Westchester County Board of Legislators- Kids Can't Wait

Kids Can't Wait

A Comprehensive Report

on Child Support Collection in Westchester County

Task Force on Families

Honorable Paul J. Noto, Co-Chairman

Honorable Lois Bronx, Co-Chairman

Amy R. Paulin

Maria Munoz-Kantha

INTRODUCTION

The Westchester County Board of Legislators Task Force on Families has undertaken an in-depth review of child support collection in Westchester County. In Westchester alone, millions of dollars go uncollected each year because of individuals failing to or refusing to provide basic, minimum support for their children. This is a major unacknowledged factor in child poverty. Then government must compensate for this lost support through general tax revenues by offering a variety of social service and income support programs for children whose parents refuse to provide such support. Government programs can never give the same level of support, financial or emotional, that parents can and must provide.

We issue this report based upon months of review and discussions with litigants in the system, judges, support collection personnel, Commissioner Mary Glass of the Department of Social Services and a variety of individuals who have come into contact with the system. We thank them for being willing to offer the Task Force ideas and suggestions on how the system can be improved.

The problem of improving support collection is neither simple nor inexpensive. Reviewing the series of recommendations in this report, some may find the recommendations offensive while others will embrace them. Some may feel the report does not go far enough while others may feel it goes too far. That is always the case when a Legislative Task Force undertakes an in-depth review and discussion of important issues facing the future of this County.

The Task Force initiated this review with one goal in mind; to improve and enhance a support collection system designed exclusively to insure that the children of Westchester County have adequate means of support and that they may grow up in an environment of relative security. Since this is an issue that will affect future generations, we feel it is imperative that county and state government take these recommendations to heart and begin implementing them. By so doing the Task Force believes we can save money and reduce the burden on other taxpayers who often pick up the support costs of nonpaying, non-custodial parents. Moreover, we can provide a predictable and efficient system of support collection that is fair to both litigants and, most importantly, to the children who are the primary beneficiaries of their efforts.

The single most important reform is to streamline the process which will prevent long delays and ensure fairness to those seeking help from the system. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, especially for young children. Constant delays by adjournments, deliberate evasion of court orders and a lack of enforcement are primary concerns cited by most who have contact with the current system. Respondents not showing up for court, hearing examiners and judges granting multiple adjournments, unnecessary delays in getting to see hearing examiners, all drag out the process. There were repeated complaints of failure of support collection to bring violations aggressively. Therefore, we believe that the establishment of support for those cases handled through the Family Court could better be handled through an administrative process that would be quicker and less cumbersome than the current arrangement. Obviously consideration must be given to the due process requirements embodied in our state law; however, due process must not be used as a vehicle to delay a decision and to evade a court ordered support obligation.

Enforcement of court orders is an equally critical component of a properly run support collection system. Clearly the single most important enforcement change that can be made in our system is a far more aggressive effort by the judiciary to incarcerate deadbeat parents. Almost every participant in our study suggested that the threat of incarceration is the single most effective means of securing support. In those cases where there have been long histories of nonpayment, incarceration is a critical component that most litigants feel is not being used enough. The Task Force recommends that the judiciary aggressively order incarceration for chronic nonpayers, keeping in-mind the need for them to work during the week. A specific program should be established to incarcerate deadbeat parents with weekend jail terms. Terms commencing Friday afternoon and ending Sunday evenings, will permit the nonpayers to work during the week, but will penalize them by revoking their free time. This will send the appropriate message about paying support obligations.

In addition, the Task Force reviewed some recent state measures that have become part of the enforcement program including the revocation of drivers' licenses and professional licenses, and the use of the tax department to intercept tax refunds. We believe the revocation of drivers' licenses has been especially effective; however, there must be a system of interstate revocation of drivers' licenses to prevent a New York nonpayer from seeking a Connecticut driver's license in response to a New York State suspension of his or her driving privileges. Given the mobile nature of our society there is a general need for more interstate cooperation. However, in cases where a driver's license has been suspended, interstate cooperation is critical. We welcome the new federal law which requires states to set up a driver's license revocation program this year. Additionally, we commend New York State for being in the forefront of this initiative and for already establishing such a program. We believe it has been and will continue to be effective in securing additional support. We believe it also acts as an effective deterrent. The professional license program has been far less effective. One problem is that it was set up to require judicial review instead of establishing an automatic administrative process.

Another finding of the Task Force is that the Support Collection Unit is grossly understaffed. Moreover, given the changes in the 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Law requiring a shift to a more administrative system, staff will be even more burdened. Westchester is already very weak in establishing paternity and support orders. Additional staff would help increase our numbers and allow us to take full advantage of the new federally required administrative procedures, soon to be established.

