BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 380|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 380
Author: Wright (D)
Amended: 9/7/99 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 9-0, 7/7/99
AYES: Burton, Escutia, Haynes, Morrow, O'Connell, Peace,
Sher, Wright, Schiff
SENATE HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. COMMITTEE : 6-0, 8/18/99
AYES: Escutia, Haynes, Hughes, Mountjoy, Solis,
Vasconcellos
NOT VOTING: Figueroa, Morrow, Polanco
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 9/1/99
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Karnette, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata,
Vasconcellos
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-1, 5/25/99 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Support orders: modification: set aside:
enforcement
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill would make numerous substantive and
procedural changes to child support enforcement and other
statutes to address concerns expressed by support obligors,
including: limiting the retroactivity of support orders;
extending the application of the hardship deduction;
CONTINUED
AB 380
Page
2
allowing support orders to be set aside based on fraud,
perjury, lack of notice, or misidentification; and
providing alternatives to incarceration for failing to pay
a support order.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/7/99 avoid chaptering out
problems; and allow the court to, whenever ordering a
downward modification of a support order to be made
retroactive, order the support obligee to repay any amounts
paid by the obligor in excess of the modified order. This
amendment is necessary to fix an mistake from a bill that
was enacted last year. This provision was one of four
provisions in AB 1614 (Wright), which is now a two-year
bill.
ANALYSIS : The background leading to this bill, according
to the author, is set forth in the proposed legislative
findings, which would provide:
1.The efficient and fair enforcement of child support
orders is essential to ensuring compliance with those
orders and respect for the administration of justice.
2.A large number of child support orders are obtained by a
default judgment. In one study by the Judicial Council,
more than 70 percent of all child support orders studied
were obtained by default judgment. Very often, by the
time a support obligor receives actual notice of the
support order, the accumulated amount of arrearages
totals tens of thousands of dollars. These arrearages
amounts, particularly for a low wage earner, are a
significant obstacle to good faith compliance. Ensuring
prompt, actual notice of a child support obligation will
prevent the accumulation of large amounts of arrearages
and encourage greater timely compliance.
3.Thousands of individuals each year are mistakenly
identified as being liable for child support actions. As
a result of that action, the ability to earn a living is
severely impaired, assets are seized, and family
relationships are often destroyed. It is the moral,
legal, and ethical obligation of all enforcement agencies
to take prompt action to recognize those cases where a
AB 380
Page
3
person is mistakenly identified as a support obligor in
order to minimize the harm and correct any injustice to
that person.
Existing law establishes procedures and time limits for
granting a party relief from a default, judgment,
dismissal, or other order on specified grounds in any civil
action and for granting a party relief from a judgment, or
any part thereof, on specified grounds in proceedings for
dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of
the parties. Existing law also provides procedures for the
modification or termination of child, family, and spousal
support orders.
This bill would enact the Child Support Enforcement
Fairness Act of 2000.
This bill would authorize the court to set aside a support
order, or any part thereof, on the grounds of fraud,
perjury, or lack of notice, as specified and would
establish procedures and time limits therefor.
Existing law provides that an order for child support may
be made retroactive to the date of the filing of the notice
of motion or order to show cause, subject to specified
provisions of federal law.
This bill would instead provide that those orders may be
made retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition
or other first pleading, except as specified.
Existing law provides that, for purposes of computing the
minimum level of child support, no deduction from income
shall be granted if specified aid payments are being made
to the child or children of the parent seeking the
deduction, even if the payments are being received by the
other parent.
This bill would repeal that provision.
In proceedings against an individual for failure to
sufficiently provide for the support of his or her children
or spouse, existing law authorizes the court to suspend the
proceedings or sentence, at specified times in the
AB 380
Page
4
proceedings, if the defendant enters into an undertaking
conditioned upon the defendant paying support, as
specified.
This bill would authorize the court, at those specified
times in the proceedings and upon similar conditions, to
suspend the proceedings or sentence in a contempt action
against an individual for failure to comply with a court
order for payment of child, family, or spousal support.
Existing law provides that, if an order decreasing or
terminating support is entered retroactively, the support
obligee shall not be obligated to repay any amounts paid
pursuant to the prior order that are in excess of the
amounts due pursuant to the retroactive order.
This bill would instead provide that, in those
circumstances, the support obligee may be obligated to
repay those excess amounts, on terms ordered by the court
after consideration of specified factors.
Existing law declares that, if a family is granted aid
under the CalWORKs program as a result of the absence of a
parent from the family home, the noncustodial parent shall
reimburse the county for the amounts of unpaid support
specified in the support order or, in the absence of an
order, the amount that would have been specified in the
order for the period of separation or desertion.
