BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
SB 646 (Jackson) - Uniform Interstate Family Support part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 27, 2015 |Policy Vote: JUD. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 20, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 646 would revise and recast the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA) to provide guidelines for the
registration, recognition, enforcement, and modification of
interstate, tribal, and international child support orders, as
specified. This bill would identify the Department of Child
Support Services (DCSS) as the designated agency to perform
functions as specified in the UIFSA.
Fiscal
Impact:
Potentially significant increase in DCSS administrative costs
in excess of $150,000 (General Fund/Federal Fund) annually.
Unknown, potentially significant one-time automation costs
(General Fund/Federal Fund) for necessary automation changes
to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system to process
international child support orders.
Potentially significant increase in annual child support
collections to the extent adoption of UIFSA 2008 results in a
SB 646 (Jackson) Page 1 of
?
greater number of child support orders and/or increases in
child support collection amounts.
Potentially significant state-reimbursable costs (General
Fund) to local child support agencies for increased
administrative workload associated with the implementation of
UIFSA 2008.
Adoption of UIFSA 2008 would enable the State to retain
continued receipt of approximately $680 million (Federal Fund)
annually in federal child support payments.
Background: The UIFSA governs the establishment, enforcement, and
modification of interstate child and spousal support orders by
providing jurisdictional standards and rules for determining
which state's order is controlling and whether a tribunal of
this state may exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over
a support proceeding. The UIFSA was first developed by the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in
1992, was amended in 1996, 2001, and 2008. All states were
required to enact UIFSA in 1998 as a condition to receive
federal funds for family support enforcement. As a result, UIFSA
is currently state law in all 50 states and jurisdictions.
The UIFSA 2008: 1) allows states to redirect support payments to
a new state when all parties have left the state that originally
issued a support order; 2) requires courts to permit
out-of-state parties to appear telephonically in proceedings to
establish, modify, or enforce a support order; and, 3) allows
for the provision of child support services to residents of
other countries pursuant to the 2007 Hague Convention on the
International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of
Maintenance.
On September 29, 2014, the President signed into law the
Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act
(Public Law (P.L.) 113-183), that among its provisions, requires
the adoption of the UIFSA 2008 verbatim by all states by the end
of each state's 2015 legislative session as a condition of
continued federal child support program funding. This bill seeks
to address this federal provision of law.
Proposed Law:
This bill would repeal the 1996 and 2001 versions of the UIFSA,
and adopt the 2008 version of the UIFSA, as required by P.L.
SB 646 (Jackson) Page 2 of
?
113-183, in order to retain continued federal child support
program funding. Specified provisions of the bill include:
Clarifies that a state loses continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction if the parties agree, in writing, for another
state to assume jurisdiction.
Requires tribunals to permit a party or a witness
residing in another state to participate in a proceeding
telephonically, by audiovisual means, or any other
electronic means designated by the tribunal.
Requires, upon the request of the appropriate agency,
the issuing state agency to redirect payments to the agency
in the obligee's state and issue an administrative notice
of change to the obligor's employer that reflects the
redirected payments.
Provides the framework for the exchange of cases between
parties to the 2007 Hague Convention, as follows:
o Prescribes the role and responsibilities of
central authorities in Convention countries;
o Expands the ability to challenge a Convention
support order upon registration in this state;
o Requires the state to seek to establish a new
support order if the registration of a Convention
support order is denied, without further request from
the other country.
Related
Legislation: AB 2934 (Wayne) Chapter 349/2002 made substantive
and procedural changes to the Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act.
SB 568 (Sher) Chapter 194/1997 enacted the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act.
Staff
Comments: This bill would require the DCSS to enforce child
SB 646 (Jackson) Page 3 of
?
support payments for interstate, tribal, and international cases
upon the signing of an international Hague treaty agreement.
Enforcing child support orders consistently with other
jurisdictions for these more complex cases may increase the
level of child support collections and may also increase the
cost to administer the program.
The DCSS has indicated that the extent of the new international
and interstate case workload is unknown at this time due to
limited data regarding the number of potential new cases
California would receive from other states, tribes, and
internationally. It is anticipated that the overall number of
international cases will increase upon the signing of an
international Hague Treaty agreement, however, the volume of
cases is unknown at this time and would be disbursed across
local child support agencies (LCSAs) statewide.
To the extent the provisions of this bill increase the duties of
LCSAs, the costs associated with these additional duties would
potentially be reimbursable by the state (General Fund).
Although the adoption of UIFSA 2008 is required by federal law
in order to retain continued federal child support program
funding, the adoption of UIFSA 2008 is technically not a federal
mandate (although the practical effect is the same), as the
federal government is not requiring states to adopt UIFSA 2008,
but rather makes federal funding contingent upon adoption of
UIFSA 2008.
Increased workload on DCSS operations associated with payment
redirect requests from interstate cases and forms revisions
relative to the interstate UIFSA 2008 are expected to result in
the need for additional resources. While the extent of this need
is unknown at this time, the DCSS has indicated an assessment
for additional resources will be conducted once information on
nature and volume of the increased workload is available.
The provisions of this bill would require changes to the Child
Support Enforcement (CSE) system to process international child
support orders. The impact on the CSE system would depend on the
eventual design of the new international portal for processing
cases and the level of effort required for DCSS to comply with
the new system and the volume of cases received. As the nature
and size of the required changes to the CSE are unknown at this
time, the costs cannot be known with certainty but are
SB 646 (Jackson) Page 4 of
?
potentially significant.
The DCSS has indicated that failure to enact the provisions of
this measure during the 2015-16 Legislative session may put
approximately $680 million in annual federal child support
funding that the State receives at risk.
-- END --