above the signature line on the contract that details items that the obligee understands and agrees to with respect to the contract, including that the PCSC would charge a fee for all current child support and arrears until the entire amount is collected, that it could take years for the collection, and if payment is colleced through wage garnishment, that the amount received from the AB 2781 (Leno) Page 5 PCSC will not be the full amount of any periodic court-ordered child support payment until the contract terminates since PCSC fees are collected from the periodic payments. (See Comment 3a.) c. Notice of cancellation form: This bill would require the PCSC to include a notice of cancellation form with the contract to ensure that obligees understand their rights to cancel and have an easy form to accomplish this task. The notice (provided verbatim in the bill) must be in the same size font as the contract, and written in the same language. d. Right to cancel a contract; termination of contract: The bill would provide that the obligee has the right to cancel a contract within 15 business days of execution of the contract, or at the end of any 12-month period in which the amount of the child support collected is less than 50% of the amount scheduled to be paid under a payment plan, or at any time if the PCSC commits a material breach of any provision of the contract or a material violation of any provision of the statute; that the contract terminates automatically when the term expires or the contracted amount is collected. (See Comment 3d.) e. Effect of assignment to PCSC: This bill would provide that an assignment to a PCSC is a voluntary assignment for purposes of bankruptcy. f. No fees for current support and refund of improperly retained fees: This bill would provide that a PCSC shall not charge fees on current support if the obligee received any current child support during the six months preceding execution of the contract with the PCSC; and require a PCSC that improperly retains fees from collections that are primarily attributable to actions of a governmental entity to refund all of those fees immediately upon discovery or notice of the improper retention of fees. [Proposed 5610 c (5).] (See Comment 3a.) g. Information to be given to obligee: This bill would require the PCSC to provide all of the following information: (1) the amount of each collection, and AB 2781 (Leno) Page 6 the date it was received by the PCSC and sent by the PCSC to the obligee; (2) the amount of payment sent to the obligee and the amount and percentage of each payment kept by the PCSC as its fee; (3) the name of and other identifying information relating to any obligor who made child support payments collected by the PCSC; (4) the source of the payment and the actions taken by the PCSC that resulted in the payment. If this information is provided by telephone or internet access, it shall be up to date. If written, it shall be sent at least quarterly, and if provided by other means, the information shall be updated and made available at least monthly. [Proposed Sec. 5610(d).] h. Direct deposit account: This bill would require a PCSC to establish a direct deposit account with the state disbursement unit and within two business days of the date of disbursement notify the The Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) of the portion of each collection that constitutes a fee. The notice to DCSS shall be in electronic format. [Proposed Sec. 5610(d)(3).] i. Recordkeeping: This bill would require the PCSC to retain records for the duration of the contract plus a period of four years and four months from the date of the last child support payment collected by the PCSC for the obligee. In addition to the information required to be provided to the obligee (see paragraph g above) the PCSC would be required to maintain specified information such as a copy of the child support order; all correspondence between the PCSC and the obligee or obligor; and other pertinent information. The PCSC would be required to safeguard the information to prevent accidental disclosure of confidential information pertaining to the obligee or obligor and to allow access to nonconfidential portions of the information to obligees and obligors. 1.Debt collection practices Existing law , the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, prohibits debt collectors from engaging in a variety of practices in collecting consumer debt. AB 2781 (Leno) Page 7 Among the practices prohibited are the following: a. Communicating with the debtor with such frequency as to be unreasonable and to constitute harassment to the debtor. b. Communicating to any person any list of debtors which discloses the nature or existence of a consumer debt, commonly known as "deadbeat lists." c. Communicating with the debtor by means of a written communication that displays or conveys any information about the consumer debt or the debtor which is intended both to be seen by any other person and also to embarrass the debtor. d. Making a false representation that any person is an attorney. e. Representing that any debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, affiliated with, or is an instrumentality, agent or official of the government. f. Communicating directly with a debtor who is represented by an attorney with respect to the consumer debt. g. Sending a communication which simulates legal or judicial process. (Civil Code Section 1788.10 - 1788.16.) Existing law defines its applicability to the collection practices of consumer debt. Child support debt is not included in that definition. (Civil Code Section 1788.2.) This bill would prohibit a PCSC from engaging in debt collection practices