This bill would, in the absence of a support order, limit
that recovery by the county to the amount that would have
been specified in an order for support, for a period not to
exceed one year prior to the date of the filing of the
complaint or petition.
Existing law requires the district attorney, in specified
child support cases, to provide to the Department of Social
Services a list of persons who are not in compliance with a
support order or judgment; which list is then provided by
the department to all state boards that issue licenses, as
defined, for the purpose of withholding issuance or renewal
of any license to any person named on the list, until a
release is issued by the district attorney. If a license
applicant believes his or her name should be deleted from
AB 380
Page
5
the list, existing law specifies procedures for judicial
review of that issue in the superior court.
This bill would authorize the judicial review to be
conducted by the municipal court, in counties in which
there is a municipal court, if specified criminal
proceedings are pending against the applicant in that court
at the time review is sought.
Existing law provides that an action may be brought by the
district attorney to obtain or enforce a child support
obligation on behalf of a parent who has requested or is
receiving support enforcement services of the district
attorney. In those actions, a default judgment may be
entered against a defendant who fails to answer or
otherwise appear within a specified time. Existing law
also provides that when a parent makes an application for
child support services, the applicant shall provide the
district attorney with a statement of arrearages, if any
are owed. Existing law provides procedures for the
district attorney to review the amount of arrearages
alleged in that statement.
This bill would establish, as of a specified date,
procedures and remedies if a person claims that a default
judgment has been entered, or enforcement actions have been
taken, against him or her in error due to mistaken
identity, as specified. Filing a false claim of mistaken
identity would be punishable as a misdemeanor. If the
district attorney rejects a person's claim of mistaken
identity, or fails to provide the remedies specified, the
bill would provide that the person would be entitled to
file a court action to obtain that relief. The bill would
also impose additional requirements on district attorneys
regarding service of process on defendants in support
establishment and enforcement actions.
The bill would declare that the act shall be referred to as
the Child Support Enforcement Fairness Act of 2000 and
would make related findings and declarations.
The bill would provide that certain of its provisions would
be operative in the Family Code if either AB 196 or SB 542
are enacted and became operative, otherwise those
AB 380
Page
6
provisions would become operative in the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
This bill is also double-jointed with SB 240 (Speier).
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 19999-2000
2000-01 2001-02 Fund
Child support Unknown reduction in child supportGeneral/
collections federal
Courts Minor, absorbable increased costsGeneral
Incarceration Potential incarceration cost savings
forLocal
county jail
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/7/99)
Coalition of Parent Support
California Judges Association
Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights
California Family Support Council
National Youth Law Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : This bill addresses numerous
facets of child support laws and procedures in order to
address various inequities that the author believes exist
in current law. Among the concerns which inspired the
author to carry this measure, the author states that
service of process in some cases being enforced by the
district attorney's office, at least according to anecdotal
evidence, may not result in actual notice to the alleged
obligor. Without notice, the alleged obligor does not have
an opportunity to present evidence to the court or the
district attorney that he is not the father or is unable to
currently pay the amount of support proposed by the
district attorney.
The author also contends that the district attorney may,
AB 380
Page
7
for one reason or another, not take any actions to enforce
a support order for some time after it is established.
Depending on how long it is before any actions are taken
which inform the obligor of the court-ordered obligation,
some existing statutory time frames to set aside or
otherwise question the court order may have passed.
In addition, the Coalition of Parent Support, writing in
support of this bill, notes that this bill "enacts a number
of important fairness and due process protections for child
support and welfare reimbursement obligors that our members
report are sorely lacking from existing law." The
California Judges Association adds that "the bill's
provisions for an improved and speedier administrative
process for releasing suspended licenses and for expanding
a municipal court's authority to release licenses will
allow more equitable and responsive utilization and review
of these sanctions by the courts."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn,
Baldwin, Bates, Battin, Baugh, Bock, Briggs, Calderon,
Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Correa, Cox, Cunneen, Davis,
Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Floyd,
Frusetta, Gallegos, Granlund, Havice, Hertzberg, Honda,
House, Jackson, Kaloogian, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach,
Lempert, Leonard, Longville, Lowenthal, Machado, Maddox,
Maldonado, Margett, Mazzoni, Migden, Nakano, Olberg,
Oller, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Pescetti, Reyes,
Romero, Runner, Scott, Shelley, Steinberg, Strickland,
Strom-Martin, Thomson, Torlakson, Vincent, Washington,
Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright, Zettel,
Villaraigosa
NOES: McClintock
NOT VOTING: Brewer, Campbell, Corbett, Papan, Soto,
Thompson
RJG:sl 9/8/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****