We believe that forcing chronic deadbeat parents to report to a probation-like officer to keep tabs on their activities may be appropriate. This would provide a mechanism by which they must report, on a regular basis, about their efforts to seek employment and earn the income necessary to support their children. While this may seem humiliating, it is no less humiliating than it is for a parent to go to court to seek support for a child. Particularly serious problems are those nonpayers who are self-employed and quite clever at evading the system and laundering money through new spouses, other companies and other means. A probation-like report system through which an absent parent must continually report allows lifestyle issues to be brought to the table and provides a constant government presence to remind nonpaying parents of their obligation to support their children.

The Task Force also considered the need for legal assistance for those litigants who are not on public assistance for whom the County Attorney must provide legal services. These working poor custodial parents who do not earn enough to retain private counsel are often still in dire need of legal assistance in working their way through the often byzantine legal system to secure support for their children. Under 111 Sub g of the Social Services Law, non-public assistance cases are entitled to the services of the County Attorney at a reduced rate of $97/hour. At the very least, we believe, advertising this information to those litigants seeking assistance from the Family Court is appropriate so that those who cannot afford the much higher fees of private counsel are informed of the availability of the County Attorney's Office. While the result of this may be a terrible burden on the County Attorney's Office, we believe people should be informed and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of this very important service. It may be preferable to contract out with a private firm to provide legal services. This is analyzed more closely in the body of the report. The goal is to relieve children of the terrible consequences of non-support imposed on them by delinquent parents.

These are some of the many issues debated and discussed by the Task Force on Families. This report will review each recommendation in-depth. We believe these suggestions will result in a more predictable, more efficient and a more successful support collection process. We do so without intending to undermine or criticize any existing enforcement agency, but merely with a mind toward improving the entire system that ultimately will serve Westchester County's children and taxpayers in a far better fashion. Our child support system must become a system that puts the needs of children first, ahead of the needs of everyone else. The only way to do that is to initiate these changes promptly and insure that future generations will enjoy the benefits of an improved system of support collection.

OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM

The Child Support Enforcement Program, known as IV-D (named because it is found in section IV-D of the Social Security Act), was created by Congress in 1975. It provides child support services to recipients of public assistance and other custodial parents who apply for help. The services include locating absent parents, establishing paternity (legal fatherhood), obtaining and/or modifying support orders, including medical support, and enforcing those orders.

The cost of these services is shared by the federal, state and county governments. The federal government provides 66% of the funding, the state 17% and the county 17%. In New York State, the Department of Social Services (DSS) is the state agency responsible for administering the child support enforcement system leaving local districts responsible for actual daily operations. Locally, Westchester's DSS office oversees its child support unit, known as the Office of Child Support and Enforcement. The courts also have an important role since New York State operates primarily on a judicial system.

Since 1975, there have been many changes initiated at the federal level in an effort to improve effectiveness. In 1984, the federal law was amended requiring states to implement expedited processes for establishing and enforcing child support orders. In New York, two measures were adopted, the use of hearing examiners rather than family court judges and the authorization of wage withholding on arrears in child support payments.

In 1988, the federal Family Support Act was passed requiring states to implement genetic testing in contested paternity cases, develop guidelines for support awards, set up automatic wage withholding procedures, insure periodic review and adjustment of orders, and prepare a monthly notice of support collected to AFDC families. The 1988 Act also provided 90% federal reimbursement for the cost of genetic testing.

In 1993, Congress strengthened the requirements even further, mandating the development of a simple civil process for voluntary paternity establishment, including a hospital-based program immediately before and after the birth of the child. New York established such a program in 1993. The federal law also added new tools for enforcement of medical support orders.

The latest federal initiative is part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (Welfare Reform). It is designed to improve the efficiency of state child support programs by expanding the authority of the state child support agency. Under the Act, states must enact and implement laws expanding administrative processes in a number of ways. Following are some details of many of these changes. They will have a great impact on our system.

State IV-D agencies must be able to act administratively, "without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other judicial or administrative tribunal," in several important areas. They include being able to:

- order genetic testing in contested paternity cases;

- issue subpoenas for financial and other information needed to establish, modify or enforce support orders and enforce penalties for failure to comply with such subpoenas;

- require all employers and contractors in the state (including for-profit, nonprofit and governmental entities) to promptly provide information about the employment, compensation and benefits of any employee or contractor and to sanction any employer or contractor who fails to respond to such a request for information;

- have access to information in state and local government records including tax, property, licensing, employment, motor vehicle, corrections, public assistance and vital statistics records;

- have access to information of private entities such as financial institutions, cable companies and public utilities;

- order income withholding in cases which meet statutory requirements;

- enforce judgments on cases that have accumulated arrearage with asset seizure, license suspension, passport revocation and credit bureau reporting; and

- enforce medical support orders.