that are prohibited by the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This bill would prohibit a PCSC from misstating the amount of the fee that may be lawfully paid to the PCSC or the identity of the person who is obligated to pay the fee. AB 2781 (Leno) Page 8 This bill would prohibit a PCSC from making a false representation of the amount of child support to be collected, or ask any party other than the obligor to pay the child support obligation, unless that party is legally responsible for the debt or is the legal representative of the obligor. The PCSC is not in violation of this prohibition if it reasonably relies on information provided by the government entity, a court order, the obligee, or the obligor as to the amount of the obligation due and owing. This bill would prohibit a PCSC from requiring, as a condition of providing services to the obligee, that the obligee waive any existing right or procedure to pursue a civil action, or that the obligee agree to resolve disputes in a jurisdiction other than California or to the application of laws other than those of California. Any waiver must be knowing, voluntary and not made a condition of doing business with the PCSC. Any waiver, including an agreement to arbitrate or to choice of forum, shall be deemed unconscionable, involuntary, against public policy, and unenforceable. 1.Remedies Existing law authorizes the following remedies for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Accordingly, this bill would provide similar remedies to the obligee or the obligor, as modified: a. It would permit an action for actual damages resulting from a violation. b. In addition, a PCSC would be liable for a civil penalty of no less than $100 nor more than $1,000 if the PCSC willfully and knowingly violates the provisions of the Act. c. Costs would be awarded to the prevailing party. Reasonable attorney's fees based on the time necessarily expended to enforce the liability may be awarded to a prevailing party, other than the PCSC, asserting rights. Reasonable attorney's fees may be AB 2781 (Leno) Page 9 awarded to a prevailing PCSC if the court finds that the party bringing the action did not prosecute the action in good faith. d. In an action by an obligor, the PCSC shall have no civil liability to the obligor under any circumstance in which a debt collector would not have any liability under Sec. 1788.30 of the Civil Code. e. A PCSC would not be in violation of this Act if the PCSC shows by preponderance of the evidence that the action complained of was unintentional and resulted from a bona fide error that occurred notwithstanding reasonable procedures to avoid the error. f. These remedies are cumulative and in addition to other remedies, rights, or procedures available under any law. 4. Other provisions a. Obligor to pay half the PCSC fee and other costs ordered by court This bill would provide that every child support order issued on or after January 1, 2008 and every child support agreement approved by a court on or after January 1, 2008 shall include a separate money judgment owed by the child support obligor to pay one-half of the fee charged by a PCSC pursuant to a contract compliant with this Act and any other child support collections costs expressly permitted by the child support order. This bill would provide that the money judgment described above shall be in favor of the PCSC and the child support obligee, jointly, and that the PCSC may enforce the obligation to pay the fee by any means available to the obligee for the enforcement of the child support order without any additional action or order by the court. Any fee (as well as any other fees and costs ordered by the court) thus collected from the obligor by the PCSC pursuant to a compliant contract would not constitute child support. AB 2781 (Leno) Page 10 This bill would not grant the PCSC any enforcement remedies beyond those authorized by federal or state law. This bill would require the PCSC, if the court order includes other fees and costs by the obligor, to provide the obligor written notice, no later than five days after the PCSC makes the first collection, of the following: (1) the amount of arrearages subject to collection; (2) the amount of the collection that will be applied to the arrearage; and (3) the amount of the collection that will be applied to the fees and costs of collection. The PCSC would be required to include notice that the obligor has 30 days to file a motion to contest the amount of the collection fees and costs assessed against the obligor and the amount of the arrearages subject to collection. b. Attorneys acting as PCSCs This bill would require an attorney acting as a PCSC to conform to statutes, rules and case law governing attorney conduct, including the right of the client to cancel a contract at any time. This bill would allow the attorney to pursue normal remedies, including reasonable payment for services rendered under the doctrine of quantum meruit, provided those services led to the collection of support. c. Lien on real property This bill would specify that any fees or monetary obligations resulting from a compliant contract between an obligee parent and a PCSC, or any money owed to a PCSC by an obligor parent as a result of the PCSC's efforts does not without further action create a lien on real property nor may that amount be added to any existing lien created by a recorded abstract of support or be added to an obligation on any abstract of judgment. This bill would however not prevent the PCSC from collecting fees it is owed by recording a new judgment AB 2781 (Leno) Page 11 lien as otherwise authorized by law. d. Notice to local child support agency This