BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1483
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 20, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
SB 1483 (Alquist) - As Amended: June 15, 2006
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT: CHILD SUPPORT: MODIFICATION
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A PILOT PROJECT BE ESTABLISHED TO TEST AN
EXPEDITED CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION PROCESS FOR LOCAL CHILD
SUPPORT AGENCIES?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the Child Support
Directors Association of California, creates a five-county pilot
project to expedite the uncontested modification of child
support orders being enforced by local child support agencies
(LCSAs). Current law allows for an expedited process to
establish child support orders, with the right to set aside such
orders if warranted, and this bill proposes to test a similar
model for modification of child support orders. In order to
participate in the pilot, the Boards of Supervisors of the five
counties - Alameda, Fresno, Orange, San Mateo and Santa Clara -
must first adopt a resolution to permit the pilot. This bill
requires the Department of Child Support Services and the
Judicial Council to evaluate the pilot and report the results to
the Governor and the Legislature by July 1, 2009. The pilot
sunsets on January 1, 2010.
This bill is supported by the Boards of Supervisors in Fresno,
Orange, and San Mateo counties, and there is no reported
opposition.
SUMMARY : Creates a five-county pilot project to test an
expedited child support modification procedure. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Establishes a procedure for the expedited modification of
child support orders for cases being enforced by the LCSAs in
five counties - Alameda, Fresno, Orange, San Mateo and Santa
SB 1483
Page 2
Clara - provided the county boards of supervisors in those
counties first adopt a resolution to permit the pilot. LCSAs
may then seek expedited modification of child support orders
when those orders are not in substantial conformity with the
state child support guideline and meet criteria to be
established by the Department of Child Support Services
(DCSS). Requires DCSS to develop forms to implement the
pilot, as specified.
2)Requires the LCSA to serve specified papers on both parents,
including an application to modify, proposed order, objection
to modification and request for hearing, and instructions for
completing the objection. Permits a party to object to the
proposed order within 30 days of receipt of the application by
serving the objection on the LCSA. Upon receipt of an
objection, requires the LCSA to file the objection with the
court and requires the court to set the matter for hearing.
At the hearing, permits the court to enter an order consistent
with the child support guideline. Allows the order to be made
retroactive to the date of filing of the objection.
3)Permits the LCSA, if it does not receive an objection to the
proposed modification within 40 days of mailing of the
application, to file the proposed order with the court, along
with a statement verifying that the LCSA has not received any
objections. Allows the court to issue a final order upon
receipt of the documents, without further hearing or evidence.
Requires, except for good cause shown, the order to be
effective on the first of the month following the service of
the application. Permits the court to set aside an order
modified this way within one year of the first collection
after modification of the order. The court can then modify
the order appropriately and date it back to the date of the
original modification order.
4)Requires DCSS and the Judicial Council to evaluate the pilot
and report the results to the Governor and the Legislature by
July 1, 2009. Sunsets the pilot on January 1, 2010.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Makes local child support agencies responsible for
establishing, modifying and enforcing child support
obligations. (Family Code Section 17400. All further
references are to the Family Code unless otherwise indicated.)
SB 1483
Page 3
2)Allows individuals seeking modification of their child support
orders to either contact their local child support agency or
file a motion with the court requesting modification. Directs
the Judicial Council to develop a simplified method for
modifying support orders. Requires the local child support
agency to monitor child support cases and seek modifications
when necessary. (Sections 3650 et seq ., 3680, 3680.5.)
3)Establishes an expedited child support order establishment
procedure and permits set aside of any order established under
this expedited procedure within one year of the first
collection. (Sections 17400(d) and 17432.)
4)Establishes a formula to calculate support orders under the
state child support guideline. (Section 4050 et seq .)
5)Conditions grants of funds to states under the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) upon the creation of expedited procedures for the
establishment, modification and enforcement of child support.
(42 U.S.C. Sections 666.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print, this bill is keyed
fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the Child Support Directors
Association of California (CSDA), creates a five-county pilot
project to expedite uncontested modifications of child support
orders being enforced by LCSAs. Current law allows for an
expedited process to establish child support orders, with the
right to set aside such orders if warranted, and this bill
proposes to test a similar model for modification of child
support orders.
According to the author, federal law "requires states to have an
expedited process for modification of child support orders."