States must enhance statewide computer systems including establishing four new databases to support administrative responsibilities. There must be:

- a statewide central case registry (exists in New York);

- a paternity data base requiring all paternity records including voluntary acknowledgments to be filed with the state birth record's registry (New York already has this in place);

- a new hire directory requiring all employers to send W-4 information to the new hire directory within 20 days of hiring any new employee (New York has recently required employers to report new hires within 15 days); and

- a collection and disbursement unit which would process all support payments made in IV-D cases and income withholding on non-IV-D orders (New York State already has a central unit for collecting support).

States must expand administrative procedures to establish paternity. The new law makes three key changes.

- First, the new law requires states to expand the availability of voluntary acknowledgment services. The state must offer on-site paternity acknowledgment services to parents after they have left the hospital at birth record agencies. States may extend paternity acknowledgment services to other sites. States must conduct outreach efforts to publicize the availability of and encourage the use of voluntary acknowledgment and child support procedures.

- Second, the new law requires states to eliminate any court involvement in the voluntary acknowledgment process. While states may continue to have the courts determine paternity in contested cases, the voluntary process must be handled administratively unless subsequently challenged by one of the signatories.

- Third, the new law consolidates some of the administrative functions of the voluntary acknowledgment process in the state birth record agency. Under the new law, the birth record's agency must become the repository of all paternity records. The birth record's agency and IV-D agency must develop the capacity to exchange paternity data. In addition, the state birth record agency must offer paternity acknowledgment services, as noted above.

State IV-D agencies must process interstate cases administratively.

- By January 1, 1998, states must adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). UIFSA provides for "continuing, exclusive jurisdiction" over child support cases by one state at a time, and establishes ordering rules that give priority to the child's home state.

- States must have laws requiring the state IV-D agency to respond within five business days to another state's request for enforcement.

- States must have laws that recognize and enforce the authority of an IV-D agency in another state to take a variety of expedited administrative actions without a judicial or administrative order, including genetic testing, access to information, subpoena authority, ordering income withholding, securing assets, changing the payee (i.e., to the government in welfare cases), and increasing monthly payments.

- States must accord full faith and credit to statutory liens that arise by operation of law in another state.

- States must develop a paternity affidavit meeting minimum national standards, and give full faith and credit to paternity acknowledgments signed in other states.

States must enact laws giving IV-D agencies access to interstate networks including motor vehicle and law enforcement locator systems. In addition, states must adopt laws and procedures requiring social security numbers on licenses (professional, drivers', and marriage), records (related to divorce, support orders, and paternity), and death certificates.

States must pass legislation implementing most of these provisions by the close of their 1997 legislative session.

A new federal funding structure will probably be in place by the year 2000. In this new structure, states will still receive 66% basic reimbursement but the incentive payments will most likely be based on paternity establishment rates, the number of support orders established and collections, instead of on collections alone. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has submitted such a proposal to Congress which is likely to act on it this year. If such new standards are enacted, and such likely is high, the states will be confronted with how to operate a high volume cost effective child support system. The standards being proposed are that states would establish paternity in 90% of the cases and establish support orders in 80% of new and existing cases.

New York has relied on a judicial model of establishing paternity, support orders and enforcing those orders. This model is not only very cumbersome and costly, it is incapable of handling the new volume demand being proposed federally. The new federal changes will force New York to go to a more administrative approach and consequently will help improve child support collection in our community. It will then be up to New York State and Westchester County to invest the needed resources to administer the changes most effectively.

The state and local levels will clearly play a critical role in making the federal changes work. Passing the needed legislation is only the first step in the process. NEW YORK STATE MUST INVEST THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW FEDERAL CHANGES PROPERLY. WESTCHESTER MUST HIRE THE STAFF NECESSARY AND DEVELOP AN INTENSIVE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CURRENT STAFF TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT THE NEW FEDERAL AND STATE CHANGES. The devil will be in the details; how the changes will actually be carried out will determine their effectiveness.

Child support agencies handle both public assistance and non-public assistance cases. Public assistance cases are automatically referred to the agency when individuals with children apply for public assistance. It is the hope of the state that some of the tax dollars spent on Medicaid and Aid to Dependent Families (AFDC) will be recouped from child support. The agency is also required to serve non-public assistance cases when one of the parties requests help. There are many non-public assistance cases that are handled privately and never come to the agency's attention.

In state fiscal year 1995-1996, the Westchester Office of Child Support and Enforcement had an active caseload of 35,238, 16,686 public assistance cases, and 18,552 non-public assistance cases. 636 paternities were established and 1,093 support orders were established. $20.712,066 was collected in total, $6,034,972 for public assistance cases, and $14.677,094 for non-public assistance cases.