bill would require the PCSC with whom an obligee contracts for the collection of child support to provide written notice to the local child support agency then enforcing the obligee's support order, or the local child support agency for the county in which the obligee resides, prior to commencement of collection activities. The notice shall identify the obligee and the amount of the arrearage claimed by the obligee. COMMENT 1. Need for the bill AB 2781 is sponsored jointly by the Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI) and the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL). In describing the need for this bill, the CAI states: Child support is intended to provide economic stability for the child. In many cases these payments significantly contribute to a family's income, which protects children from the devastation of poverty?When the established [child support] collection process disappoints, some families have turned to unregulated private child support collectors. Unfortunately, there have been instances when these private child support collectors have taken advantage of families desperate to collect their support?This bill will create a framework to protect families from unscrupulous collection practices and will protect children. The NCYL focuses more on specific unfair practices used by PCSCs in contracting with obligees: These private child support collectors (PCSCs) have emerged out of a self-stated need to assist parents who have not been successful in collecting child support from noncustodial AB 2781 (Leno) Page 12 parents. By in[sic] large these private child support collectors are unregulated in California. Unsuspecting parents often get pulled into perpetual contracts that end up resulting in more of any collections going to the collectors than children. The fact that many parents are so desperate to collect child support arrears often leaves them vulnerable to some unscrupulous collectors and practices. 2. Industry practices demonstrate the need to install some basic consumer protections In a 2002 study, the U.S. General Accounting Office ("GAO," now known as the Government Accountability Office) identified 38 private firms in 16 states that were regularly engaged in the business of collecting child support. (GAO 02-349, Child Support Enforcement: Clear Guidance Would Help Ensure Proper Access to Information and Use of Wage Withholding by Private Firms, March 2002.) Some project that since the GAO report was issued, the industry has grown considerably in size. (Center for Law and Social Policy [CLASP], Private Child Support Collection Agencies, April 2005.) The growth of the private child support collection industry has also meant greater attention has been paid to its practices in the recent past. CLASP reports that "over the last decade, an unregulated industry has grown rapidly, primarily around the internet, to aggressively and sometimes deceptively market child support collection services." These companies, CLASP reports, "often fail to deliver any genuine services . . . and trap [support obligees] in perpetual contracts." The GAO and CLASP Reports note that on average, these PCSCs charge custodial parents 29 percent of the support that is collected, and some of the largest companies take 34 percent of the collection. Additionally, many of these companies charge clients an application fee, averaging at about $95, and also charge clients other costs or fees for taking particular enforcement actions. CLASP notes that the "GAO found that the main edge held by private companies in enforcing support is that the companies pressure relatives to pay the support owed . . AB 2781 (Leno) Page 13 . and use collection tactics that are prohibited to state child support agencies, private attorneys, and private collection agencies that pursue consumer debt." Much of CLASP's view is a result of the roughly 400 complaints against PCSCs it has received and reviewed. CLASP points to four practices that it believes typify the type of activity that needs regulation: "(1) promising help with back support, but instead pocketing a fee from ongoing monthly support; (2) taking a cut of support collected by state child support agencies; (3) demanding payments from grandparents; and (4) coercing payments from non-custodial parents that are not owed or authorized by state law." CLASP concludes that "the complaints reflect an offensive and disturbing picture of deceptive advertising, misleading contracts, fee gouging, harassment and abuse, posing as the government, dunning grandparents, inflating and fabricating debts, undermining credit worthiness, and abusing legal process." Case law and recent press have also illustrated the prevalence of these practices. In one instance reported by Time magazine (August 29, 2002), an Arizona-based PCSC collected a total of $1,100 after five months' work, took $885 in fees, and left the custodial parent with the remaining $215. The Time article also reported that a Texas PCSC directed obligors' employers to re-direct wage garnishment payments to the PCSC, even when the PCSC played no role in the garnishment. Another troubling practice alluded to by CLASP was the subject of a lawsuit. The court decision in Reno v. Supportkids, Inc. (2004) U.S. Dist. Lexis 6459, described a practice where the obligee, in contracting with the PCSC, indicated the amount of child support due and owing was $13,589. The PCSC communicated to the obligor that he owed $120,000, and filed a lien against his home in the amount of $122,474. Although the court decision centered around the appropriate remedies available, this underlying fact does not appear to have been contested (and the defendants acknowledged the evidence that they filed a lien in an inflated amount). In fact, the court noted that the defendants did not remove the lien until one and one-half years after the complaint was filed. CLASP comments that "although there may be an appropriate AB 2781 (Leno) Page 14 role for private child support collection companies that are committed to customer service, use legitimate collection practices, and help parents obtain overdue child support that they might not otherwise receive, the industry currently operates without regulatory controls." 