AN ACT CONCERNING PATERNITY AND SUPPORT ESTABLISHMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS IN TITLE IV-D CHILD SUPPORT CASES.

AN ACT CONCERNING PATERNITY AND SUPPORT ESTABLISHMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS IN TITLE IV-D CHILD SUPPORT CASES.

This bill makes numerous changes in the law related to the establishment, modification, and enforcement of Title IV-D and other child support orders. IV-D is a section in the federal Social Security Act that governs federal reimbursement for state child support enforcement programs. The Bureau of Child Support Enforcement (BCSE) within the Department of Social Services (DSS) is the state's IV-D agency. Specifically, the bill:

1. removes a requirement that a parent's liability for past-due child support is contingent on a child being born out-of-wedlock and makes either parent liable for the arrearage;

2. no longer requires BCSE to allege or prove neglect or refusal to support when petitioning for current child support;

3. authorizes judicial marshals to serve capias mittimus warrants on child support obligors who have failed to appear in court when ordered to do so and increases, from four to eight, the number of officers the public safety commissioner may appoint as special police officers in BCSE to serve warrants in child support matters;

4. waives the $ 25 Department of Public Health (DPH) fee for changing birth certificates in certain paternity cases and permits the state's IV-D agency (BCSE) to disclose information in the state paternity registry to cooperating agencies;

5. allows a family support magistrate (FSM), in IV-D cases, to order an obligor to engage in work readiness activities if the FSM feels it will improve the obligor's ability to pay the support;

6. conforms law to the child support guidelines by (a) requiring the guidelines to ensure that the arrearages are counted in both parents' income and (b) establishing special rules for arrearages when the obligor is living with the child;

7. requires the DSS commissioner to convene the Commission for Child Support Guidelines when a review is required to issue updates to the guidelines;

8. requires (a) FSMs, when they disapprove IV-D support agreements, to state the reasons in the record and (b) the FSM clerk to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate support amount; and

9. allows for electronic service of income withholding orders.

The bill also revises the process for direct income withholding when an obligor works in Connecticut but is paying support for a child living outside the state.

The bill makes references to federal and state assistance programs uniform throughout the child support statutes and makes a number of technical changes in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). Finally, the bill makes technical and conforming changes.

§§ 5, 25 — REMOVAL OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK CONDITION FOR PAST-DUE SUPPORT AND MAKING EITHER PARENT LIABLE

The bill removes the requirement that a parent's liability for past-due support, which by law is limited to three years preceding the filing of a petition for support, applies only to children born out-of-wedlock. It clarifies that this provision also applies to written support agreements between the parties. And it specifies that either parent can have this liability, not just the father.

§ 24 — NEGLECT OR REFUSAL OF SUPPORT AS CONDITION FOR ISSUING AND ENFORCING ORDERS

The bill provides that BCSE is not required to allege or prove a defendant's neglect or refusal to support when petitioning for current support of a child in a IV-D case. When there is past due support (arrearage), this condition still applies.

The law, unchanged by the bill, allows the Superior Court or an FSM to make and enforce orders for support payment for children or spouses against an individual when that individual has neglected or refused to furnish necessary support.

By law, “proper officers” can take people into custody pursuant to a capias mittimus, which is a type of civil arrest warrant that judges and magistrates can issue to force noncompliant child support obligors to appear in court.

The bill specifically permits judicial marshals to serve these warrants, and authorizes them to serve them on anyone who is (1) in the marshal's custody or (2) in a courthouse where the marshal provides security, if it is issued in a child support matter by a court or FSM in connection with a defendant's failure to obey a support order.

The bill eliminates a requirement that DPH charge $ 25 every time someone other than a hospital, state agency, or court requests a change to a birth certificate.

The law requires DPH to maintain a paternity registry and all information in it is available to the IV-D agency for comparison with the child support case registry that BCSE maintains. The bill permits BCSE to disclose information in the paternity registry to an agency under cooperative agreement with it for child support purposes (e. g. , Support Enforcement Services (SES) or the attorney general).

The bill provides that, in all IV-D support cases, FSMs can enter an order for the obligor's participation in an education, training, skill building, work, rehabilitation, or similar program. But the FSM can order this only if he or she finds that it will significantly increase the obligor's ability to fulfill his or her support duty within a reasonable amount of time. When these activities are ordered, the FSM must periodically review the obligor's progress in the program.

The law already authorizes the court or an FSM to order these types of activities when an obligor owes past due support,

By law, the Commission on Child Support Guidelines issues regulations containing guidelines for the court or FSM to use when establishing child support awards. The bill requires the guidelines to ensure that the award consists of current support, health care coverage, and child care contributions, as well as arrearages. And the award must be based on both parents' ability to pay, not just the obligor's. The guidelines already contain these requirements.

By law, the commission must ensure that the guidelines appropriately adjust arrearage calculations when the obligor has been living with the child for at least six months before the arrearage payment is ordered.

Under current law, in such cases the commission must consider exemptions similar to those in the uniform contribution scale in the legally liable relative law. The bill instead requires the guidelines to require the payment order to be no more than (1) $ 1 per week if the obligor's income is less than or equal to 250% of the federal poverty level ($ 27,075 annually in 2009 or $ 520 per week) or (2) 20% of the imputed current support obligation if income is higher than that. The current guidelines include the bill's formula.

The bill requires the DSS commissioner to convene the commission whenever a review is required to issue updated guidelines. Current law does not specify who has this authority. The bill provides that a vacancy on the commission at any time does not invalidate any actions it takes during the vacancy, as long as at least nine of its 11 members are serving at that time.