Westchester has a very dedicated staff, 79 in total. Staff responsibilities are divided into six functional areas, administration (6), referral control (5), intake (21), court liaison (10), enforcement (21), and support collection (16). According to Mary Glass, Commissioner of DSS, most recently there was a shift of staff from the Enforcement section to the Intake and Court Liaison sections in an effort to "to improve our standings" in establishing paternity and support orders. After further investigation the Task Force learned that for much of the past year there were three workers out on leave. The new hires merely brought those sections somewhat back up to former staffing levels. Furthermore, the shift in staff permanently reduces the number of enforcement lines by three. It is interesting to note that ten staff are court liaisons. When more procedures are done administratively, it is very possible that staff could be reassigned to intake or enforcement.

The Task Force looked at contracting out or "privatizing" child support collections and after careful review rejected that idea. We believe privatizing these services would offer no improvement at this time. In fact, we have a concern that a private firm would be less able to serve our residents effectively. In other communities, private contracts are often based on commissions, rewarding a firm for how much is collected. This creates an incentive for handling the simple cases and avoiding the more difficult ones. The Westchester Department of Social Services did a thorough analysis of sixteen other states where privatization was tried. They concluded it should not be considered at this time.

The remainder of this report is devoted to identifying problems in the system and specific recommendations for improvement. For purposes of this analysis we have broken down the child support system into three components, establishing paternity, establishing an order for child support, and enforcing an order of child support.

PROBLEMS IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM

It is important to recognize that no matter how many improvements are made in the current system there will still be some cases that are very hard to solve. Problems facing the system include the increasing number of out-of-wedlock births, mobility of our population leading to more interstate and intrastate claims, many poor fathers unable to pay support even after they are located, and willful and very clever violators making tracking assets very difficult. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement in our system.

Paternity Establishment

Westchester has an especially low paternity establishment rate, one of the lowest in the state. In state fiscal year 1995-96, only 636 paternities were established. The state has been working very closely with the department since January to improve our numbers. At that time, two staff were added to the intake unit and the numbers have improved slightly. From January 1997 - March 1997, 159 AFDC and 85 non-public assistance paternities were established. Although the caseload has steadily increased over the years (in 1988-89, the caseload was about half of what it is today), the number of paternities established has declined. In 1991-92, there were 25,349 cases and 1,027 paternities established, compared to 35,238 cases and 636 paternities established in fiscal year 1995-96. In September 1996, Westchester's cumulative rate for all IV-D cases was 46.6%. The overall state rate was 49.1%; however, when New York City with a rate of 31% was deleted from the numbers, the rest of the state had a paternity establishment rate of 75%. Of the six largest counties, excluding N.Y.C., Westchester had the lowest rate (Erie - 73.9%, Monroe - 80%, Nassau - 52%, Onondaga - 84.7%, Suffolk - 63%). Since paternity establishment is a prerequisite for collecting support, this rate must be improved. WE RECOMMEND THE ADMINISTRATION WORK WITH THE STATE, THE COURTS, LOOK AT OTHER MORE SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITIES WITHIN NEW YORK STATE AND TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.

Voluntary Acknowledgment

Establishing paternity is often the first step in obtaining child support. Paternity is established in two basic ways, voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and going to court. Typically a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity is filled out at the hospital when the child is born. It is generally recognized that voluntary acknowledgment is easiest if done close to the birth. As time passes, the father may be harder to find or less likely to admit paternity.

WE, THEREFORE, RECOMMEND THAT WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEVOTE MORE RESOURCES TO ESTABLISHING PATERNITY IN HOSPITALS AND BIRTHING CENTERS. Paternity establishment is much easier if done when the baby is first born. We suggest that at least one child support worker be devoted to this program. Most hospitals have voluntary acknowledgment forms; however, staffs need to be trained and retrained on the importance of getting the forms filled out. Although this has been a state responsibility, and the state has been doing a much better job this year, hospital staff is still often confused. Locally we could play an important role in correcting any misinformation. The state suggests we should be striving for 60% compliance at each health center. WESTCHESTER SHOULD CONTACT THE STATE ABOUT REIMBURSEMENT OF A LOCAL INITIATIVE.

Additionally, in New York State a father can sign an affidavit stating that he is the parent instead of signing a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. The affidavit system does allow the father's name to be put on the birth certificate but has no force of law. It is currently just considered evidence. The new federal law requires that these affidavits are made the equivalent of a judicial order ending this confusing practice. Governor Pataki proposed legislation last year addressing this problem. The legislature did not act on it. It must be done in this session. Fathers should not be allowed to put their name on a birth certificate without accepting all of the responsibilities that go with it, emotional and financial.

Court Action

If there is no voluntary acknowledgment, court action is currently required in all other cases. The child support worker gathers information from the custodial parent and files a paternity petition with Family Court. (It is ironic that the petitioner is the custodial parent. It should be the child.) These cases are heard by a hearing examiner. When the "putative father" or "respondent," as he is called, does not admit paternity, a fact finding hearing is held. At this point, genetic tests are usually requested by one of the parties, and are ordered by the hearing examiner. When the tests are completed, the parties are called before the hearing examiner and a determination is made. If the putative father still denies paternity, the case is referred to a judge, who makes a final determination.