3. AB 2781 would remedy many of the problems encountered today This bill would remedy many, though certainly not all, of these concerns. a. Written contracts would spell out many consumer protections The most important provision in this bill is the requirement that a written contract between the PCSC and the obligee contain specific disclosures that spell out the obligee's rights and the PCSC's obligations. These disclosures will at least help obligees make fully informed decisions when entering into a contract with a PCSC. By ensuring that the contract explains all of the fees that will be taken by the PCSC, notifying obligees that government agencies provide similar services free of charge, informing obligees of their right to keep their cases open with government child support agencies, limiting the authority of PCSCs to take as their fee a share of collections that was attributable to the work of others, and giving obligees the right to get out of the contract if the PCSC breaches the contract or violates this statute, this bill evens the playing field considerably. The bill thus gives obligees more information to arm themselves with when dealing with a PCSC. Although AB 2781 would not limit the fees that PCSCs can take, it requires disclosure so that obligees are more able to determine if they are willing to pay that much of their support collections to the PCSC or risk that they will get less if they do not engage the services of the PCSC. In addition, AB 2781 contains a provision that AB 2781 (Leno) Page 15 requires the contract between the PCSC and the obligee to state, up front, that fees are not set by state law but by the PCSC and that the PCSC will not retain fees from collections attributable to actions by other entities and is required by law to refund those fees improperly retained. Under this bill, the written contract must contain a statement that the PCSC cannot charge fees on current support if the obligee received any current child support during the six months preceding execution of the contract with the PCSC. This statement in the written contract is directly in conflict with the prescribed form statement that the bill would require placed immediately above the obligee's signature line. The form statement (See lines 32, 33, and 34, page 6 of the bill) states: I understand that (the PCSC) will charge a fee for all the current child support and arrears it collects for me? SHOULD THE FORM STATEMENT BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO AVOID CONFUSING THE OBLIGEE? b. Updated information on collection efforts assures the obligee Certain provisions in the bill are designed to maximize the information that an obligee would have about the collection efforts at any given time. This is very important, especially because child support obligees are usually dependent on the child support collected, and need to know whether their PCSCs are doing a good job or not or are bilking them for fees. For example, information on the amount of support collected, the date on which each amount received by the PCSC was sent to the obligee, the source of the payment and the actions taken by the PCSC to collect, the amount of the fee kept by the PCSC, the name and identifying information of the person who made the child support payment - all of this information would assuage fears of the obligee that nothing was being done and, at the same time, the obligee is getting the benefit of gathering information for herself (or AB 2781 (Leno) Page 16 himself) in the event she decides to terminate the contract. AB 2781 would require that this information be made available online, as well as by mail or telephone. Online access would have to be via a secure Internet website. If the information is provided by mail, it would be sent quarterly, and if provided by any other method, it would be updated and made available at least monthly. Information via telephone and the Internet would be up to date. c. PCSC and the obligor As to its dealings with obligors, this bill would also ensure a fairer playing field. Among other things, the PCSC could not engage in the behavior described in the Reno case above (see Comment 2). AB 2781 would prohibit a PCSC from making a false representation of the amount of child support to be collected. In that Reno case, the PCSC had information from the obligee that the maximum amount of support owed was just over $13,000. This bill would prohibit the PCSC from telling the obligor that he owed more than that, and would prohibit the PCSC from filing a lien against his house for $122,000. The bill would also require PCSCs to comply with fair debt collection practices that other consumer debt collectors are subject to, protecting obligors from overzealous PCSCs that call them in the middle of the night, contact their relatives in an attempt to extract payment from them, call their employers repeatedly, simulate legal process to scare employers into redirecting payments to the PCSC, or otherwise seek to harass obligors and others around them into paying the child support obligation. Although this bill only imposes some basic consumer protections, and does not purport to