By law, agreements for support in IV-D cases must be filed with the assistant clerk of the FSM division for the judicial district where the child's mother or father lives. They become effective upon filing, subject to retroactive disapproval by an FSM. If the FSM disapproves a support agreement, the bill requires the reason to be stated in the record. Once the agreement is disapproved, the bill requires the clerk to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate support amount and notify the parties of the hearing date.

The bill also makes it clear that FSMs review and approve or disapprove, but do not modify, IV-D support agreements filed with the FSM division of the Superior Court.

§ 1 — IMMEDIATE REDIRECTION OF SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

The bill requires BCSE or a support enforcement agency under cooperative agreement with it, to redirect to the state any payments supporting children who (1) have applied for or received Temporary Family Assistance (TFA) or (2) children committed to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and receiving foster care payments effective on “the date of the assistance grant. ”

When redirecting these payments, the enforcement agency must notify the obligor and obligee of the redirection if the assistance is being received by a new custodial party on behalf of the children. The parties have 10 days to object in writing. If the court or FSM receives the objection, the agency must refund to the support order's obligee any money due him or her that the state retained during the redirection period.

By law, BCSE and SES can serve income withholding orders on employers as a means to collect child support. Currently, this can be done by certified mail, return receipt requested, or first class mail. The bill also allows service to occur electronically provided the employer agrees to accept it in this manner.

The bill also defines the term “issue” in the context of issuing withholding orders.

§ 23 — Direct Income Withholding for Out-of-State Obligees When the Obligee Works in Connecticut

Forms. By law, when another state issues an income withholding order coming directly from an obligee or his or her representative in the other state on an obligor's Connecticut employer, that employer must immediately provide to the obligor a copy of the order, a standard notice, and a claim form.

The bill requires DSS to make available, instead of distribute, the notice and form. The notice includes such things as notice that money will be withheld from the employee obligor's wages for child support and health insurance.

The bill also requires that the claim form include the address of the BCSE in the section that has a space where the obligor can request modification of the order, and SES's address, which is where the claim form is sent. This form already contains a number of items, including a list of the most common defenses and exemptions that the obligor can check off if they apply to him or her.

Contesting Validity of Such Orders. By law, obligors can contest the validity of these orders. Currently, the obligor must send the claim form to BCSE, which subsequently registers it with the SES division of the Judicial Department. The bill requires the obligor to mail the form directly to SES and requires the claim form to conform with this change. The bill removes a requirement that BCSE immediately register the order.

To conform with the above change, the bill requires SES, instead of BCSE, to take two steps when it receives a contesting claim form. These are:

1. giving notice to (a) the support enforcement agency providing services to the obligee; (b) each employer that has directly received these orders; (c) the person designated to receive payments specified in the order; and (d) the obligee, when person's address is known and

2. filing the claim form and a copy of the withholding order with the FSM division.

In addition, the bill requires the SES to notify the person or agency that sent the order, at least 10 days before the hearing, to (1) file two copies, including a certified one, of the underlying support order and any modifications to it and (2) a sworn statement showing the amount of any arrearage, together with the last court determination of an arrearage and an accounting of the arrearage since the determination.

FSM Duties. By law, once the FSM receives the claim form, the assistant clerk must promptly enter the obligor's appearance, schedule a hearing, and give notice of it to the obligor and others. Currently, the clerk must also notify BCSE. The bill instead requires notice to go to SES.

Currently, the FSM clerk must follow the process established in law for contested income withholding orders. The bill sets up a parallel process to be used for out-of-state contests of these orders. It requires the FSM to use UIFSA's procedures for obtaining evidence and information needed to make a prompt determination.

If the person or agency that sent the withholding order fails to file the required copies and statement referenced above or comply with a reasonable request for information or documents, the FSM can (1) continue the hearing for up to 45 days and direct the clerk or SES to provide appropriate notice; (2) order a temporary or partial stay of the income withholding for no more than 45 days; or (3) sustain the obligor's objection and enjoin the employer from complying with the order.

The bill requires SES, instead of BCSE, to provide notice of the decision to each employer that has directly received an order related to the obligor, the party initiating the order, the obligor, and if his or her address is known, the obligee.

A IV-D support case is one in which the child has received state assistance under TFA, foster care payments, or Medicaid or the custodial parent asks the state's designated IV-D agency (the BCSE) for help to collect child support.

In general, federal law requires states to have procedures for collecting child support (cash and medical) from noncustodial parents of children receiving cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (TFA in Connecticut), foster care, and Medicaid (42 USC § 654(4)).

BCSE has cooperative arrangements with several agencies that assist the state in establishing and enforcing support orders. These include the Judicial Branch's Support Enforcement Services, Court Operations, and FSM divisions. It also has an agreement with the attorney general to deliver legal services in IV-D cases. And it maintains several smaller agreements with the departments of Labor, Motor Vehicles, Administrative Services, Public Health, and Children and Families.

By law, the parent of a minor or spouse of a person receiving state care or support is liable for reimbursing the state for some portion of the costs of the care or support, but it does not include the parent whose financial liability for a child is determined by BCSE. These relatives are expected to pay based on their ability and a uniform contribution scale the Office of Policy and Management establishes. The fee can be waived if it creates a financial hardship. A portion of the relative's income (200% of the federal poverty level) is exempt (CGS § 4a-12).

UIFSA's general purpose is to create uniform rules and procedures, simplifying child support enforcement when the parties live in different states. In some cases, its provisions supplant state laws. In others, they specify which state's procedural and substantive laws are controlling.

All states had enacted some form of UIFSA by 1998, due in part to a provision in the 1996 federal welfare law that restricted states' eligibility for matching federal child support enforcement funds to those states that had enacted it.