The court involvement in establishing paternity is very cumbersome. First there is a requirement to petition the court for a hearing. Affidavits must be prepared and submitted to the court. The court then sends out the hearing notice to the putative parent. A court date is set; this process can take months. A parent wishing to avoid paying support can delay the process further by not appearing for the scheduled hearing. It is postponed, often without a penalty. When the parties are present, genetic tests are ordered, results of which can take weeks to obtain are sent to the court and another hearing date is set. This date again can be postponed if the putative parent does not appear. It can take several postponements before the hearing examiner or judge establishes an order. Meanwhile, children suffer.

New York State has a very low paternity establishment rate compared with other states. Only 12 states have lower paternity standards. The more successful states with higher rates have moved to a more administrative approach. The new federal law requires all states, including New York, to implement a more administrative system for determining paternity. Child support agency workers will be able to order genetic testing in contested cases. It will still be up to the state how to establish paternity, once the test is ordered and the results are known. WE RECOMMEND THAT NEW YORK STATE ADOPT LEGISLATION ALLOWING CHILD SUPPORT AGENCIES TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY ORDERS ADMINISTRATIVELY IN ALL IV-D CASES, WHERE A JUDICIAL HEARING IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED, INCLUDING CASES THAT ARE CONTESTED.

IN ADDITION, WESTCHESTER MUST BEGIN TO LOOK AT SPACE NEEDS FOR THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT AND ENFORCEMENT. THEY WILL BE INTERVIEWING A MUCH LARGER POPULATION WHEN THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE GOES INTO EFFECT AND MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACE.

Special Issues for Families Receiving Public Assistance

It is important to note that both mothers receiving public assistance and fathers required to pay support need to be encouraged to cooperate with the Offices of Child Support. In the past, the federal and state governments have offered a $50 pass through to encourage that cooperation. Families on public assistance were allowed to keep the first $50 of the child support money collected from the delinquent fathers. The rest of the money went to the government to compensate for public assistance payments. The impact of the pass through was that the family received $50 in addition to their welfare check, if the father was correctly identified and money was collected from that father. This provided a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the mother, and the father who could see that his support payments did benefit his children. Local child support workers believe the pass through acted as an inducement in many cases for parents to cooperate. The federal government has decided to eliminate its direct share of the pass through as part of the 1996 law. The money is technically part of the block grant instead. WE RECOMMEND THAT NEW YORK STATE CONTINUE TO OFFER THE $50 PASS THROUGH TO FOSTER COOPERATION BY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS.

Finally, women who are victims of domestic violence are not currently required to reveal to the child support agency information about the fathers of their children, if those fathers are also their abusers. These protections must remain as we strive for the proposed 90% paternity establishment goal set by the federal government. Conducting a paternity search could reveal the battered woman's whereabouts to her abuser. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE STATE ADOPT THE WELLSTONE/ MURRAY FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION AS PART OF THE WELFARE PLAN. This option allows states to waive this and other requirements for welfare recipients who are victims of domestic violence.

Establishing a Support Obligation

After paternity is established, the court issues an order of filiation and may issue an order of support. Most often the court does not issue an order of support at the paternity hearing and another hearing to decide support is scheduled. This again delays the process. WE RECOMMEND THAT HEARING EXAMINERS AND JUDGES ISSUE SUPPORT ORDERS AT THE INITIAL PATERNITY HEARING until an administrative system is put in place - see recommendation below.

The majority of cases involve married/formerly married couples for whom paternity is not an issue. In these cases, the first step is filing a support petition, asking the Family Court to make a decision regarding support. After the petition is filed, a summons is sent to the noncustodial parent requiring him or her to come to court for a support hearing. These summonses are served by mail. Petitioners often have to wait for a long time before their first hearing is set. Then the first notice is often ignored by the non-custodial parent, and the court usually postpones the case without a penalty. When a notice is mailed, the court is apt to express doubt that the notice was served. The petitioner does have the option of paying to have the respondent served in person but that option and its implications are often not explained fully. Many petitioners reported that they would have exercised that option knowing that the non-custodial parent was unlikely to cooperate and unlikely to respond to service by mail. Using personal service for the first notice could save time and money in some cases. Hearings attended by only the petitioner would be avoided. STAFF SHOULD INFORM PETITIONERS OF THIS OPTION IN A TIMELY WAY.

We realize personal service is an expensive option for many petitioners and believe there should be some interim steps. Many jurisdictions use registered mail return receipt requested for service. Then the court has proof of service for at least where someone has signed the receipt. This option should be used and recommended to the petitioner as the first method of service when there is a history of uncooperativeness.