be the "be all and end all" of regulation of this industry, it begins the process of imposing consumer protections that are sorely lacking. The bill would require, on or after January 1, 2008, that all child support orders or child support AB 2781 (Leno) Page 17 agreement approved by the court include a separate money judgment owed by the obligor to pay half of the fees charged by the PCSC. [Proposed 5610(j).] It also would make the obligor liable to the PCSC and the obligee jointly for those fees, and PCSC may collect those fees by any means available for the collection of the support obligation. In other words, the PCSC may obtain a payment plan from the obligor for the concurrent payment of those fees. If collected, the fee would not be credited towards child support. Presumably then, more of the collection made on the child support obligation would go to the obligee. d. Obligee's right to cancel the contract In addition to the right to cancellation within 15 business days of executing the contract, AB 2781 would automatically terminate contracts at the end of the contract term or when the contracted amount is collected. Additionally, an obligee can terminate a contract at the end of any 12-month period in which total collections are less than 50 percent of the collections due under a payment plan. Lastly, an obligee can, under AB 2781, cancel a contract at any time the PCSC commits a material breach of any provision of the contract or a material violation of any provision with respect to the obligee or the obligor. The burden on the PCSC to collect more than 50% of the payment plan worked out with the obligor is not as onerous as it looks. For example, if the arrears total $10,000, and the current support is $1,000 per month, the PCSC must be able to collect, on a payment plan of $1,200 per month arranged with the obligor, at least 50% of $14,400 ($1,200 x 12). If the PCSC collected only $7,500 for the entire 12 month period and charged a 1/3 of collections fee, the PCSC would receive $2,500 in fees and the obligee would receive $5,000 in child support. Most obligees would probably be happy with receiving the $5,000 for the year, if they were not receiving any child support at all. And the obligee, under this bill cannot terminate the contract based only on the amount collected being less than ideal, because it would meet the 50% collections AB 2781 (Leno) Page 18 per 12-months rule. e. Requiring certain disclosures in advertisements and solicitations In response to complaints that PCSCs were selecting names that confused obligees into thinking they were a government agency, AB 2781 would require all advertisements and solicitations to indicate the PCSC is not a government entity and either charges an up-front fee even if it does not collect anything, or charges a fee for its services. If solicitation is made by telephone, the solicitor must state the same disclosure in the first 30 seconds of any initial telephone conversation between a PCSC and the obligee. 4. Opposition from Los Angeles County Bar This bill would include, in the definition of a PCSC, an attorney whose business is substantially comprised of child support collections. "Substantially" means that at least 50% of the attorney's business in terms of remuneration or time spent, is comprised of activities seeking to collect or enforce child support obligations for other individuals. The Los Angeles County Bar Association Family Law Section is vehemently opposed to the inclusion of attorneys in the definition of PCSC. AB 2781 defines a "private child support collector" so broadly that its restrictive provisions are unjustifiably applicable to legitimate attorneys engaged in the good faith qualified, competent and ethical specialized practice of fair and reasonable child support enforcement?As the direct result of AB 2781's overbroad definition of a "private child support collector," not only will an obligee-mother be "limited" in hiring a collection agency, she will potentially also not be able to hire an "effective, qualified, competent and ethical private family law attorney engaged in the specialized practice of child support enforcement" either, even if she wished to do so AB 2781 (Leno) Page 19 and is perfectly willing and satisfied with the contractual arrangements offered by such private family law attorney of her choice." 4. Bill needs to be more organized, for ease of use AB 2781 clearly contains more of the consumer protections that the vetoed bill, SB 339 (Alpert, 2003) had, than did SB 896 (Runner, 2005). At the same time, the improvements over SB 339 are measured, and still leaves room for further strengthening in the future. In the meantime, this bill should provide parameters for a growing industry, largely unregulated now, to operate in a way that does not cause more harm than good to Californians. Staff suggests that for this Act to be more easily read, understood, implemented, and accessed, it should be reorganized and recast. The convenience of seeking information that is already organized cannot be overemphasized. SHOULD THIS BILL BE REORGANIZED? Support: California Commission on the Status of Women; Supportkids, Inc.; Consumers Union; California Alliance for Families and Children; California NOW Opposition: Los Angeles County Bar Association Family Law Section HISTORY Source: National Center for Youth Law; Chidlrens Advocacy Institute (sponsors) Related Pending Legislation: None Known Prior Legislation: SB 339 (Alpert, 2003) Vetoed. (See Background.) SB 896 (Runner, 2005) (See Background.) (This bill is currently on Assembly 2nd AB 2781 (Leno) Page 20 Reading.) Prior Vote: Asm. Jud. (Ayes 6, Noes 3) Asm. Flr. (Ayes 47, Noes 32) **************