Child Support Report

	Questions?
	Privacy
	Site Index
	Contact Us

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Child Support Report - July 1996

Executive Action on Child Support
Building Coalitions to Put Children First
Adding Innovation to Education
A Judge's View of Child Support
Guidelines and High Incomes
Conference Calendar 1996
An excerpt from Secretary Shalala's remarks to the White House Teen Pregnancy Event, June 13, 1996. . .
Child Support on Cable in L .A .

Return to top of newsletter

Executive Action on Child Support

On June 18, 1996, President Clinton announced three actions to strengthen the child support enforcement program and promote parental responsibility. These actions were:

implementing a pilot program to track nonpaying parents across state lines;
challenging all states to adopt statewide new hire reporting programs; and
issuing new regulations requiring women who apply for welfare to comply with paternity establishment requirements before receiving benefits.

Federal Program to Track Parents Across State Lines

Approximately 30 percent of the current child support caseload involves interstate cases. The Administration's new pilot program will track parents who are delinquent in child support payments from job to job and across state lines.

Under the new program, the 25 states with existing new hire reporting systems will be able to send new hire information to the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). The data will then be matched by computer against lists of nonpaying parents sent by states to the department. When a match is found, OCSE will contact the state where the parent owes child support so that the state can issue a wage withholding order or take other appropriate action, such as initiating paternity proceedings.

New Hire Reporting Programs

In those 25 states with new hire reporting programs, employers are required or encouraged to report new hires to a state agency. As indicated above, information is cross-matched by computer against lists of parents in the state who owe child support and, when a match is found, appropriate action is taken.

These programs have been called the single biggest innovation in child support enforcement in the past decade and have significantly increased collections in the states that have adopted them: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

In Florida, for example, over 8,000 matches were made for child support cases in 1995. The annual amount of support owed under these cases amounted to $15.2 million.

Under Washington's new hire program . . . every dollar spent . . . returns approximately $20 in child support collections.

In Washington State, the time required to receive employment information has been reduced from 178 to 43 days. That means better collections, faster wage withholding, and more child support for children.

Under Washington's program, employers may report new hire information in a variety of wayscomputer diskettes, tapes, or by faxing reports to a special 800 toll-free line. In addition, Washington's program is cost effective. Every dollar spent on the program returns approximately $20 in child support collections.

New Regulations Requiring Mothers to Cooperate with Paternity Establishment Efforts This action directs OCSE, through DHHS, to issue new regulations that require all mothers who apply for welfare to cooperate in establishing paternity prior to receiving benefits (subject to appropriate good cause exceptions). Welfare applicants and recipients will also be required to comply with stricter cooperation standards.

The new, stricter definition of cooperation requires that welfare applicants and recipients provide the name of their child's father and other identifying information, such as address or place of employment, as a condition of eligibility for assistance.

Welfare applicants must also be referred to the state child support agency within two days of application, so that the agency can initiate a legal paternity action if necessary. This executive action will build upon the in-hospital paternity establishment program proposed by the Administration and passed by Congress in 1993.

Return to top of newsletter

Building Coalitions to Put Children First

The National Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators (NCSCSEA), commonly referred to as the IV-D Directors' Association, is building solutions to the problems and challenges of child support enforcement (see April '96 CSR). In July, 1995, the Association established the Coalition Building Committee to work on a united effortthe Put Children First campaign.

This campaign involves all levels of government joining forces with social service programs, non-profit organizations, and the private sector in a drive to encourage a more collaborative approach to treating the problems of children and families.

The Committee's mission statement and objectives build on the national child support enforcement Strategic Plan for FY 1995-99 and include promoting parental responsibility and educating individuals about the child support enforcement program. The goal: that Americans will view child support enforcement in a larger contextnot just as a collection agency but as a program that provides needed services to children and families.

According to Leslie Frye, President of NCSCSEA, and Dianna Durham-McLoud, Administrator of the Illinois Division of Child Support Enforcement, this will be a challenging task, requiring a coalition of businesses, civic and community groups, government agencies, and schools and religious organizations working hand in hand.

Committee objectives include education about the child support enforcement program.