The next question becomes who pays for service. Currently, the court pays for service by mail and for personal service, if the petitioner does not appear after the first summons. It is now the obligation of the petitioner to pay for the first summons, if served in person. This practice places an unfair burden on the petitioner. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE BURDEN OF PERSONAL SERVICE BE PLACED ON THE COURT, IF IT IS THE FIRST METHOD OF NOTICE, AND NOT ON THE PETITIONER AND THAT THE PETITIONER HAVE THE OPTION OF PERSONAL SERVICE FOR THE FIRST NOTICE, IF THERE IS A HISTORY OF UNCOOPERATIVENESS ON THE PART OF THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT. TO KEEP COSTS DOWN, REGISTERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED SHOULD BE USED AS A FIRST METHOD OF SERVICE WHEN THERE IS A HISTORY OF UNCOOPERATIVENESS. FURTHERMORE, THE COURT SHOULD THEN ASSESS THE COST OF SERVICE AGAINST THE OBLIGOR AT THE END OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS "COURT COSTS." THE UP-FRONT COST OF PERSONAL SERVICE COULD THEN BE RECOUPED.

The County Attorney's Office must work in cooperation with the Office of Child Support and Enforcement to establish which cases would be eligible for either return receipt requested or personal service at initial taxpayer expense. The child support staff handles service for non-public assistance cases and the County Attorney's Office handles AFDC cases. There needs to be consistency. In any case, petitioners should still have the option of paying for return receipt requested and/or personal service if they do not fall within the newly established guidelines.

Right now, the court orders personal service when the respondent does not appear after being served by mail. If the respondent does not appear again, another postponement can result. Another scenario is that the respondent does appear but without all of the documentation required and another hearing is scheduled. This can go on for months and months.

To prepare for the support hearing, the court requires the custodial and noncustodial parents to gather their respective financial information. Lack of cooperation on the part of the noncustodial parent can cause a further delay at this stage. Child support workers help custodial parents in the gathering of information. The new federal provisions will give workers an ability to subpoena information and access to new information, not now accessible. However, gathering all of the proper documents needed for court will still be difficult for workers because of the enormous amount of time required to find the information. We can anticipate, by the nature of the data, that it will take many hours of a worker's time, creating a tremendous backlog. WE RECOMMEND THAT ADDITIONAL CHILD SUPPORT STAFF BE HIRED, WHEN THE NEW FEDERAL LAW GOES INTO EFFECT LATER THIS YEAR TO PROPERLY HELP CUSTODIAL PARENTS IN GATHERING THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO PREPARE FOR COURT.

At the hearing, the hearing examiner or the judge must decide how much child support the non-custodial parent should pay. In 1989, New York State passed the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) outlining the appropriate percentages noncustodial parents should be paying for support. The Task Force interviewed many custodial parents and child support workers and asked if judges and hearing examiners are using these standards. It was their belief that they were. More systematic research may be required to be sure. In 1993, the Evaluation Project Report was released analyzing how the courts were implementing the requirements of the CSSA statewide. That report showed that courts are ordering child support in amounts that vary from the guidelines. The report also showed that there is disparate treatment of different economic groups. Non-custodial parents from higher income groups are least likely to pay at or above the guidelines. WE RECOMMEND A LOCAL STUDY BE DONE TO MAKE SURE WESTCHESTER IS FOLLOWING THE CSSA GUIDELINES.

If the court is not satisfied with the financial documentation provided at the hearing, the court may issue an order of temporary support and schedule another hearing or issue a default order. A default order is equivalent to a regular order and is sometimes granted when a noncustodial parent does not appear for the hearing or does not provide all of the income information.

The involvement of the court in establishing orders is again cumbersome and very expensive. The current process can take from six months to one year. At the same time no support is being collected. WE ADVOCATE THAT NEW YORK STATE USE AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM TO ESTABLISH SUPPORT. Under an administrative system support can be established while appeals are pending. The new federal law allows states to establish support orders through the judicial process as is now being done in New York but encourages states to use an administrative process instead. It is widely recognized that an administrative approach is faster, more consistent in its application, and less expensive. THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE MUST ADOPT THE NECESSARY LEGISLATION TO ALLOW NEW YORK STATE TO SET UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM TO ESTABLISH SUPPORT. WESTCHESTER COUNTY OFFICIALS SHOULD LOBBY THE STATE TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

The preservation of due process is an important concern and is often the reason used not to move to a more administrative system. Under an administrative system there is still an important role for the courts and that is to resolve disputed cases. It is not necessary, however, to have the court system drive the entire process. There are many cases that can be easily handled by child support workers. It is time to define the court's role more narrowly to achieve the real goal of supporting the children as quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.

Again, current DSS staffing of the Office of Child Support and Enforcement will be inadequate under an administrative system and must be increased. As mentioned earlier in the report, if court involvement is decreased, staff in the court liaison unit can probably be reassigned. In any case, the cost to the taxpayers should remain level or even decrease as court expenses are reduced. There is a complete cost analysis later in the report.