While an existing procedure already exists for expedited
creation of child support orders, no procedure exists for
modification of those orders. The author notes that this bill
would address "that deficiency by establishing pilot projects in
five California counties - Alameda, Fresno, Orange, San Mateo
and Santa Clara - to test the use of an expedited process for
child support modifications."
SB 1483
Page 4
CSDA contends that this expedited procedure will reduce court
workload and thus court time and costs required to modify these
orders. CSDA adds that "[t]he proposed procedure would reduce
the number of cases that go through the court process, thus
enabling the courts to calendar and hear the cases that must be
heard by the court in a timelier manner." CSDA also indicates
that they expect this procedure to "increase the percentage of
current support collected, reduce the accrual of arrears, and
increase the cost-effectiveness" of LCSAs.
If either parent objects to the proposed expedited modification,
they only have to send the objection and request for hearing
form, served with the modification application, to the LCSA.
The LCSA must then serve the objection on the court. The court
must then set the matter for hearing, and the LCSA must provide
notice of the upcoming hearing to the parents. This should help
parents who want to object to the expedited process and proposed
order, but are not sufficiently aware of the process to do so.
Any order established at that hearing may be made retroactive to
the date of the filing of the objection with the court. This
effective date ensures that all parties have notice of both the
proposed modification and any objections before the modification
can become effective, so that parents are on notice that their
support order may be modified.
If neither parent objects, the LCSA may file the proposed order
with the court, along with a statement verifying that the LCSA
has received no objection to the proposed order. The court may
then issue a final modification order based on the filed
documents, without further hearing or evidence, provided the
LCSA certifies that service on the parties was made to addresses
that had been verified as current and active within the last 90
days. An order established this way is effective on the first
of the month following the service of the application, unless
good cause is shown not to do so.
Any order established through the expedited process, without
hearing and without objection, may be set aside within one year
of the first collection after modification of the order. The
order can then be reestablished using more accurate income and
timeshare information back to the date of the original
modification order. This is very similar to the set aside
procedure available for orders established using the expedited
establishment process. This should help ensure that if orders
are incorrectly modified they can be corrected and the
SB 1483
Page 5
correction can go back to the date the inaccurate modification
was made effective, thereby both reducing uncollectible child
support arrears and helping ensure that children get the support
to which they are entitled. If an order is modified to zero,
the one-year set aside period runs from the date the party
seeking the set-aside received notice of the modified order.
This bill has been carefully crafted to help ensure that any
child support modification entered using this expedited process
represents the actual income and timeshare of the parents. In
addition, the bill has a number of provisions that represent
lessons learned from the expedited support order establishment
process begun a decade ago. The bill requires that the LCSA
serve the proposed modification to an address that has been
verified as active. This should help reduce the number of
proposed orders that are not effectively served, an issue that
has plagued LCSAs in the past. The bill also requires that the
LCSA, when serving the proposed order, also serve an objection
form and instructions for completing. This will help
unrepresented parents easily object to the proposed
modification.
The bill requires that the Department of Child Support Services
consult with various stakeholders on the pilot, but neglects to
include child support advocates in that list . This bill
requires that DCSS, in developing forms and the criteria for
cases eligible for the expedited modification process, consult
with the Child Support Directors Association, Judicial Council,
LCSA representatives, child support commissioners and family law
facilitators. While the list is extensive, it fails to include
consultation with the families, who will be directly affected by
the pilot, and their advocacy organizations. To address this
issue, the author has agreed to add child support advocates and
representatives of custodial and noncustodial parent
organizations to the list of the groups with whom DCSS must
consult under subdivisions (b) and (j) of the bill.
Technical Amendment : The bill permits an LCSA that has not
received an objection to a proposed modification within 40 days
of mailing of the application for modification and proposed
order to file the proposed order with the court. However, the
application and proposed order are required to be served on the
parents, not mailed. While service may, under specified
conditions, be done by mail, it is compliance with the service
requirement, not simply a mailing, that should trigger the 40
SB 1483
Page 6
day time period. Therefore, "mailing" in subdivision (f) must
be replaced with "service."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alameda County Department of Child Support Services
Child Support Directors Association of California (sponsor)
Fresno Board of Supervisors
Orange County Board of Supervisors;
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334