Getting society to understand that child support is not just about money, but about love, support, responsibility, and belonging will take time, they say. But it is a job well worth doing. Children are the future of America and all of us must do our part to preserve that future.

For more information about the Committee's activities, contact Alicia Terry in the Office of the Texas Attorney General at (512) 463-2050.

Return to top of newsletter

Adding Innovation to Education

By: Nancy L. Graham

What happens when four states, the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, a regional federal office, a contractor, and an evaluator join forces to create and test new approaches to training?

In Region VII, collaboration and creativity.

In 1993, Iowa was awarded a three-year federal demonstration project grant on behalf of the Region VII states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) was selected to help develop products for the project. The University of Kansas was enlisted to evaluate the work.

The goal of the Region VII Training Demonstration Project was to develop and test new approaches to child support training and outreach. Focus was placed on three areas: customer education, executive leadership training, and front-line worker training.

Kiosks Pique Public Interest

To improve general knowledge about child support enforcement, electronic information kiosks were developed. To make them useful for a wide audience, the kiosks were video-based.

This means that users only have to touch the screen (see photo above) to request a short movie on the topic that interests them. One kiosk was installed in a rural courthouse and another in a busy shopping mall.

Public interest has been substantial, and the kiosks have attracted positive media coverage.

Learning to Lead

Officials in Region VII's states wanted training for senior managers to enhance their leadership skills. PSI developed a special child support leadership training curriculum and held a training session for state directors and their staff in June of 1995. Assessment instruments were used to gather information about leadership effectiveness in the four states prior to the training.

Followup sessions have been held to help the states act on the action plans made as a result of the leadership training and the assessments. In 1996 a survey of CSE directors throughout the country will be carried out to determine whether there is interest in conducting similar training in other regions.

Computer Based Training (CBT) for PCs

The states in Region VII wanted a way to deliver basic IV-D training so that new staff members could get up to speed quickly. So, computer based training packages were developed that run on PCs at each worker's desk. One of these packages is an overview of the IV-D program that can be used in any state. State-specific packages were also developed for Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. They are now in active use in all four states and are considered a highly useful addition to more traditional training approaches.

What's Ahead

In 1996 the leadership training curriculum will be adapted for supervisors, and training sessions will take place in all of the states in Region VII. A series of meetings will be held to encourage training staff in the four states to exchange information about their approaches. In addition, a formal evaluation of project work will be prepared, as well as a final report.

The kiosk and CBT packages will be demonstrated at NCSEA in August. For more information about the Region VII Training Demonstration Project, please contact Marian Howard in Iowa at (515) 281-8364.

Nancy Graham is President of The Graham Group in Denver, Colorado.

Return to top of newsletter

A Judge's View of Child Support

On June 19, 1996, CSR spoke with Justice A. M. Sandy Keith, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Justice Keith has a long-standing interest in child support enforcement issues and a distinguished career in family law, emphasizing the human problems brought about by divorce, child support, custody, paternity, adoptions, foster care, termination of parental rights, and other difficult matters.

During nearly 30 years as a lawyer in private practice handling over a thousand divorces, Justice Keith became an early and vocal supporter of wage withholding, cost of living adjustments, and guidelines. He was one of the early trained family law mediators in Minnesota, and in the late 1970s he helped develop one of the early courses in the State in resolving custody disputes through a court supported education program for divorcing parents.

CSR: As a chief justice you're involved with the National Center for State Courts, and you chair that organization's Children and Courts Committee. What involvement do you have through the Center and the work of the Committee with child support enforcement issues?