The Task Force believes staffing may not be adequate even under the present model. The number of support orders established in Westchester in state fiscal year 1995-96, was 1,093. This is a sharp decrease from the year before, when 1,513 support orders were established. In fact, the number of support orders established is presently at an all time low. In 1991-92, Westchester established 1,820 support orders, a high. It is clear from the data that we were doing a better job a few years ago than we are today. This is not true throughout the rest of the state. Again, when we compare ourselves with the other five large counties we do not fare well. According to the state's performance measures for September 1996, Westchester had a rate of 53.3%, Erie - 7 3.2%, Monroe - 73.5%, Nassau - 59%, Onondaga - 78.7%, and Suffolk - 78.4. The overall state rate was 62%. If N.Y.C. is excluded from the total, the state's overall rate improves to 75.5%. The department should examine why we are doing so poorly. What has changed in the last five years, staffing levels and patterns, procedures, department leadership?

Enforcement of Support Orders/Collections

Noncustodial parents are ordered by the court to pay support to the Support Collection Unit (SCU). Some noncustodial parents make their own payments by mail or in person. Most are collected by income execution. Income execution is the process by which the noncustodial parent's employer is required to deduct the support payments from the noncustodial parent's paycheck and send them to SCU.

Nationally, the average for collections on cases in which there is an order is 33%. Sometimes payments stop after a time, are skipped, only partially paid or never paid at all. New York State ranks 5% less than the national average. Westchester ranks at the same level as New York State.

There are some administrative remedies for delinquent cases, income execution being the most effective. In New York State, income executions are responsible for about 60% of collections. The recent reform requiring all employers to send the names of new hires to the state within 15 days has increased the ability of the child support agencies to do even more income executions. As of March 31, 1997, more than 2.7 million new hire notices have been received. Of these, more than 153,950 have matched child support absent parents. Anticipated collections attributed to new hire reporting are $14 million for the first full year of operation. THERE WOULD BE AN EVEN BETTER RESPONSE IF NEW YORK STATE DID A PAMPHLET FOR EMPLOYERS WITH INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ON INCOME EXECUTION (IEX).

Income execution, however, cannot work when noncustodial parents are self-employed or earn money "off the books." Other automated administrative enforcement actions include reporting delinquent parents to credit reporting agencies, intercepting lottery prize money, intercepting tax refunds, intercepting unemployment insurance and property execution such as seizing bank accounts and property. The new federal law will add passport and professional license revocation to that list.

In 1995, New York State automated the method for property executions (seizing bank accounts and financial assets). The state now automatically sends official documents to the financial institutions requesting that assets be turned over to child support. There are several problems. First, the IRS records being used to detect assets are usually two or more years old; very often the assets no longer exist. Additionally, the financial institutions do not understand the information sent by the state. In Nassau County, they assigned a staff member to follow-up on these cases which they found helped collection. In Westchester, we have not allocated the staff resources to this area. A dedicated worker could help us fully capitalized on this new state initiative.

Most recently New York State began a program to revoke drivers' licenses when parents were delinquent in their payments. This program was designed to create an administrative punishment and incentive for delinquent parents to make support payments. This latest policy has been quite effective. Immediately after the program went into effect, many delinquent parents crowded into the Westchester office and made payments to avoid having their licenses suspended.

The District Attorney's Office reported to the Task Force that after a license is suspended, violators are arrested by the police for traffic infractions, their licenses are checked, found to be suspended and the perpetrators are prosecuted. To date, there have been approximately seventy cases which have resulted in arrests and criminal prosecutions by the District Attorney's Office. For the first violation, offenders' are charged with a 3rd degree, misdemeanor. The penalty is 30 days in jail or a $250-$500 fine. The second violation becomes a 2nd degree misdemeanor and the jail time increases to six months. The District Attorney's Office pointed out that the first penalty does not allow the judge the option of putting someone on probation. In some cases this could be a very important tool. They recommend and WE CONCUR THAT THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE FOR FAILING TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT TO ALLOW JUDGES THE DISCRETION TO SENTENCE A VIOLATOR TO PROBATION. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE TRAINING FOR LOCAL JUDGES ON THE IMPORTANCE OF USING THEIR COURTS TO HELP ON THIS ISSUE. There are bound to be inconsistencies when there are so many local jurisdictions. Training would help create more uniformity in Westchester. An additional benefit of this administrative mechanism of suspending the driver's licenses of delinquent parents is that now there is more interaction between the DA's Office and the Office of Child Support Enforcement. They have established a good working relationship because of this law. When a case comes to the attention of the DA's Office, information has to be verified with the child support staff. This new relationship has allowed the Office of Child Support Enforcement to pick up the phone easily and ask for help on other cases. It has also created more sensitivity to the issue overall.

