BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1483|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1483
Author: Alquist (D)
Amended: 6/26/06
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 4/25/06
AYES: Dunn, Ackerman, Escutia, Kuehl
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-0, 5/25/06
AYES: Murray, Aanestad, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin,
Dutton, Escutia, Florez, Poochigian, Romero, Torlakson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ortiz
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 6/1/06 (Passed on Consent)
AYES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn,
Battin, Bowen, Cedillo, Chesbro, Cox, Denham, Ducheny,
Dunn, Dutton, Escutia, Figueroa, Florez, Hollingsworth,
Kehoe, Kuehl, Lowenthal, Machado, Maldonado, Margett,
McClintock, Migden, Morrow, Murray, Ortiz, Perata,
Poochigian, Romero, Runner, Scott, Simitian, Soto,
Speier, Torlakson, Vincent
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Child support modification orders
SOURCE : Child Support Directors Association of
California
CONTINUED
SB 1483
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill creates a five county pilot project to
expedite the uncontested modification of child support
orders upon request by a local child support agency
predicated upon each of the County Board of Supervisors
adopting a resolution to implement the program.
Assembly Amendments (1) recast the language of the bill
with the same intent as when it left the Senate, (2) change
the implementation date from 2009 to 2010, (3) require the
Department of Child Support Services to initiate the
corresponding forms, and (4) require the Judicial Council
to conduct an evaluation.
ANALYSIS : Existing law makes local child support
agencies responsible for establishing, modifying and
enforcing child support obligations.
Existing law 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.
Existing law provides a formula to calculate the state
guideline child support. Courts have discretion to deviate
from this calculation when necessary.
Existing federal law conditions grants of funds to states
under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act upon the creation of expedited
procedures for the establishment, modification and
enforcement of child support.
Existing law provides for an expedited child support order
process to provide support during the pendency of a support
action.
This bill, until January 1, 2010, establishes, if approved
by a resolution of a county board of supervisors, a child
support pilot project for the Counties of Alameda, Fresno,
Orange, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. The bill authorizes
the court in those counties to modify a child support order
when a local child support agency submits an application
for modification of support and complies with specified
SB 1483
Page
3
provisions. This bill specifically authorizes a local
child support agency to seek modification of an existing
child support order if it has received income information
for one or both parents that indicates that an existing
order is not in substantial conformity with child state
support guidelines, as specified.
This bill requires the Department of Child Support Services
to develop and annually review the necessary and
appropriate forms for implementation of the expedited order
modification process and requires the Department of Child
Support Services and the Judicial Council to conduct an
evaluation of the effectiveness of this pilot project and
report the results to the Governor and the Legislature by
July 1, 2009.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2006-07 2007-08
2008-09 Fund
Court costs -- Unknown, potential
reduction --
State mandated
program -- Unknown,
non-reimburseable -- General
Compile & report data $ 25
General
Develop & promulgate
regulations --
Unknown -- General
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/28/06)
Child Support Directors Association of California (source)
Alameda County Department of Child Support Services
SB 1483
Page
4
County of Fresno Board of Supervisors
Child Support Directors Association
Fresno County Department of Support Services
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Department of Child Support Services
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County Department of Child Support Services
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
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 medication of
those orders. The author's office contends 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."
Proponents, the Child Support Directors Association (CSDA),
contend that this expedited procedure will reduce court
workload and thus court time and cost 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's letter of support 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 [local child support
agencies]."
Finally, materials submitted by the author's office on
Hawaii's expedited program contend that "transfer of
Hawaii's proposed order practice [to] California would
present virtually no implementation challenges?the Hawaiian
practice is nearly identical to California's proposed
judgment practice."
RJG:cm 8/28/06 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
SB 1483
Page
5
**** END ****