JSK: Just some quick background for you on the National Center. The Center is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to provide leadership and service to state courts. Its effectiveness and the extent of its influence is such that many people in the field don't realize that it's only 25 years oldformer Chief Justice Warren Burger developed the concept. In its relatively short lifetime, the Center has become a nearly indispensable source of strength for state courts. It provides technological assistance, administrative models, training, communication channelsa whole host of services. Incidentally, one of the Center's best and most useful resources over the past several years has been the Judicial Curriculum Guide, which, as you probably know, was developed under a contract with OCSE. When someone asks me what the feds have done for them lately, I just point to that. It's a terrific product and has been used extensively in training sessions for judges and court administrators. Much of the work and direction for the Center comes from committees of the Conference of Chief Judges and the Conference of State Court Administrators. Both of these associations have committees dealing with children and courts. As to my own Children and Courts Committee, we work hard with the courts in an effort to help states improve their performance in the collection of child support. We monitor legislative and executive branch activity at the national level, especially the welfare reform proposal now under consideration; urge that federally mandated programs be adequately funded; push for states to adopt UIFSA; generate resolutions on current hot issues and bring them before the Congress and the White House; and generally provide a steady stream of heads up counsel to state courts. A current project of the Committee relates to the enforcement of domestic abuse orders between our various states. This is a complicated task, and we are forming a new joint committee to deal with it. At the Center they are thinking more holistically these days. Looking at integrated court processing, for example, where a single judge handles all domestic type cases. They are also looking at the merits of getting child support enforcement cases out of the civil courts and into an administrative process.

CSR: You've had a lot of experience with child support enforcement issues as a lawyer and a judge. Your professional life, in a sense, has been spent in court, while the child support enforcement program over the past decade has been moving away from the courts. What's your reaction to that?

JSK: I'm all for it. Going into court is expensive, sometimes staggeringly so, and it can be, in some cases, destructive of family relations. I was an early advocate in Minnesota of moving child support cases out of our civil courts, of going to an administrative process. The adversarial system, while it has its strong points, is, in my view, not necessarily the best system for use when children are involved.

Family court judges face very difficult, sometimes heartbreaking, decisions every day.

CSR: Is your view on this issue shared by other judges in Minnesota? JSK: For the most part, now, I think so. I think the administrative process is working well in Minnesota. The majority of the counties67 out of 87 (all major counties)now use it in all cases except some paternities. And all counties are going to adopt the process by July of 1998, in accordance with a Minnesota statute passed in 1995. But, yes, there has been some tension in getting to this point. Judges, as you know, can be an independent and questioning group. I think it helps to keep in mind that family court judges face very difficult, sometimes heartbreaking, decisions every day. It is not an easy job. And my experience is that most of these judges want what is best for the children and families who come before them. Going to an administrative process to enforce child support orders will relieve the courts of this responsibility. In Minnesota, at least, it has speeded up the process and has increased collections.

CSR: How would you characterize relations nationally between the judiciary and the child support enforcement community?

JSK: Relations have improved enormously over the past several years. In the early days of the program, I think judges felt left out to some extent. The courts, their bailiwick, are complex institutions at the very center of our society's legal concerns. Unless the courts and the men and women who run them are part of the process, it's going to be difficult to have an effective system. Also, judges should be consulted, and they didn't believe they were being consulted enough. They look at themselves as front-line troops doing critical work and believe they have the know-how and the experience to help develop sound policy for the program. On the other hand, I think judges need to improve their skills in working with executive and administrative officials. But relations have definitely improved. Having David Gray Ross, a former judge, at the head of OCSE has obviously been of great benefit. He understands our problems and brings an open, receptive spirit to the table.

CSR: Is there anything in particular you would like to say to the child support enforcement community? JSK: I think sometimes child support enforcement people don't get enough credit for what they do. Everyone's always pointing out places where improvement is needed and how much remains to be done. A lot of the critics simply don't understand what a difficult job it is. Let me just go on record here and say that I appreciate how much OCSE and the national child support enforcement community have accomplished over the years, and I'm optimistic that progress will continue. Having said that, however, I also have to say that there's room for significant improvement. And I want to include myself, other judges, and the courts in this. Weall of usneed to do more and we need to do it better. Interstate enforcement is still a huge bottleneck. I'd like to see us get to the point where an interstate case is acted on in a week. We can do it. The key to all of this, in my view, is teamworkbetween the states, the feds, front-line staff, the courts, judges, administrators, everyone who's involved. We can do more and we can do it better if we work together. It's the only way.

CSR: Thank you.

Return to top of newsletter

Guidelines and High Incomes

Decisionmakers often struggle with situations where the obligor parent is affluent and a straight application of the child support guidlines results in a monthly child support payment that is higher than one that would satisfy the child's immediate needs.

