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 --