OCSE addressed this situation in the preamble to the Final Rule on guidelines (56 FR 22335, 22343, May 15, 1991). The federal guidelines statute at 42 U.S.C. 667(b) clearly requires that guidelines be applied as rebuttably presumptive and that states may not exempt a whole category of cases with incomes above a certain level.

According to federal regulations at 45 CFR 302.56, if a state's guidelines are rebutted, the decisionmaker must still make a finding on the record of the amount that would have resulted had the guidelines been applied and must present a justification of why the guidelines were not applied.

Decisionmakers in high income cases have treated the situation in various ways.

Straight Application of the Guidelines

Decisionmakers note that they are aware that this approach can result in a higher monthly child support award than may be necessary to provide for the basic needs of the dependents. In these cases, they often comment that children should share in the incomes of their parents as they would if the family were intact.

In Hauser v. Hauser, 644 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1994), for example, the former husband earned $218,000 per year. The court ordered him to pay $2,500 per month per child for his two children. The appellate court upheld this child support award, noting that one of the children was severely retarded and required constant care.

See also Cassano v. Cassano, 651 N.E.2d 878 (N.Y. 1995), where the New York Court of Appeals upheld an award based on the New York Child Support Standards Act. Under this act, when the parents' combined incomes exceed $80,000 decisionmakers may apply a certain specified percentage and/or factors specified in State statute. The Court of Appeals held that it is appropriate for decisionmakers to simply apply the specified State percentage, but that they must articulate the rationale for doing so on the record.

Deviation from the Guidelines

At the opposite end of the spectrum is a second category of cases where decisionmakers deviate from the guidelines. Common reasons noted as justification in these instances are: when the amount resulting from a straight application of the guidelines would be more than the child needs; or, when such high awards become de facto alimony for the former spouse.

For example, in Reiss v. Reiss, 566 N.Y.S.2d 365, app. dismissed without op. 78 N.Y.S.2d 908, 573 N.Y.S.2d 469, 577 N.E.2d 1061 (1991), an appellate court found that a trial court's award of $32,000 per year in child support was excessive when considering the needs of the parties' son, and it remanded the case for a new child support determination.

Application of the Guidelines and Establishment of a Trust

The Wisconsin case of Mary L.O. v. Tommy R.B., 22 FLR 1184 (WisSupCt No. 93-1929 2/15/96), represents an intermediate approach. The trial court applied the Wisconsin child support percentage guidelines to the income of a punter for the National Football League, which resulted in an amount far greater than the child's needs of $1500 per month.

The trial court determined that any amount above $1500 would be placed in a college trust for the couple's child. The father appealed this decision, and the Wisconsin State Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in calculating the child support based on the percentage standard and in providing for the child's post-majority educational needs (see Mary L.O. v. Tommy R.B., 525 N.W.2d 793 (1994)).

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, noting that it agreed with the trial court that the application of the child support guidelines percentage and the trial court's establishment of a trust was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The Court further observed that the careers of National Football League punters are usually short-lived and that the father could always petition the court for a modification of his child support award, should his income decrease.

These cases illustrate how diverse orders may result from the application of child support guidelines, depending upon individual circumstances. For further reading on these types of cases, please see: Annotation, Excessiveness or Adequacy of Money Awarded as Child Support, 27 ALR 4th 864; and Annotation, Court's Establishment of Trust to Secure Alimony or Child Support in Divorce Proceedings, 3 ALR 4th 1170.

Return to top of newsletter

Conference Calendar 1996

The Calendar is printed quarterly in CSR: in January, April, July, and October. If you are planning a meeting or conference and would like for it to be noticed in CSR, please let OCSE's Roy Nix knowat (202) 401-5685. The Calendar is also available, and routinely updated, on ACF's Bulletin Board and the Internet.

August
25-29 National Child Support Enforcement Association's Annual Conference, Louisville, KY, Heather Tonks (202) 624-8180. OCSE internal contact: Yvette Hilderson Riddick (202) 401-4885.
September
4-6 Southwest Regional Child Support Association Conference & the Oklahoma State Child Support Association's Annual Conference, Medallion Hotel, Oklahoma City, OK, Ronnie Bates (405) 522-3001 or 522-2753.
10-13 Wisconsin Child Support Enforcement Conference, Paper Valley Conference Center, Appleton, WI, Pam Pavek (414) 832-5058.
12-13 Judicial Institute of Maryland, Crownsville, MD, Frederick Williams (410) 974-2475.
15-17 Sixth National Child Support Enforcement Conference, Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites, Alexandria, Va, Mae Rowlett (202) 401-3443.
29-October 3 Domestic Relations Association of Pennsylvania Annual Conference, Harrisburg Marriott, Harrisburg, PA, Jeanette Bowers (717) 299-8138.
October
1-4 California Family Support Council Quarterly Meeting, Holiday Inn Golden Gateway, 1500 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA, Noanne J. St. Jean (209) 584-1425.
2-4 Maryland Joint Child Support Conference, Princess Royale, Ocean City, MD, Howard Fergus (301) 952-3988.
6-9 Minnesota Family Support and Recovery Council, Brainerd, MN, Martha Kimseth (612) 348-8855.
9-11 Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, Boise, ID, Donna Freeman (208) 334-0750.
16-18 Michigan Family Support Council, Boyne Highlands, MI, Nancy Christ (313) 256-1026.
17-18 Judicial Institute of Maryland, Crownsville, MD, Frederick Williams (410) 974-2475.
18 Connecticut CSE Training Conference, Hartford, CT, Tom Horan (860) 424-5270.
20-22 Illinois Family Support Enforcement Association, Bloomington, IL, Deanie Bergbreiter(708) 208-2142.
22-25 Missouri CSE Association's Annual Training Conference, Lodge of the Four Seasons, Osage Beach, MO, Joe Labella (573) 751-3396.
24-25 Judicial Institute of Maryland, Annapolis, MD, Frederick Williams (410) 974-2475.
December
9 American Public Welfare Assn., The Pointe Hilton at Squaw Peak, Phoenix, AZ, Toni Baker (202) 682-0100.
11-13 New Jersey Child Support Council's Annual Training Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, Robert Fisler (609) 225-8797. 1996
16-17 Child Support Decision-Making 2000 (NCSEA training seminar for judges, masters, and hearing officers) Capitol Hilton, Washington, DC, Heather Tonks (202) 624-8180.

Return to top of newsletter

An excerpt from Secretary Shalala's remarks to the White House Teen Pregnancy Event, June 13, 1996. . .

Teen pregnancy is one of the greatest challenges facing our nation. When one million teenagers get pregnant each year

it's not a women's problem;
it's not an inner city problem;
it's not a problem confined to certain ethnic or religious groups. It's a children's problem. Its' a family problem. It's a community problem.
It is our problem.
From parents to teachers, from coaches to clergy, and from businesses to young people themselves, it's going to take each one of us preaching and living a message of responsibility to let young people know that sex will not earn them love and that having babies will not make them adults.
Today, all of us working together can help young people acquire the precious tools of hope and opportunity so that, tomorrow, they can build bright futures for themselves and for their families.
Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Return to top of newsletter

Child Support on Cable in L .A .

Los Angeles County's Bureau of Family Support Operations (BFSO) is using a mass-media approach in its community outreach program. A cable television show helps the Bureau stay in touch with the community.
Wayne Doss, BFSO director, hosts the County's half-hour cable show, District Attorney File: Family Focus. The monthly program airs on the community access channels of more than 30 cable systems throughout L.A. County. Cable television can be an important outreach tool in a community of any size, Doss says.
A typical program includes segments produced by BFSO, as well as material produced by the State's Office of Child Support or other agencies.

When the County implemented two new pilot programs for teenage pregnancy, Con Los Padres and Keep Your Freedom, Keep Your Dreams, the Bureau was able to draw public attention to them by featuring them on the show. A highlight of another recent program was a walking tour of the Court Trustee's office.
Instead of commercials, the program airs public service announcements (PSA) produced either by BFSO or other agencies. PSA's on teen pregnancy, produced by the Child Welfare League of America, are currently being aired.
This article is excerpted with permission from Mike Botula's L.A. County BFSO Integrates New Technology, in California's Spring '96 CSE Network.

Return to top of newsletter

_________________