The federal law will now require all states to revoke drivers' licenses. This will be a major improvement. Currently, someone could cross state lines to get another driver's licence after it had been revoked in New York State or elsewhere.

New York State also passed legislation allowing for the revocation of professional licenses in cases where there are back payments owed. However, judicial review was required to revoke the licenses. Very few licenses have been revoked. The new federal law requires that an administrative mechanism be used instead of the courts. NEW YORK STATE MUST PASS THE NEEDED LEGISLATION TO CHANGE FROM A JUDICIAL REVIEW TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE ONE. In other states this has been an effective tool. We expect an administrative approach will allow us to use this law more effectively.

NEW YORK STATE HAS BEEN WORKING FOR SOMETIME TO AUTOMATE MEDICAL SUPPORT EXECUTION. WE URGE THE STATE TO GET THIS SYSTEM IN PLACE. THERE ARE TOO MANY CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH BENEFITS.

When automated administrative remedies do not work, cases are referred to the court for action. The child support worker must first file a violation petition with Family Court. The noncustodial parent will get a summons to appear in court. These summonses are served by mail. The problem of service identified earlier in the report is true here, again. We, again, recommend that service by mail return receipt requested and personal service be used more frequently as a first notice, recognizing that so many of these non-custodial parents are trying to delay paying support. The financial burden should be on the state in these cases. Additionally, NEW YORK STATE SHOULD REQUIRE ALL PARENTS TO KEEP THE COURT/AGENCY WHICH ISSUED THE ORDER APPRAISED OF THEIR CURRENT ADDRESS. REGULAR MAIL SERVICE AT THE ADDRESS KEPT ON FILE WOULD THEN BE SUFFICIENT. IT WAS REPORTED TO THE TASK FORCE THAT SOME JUDGES AND HEARING EXAMINERS CURRENTLY REQUIRE RESPONDENTS TO KEEP THEIR ADDRESSES ON FILE WHILE OTHERS DO NOT. THIS SHOULD BE VERIFIED, AND IF TRUE, WE RECOMMEND THAT JUDGES AND HEARING EXAMINERS REQUIRE THIS ALWAYS. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COURT USE EVERY TOOL AVAILABLE TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY DELAYS.

If the respondent does not appear after the first notice (mail) a postponement can result. Or, the respondent appears without all of the documentation required and another hearing is scheduled. This can go on for months and months. Finally, a money judgment is made. A money judgment represents a decision by the court that the noncustodial parent is behind in child support payments in a specified amount. Very often those money judgments are ignored and the process starts all over again. If the hearing examiner believes there is willful intent not to pay support, the hearing examiner will refer that case to a Family Court judge.

A judge can put a non-custodial parent on probation or send him or her to jail for up to six months, if the judge determines that putative father is intentionally denying support. Many women we interviewed suggested that time in jail is rarely given. Some judges argue that these remedies are counterproductive in that a father in jail cannot work and then cannot pay. The reality is that they are not paying anyway. WE RECOMMEND THAT JUDGES MORE OFTEN IMPOSE JAIL TIME ON DELINQUENT FATHERS, ESPECIALLY WEEKEND SENTENCES. Furthermore, incarcerated parents in work release programs should be required to turn over money they earn for child support.

Probation may also be a very good tool. In Westchester, we have an excellent department. WE RECOMMEND THE USE OF PROBATION BE EXPLORED FOR COLLECTING SUPPORT.

Enforcement workers have very large caseloads. It has been reported to the Task Force that worker's caseloads range from 900 to as high as 1,400. The sizes of the caseloads also vary tremendously among staff. Workers get computer printouts weekly on the status of their cases. If a noncustodial parent stops paying support, it is shown on the computer sheet. The enforcement staff also works on support modifications. After a while circumstance may change and the amount of child support collected may not be adequate or the noncustodial parent may not have the financial resources to meet the payment schedule. The enforcement staff files a modification petition with the court and a hearing similar to the original support hearing takes place. It can take several weeks to investigate just one of these cases. Often workers are expected to be investigative agents, trying to uncover resources being hidden by very clever noncustodial parents. Many women reported to the Task Force that child support workers could do more thorough investigations, especially in the area of property.

When a worker devotes the needed time to one case, other cases can go for weeks without a worker's attention. This problem is compounded by the fact that workers are stationed by the phone answering complaints and giving information all afternoon. Although handling complaints is an important part of the process, it becomes very difficult for workers to organize their time in the most effective way possible, torn between phone complaints, cases needing enforcement and modifications, and court schedules. Workers are also responsible for their own filing which is time consuming. WE RECOMMEND THAT CASELOADS BE REDUCED IMMEDIATELY BY HIRING ADDITIONAL CHILD SUPPORT STAFF, CASELOADS BE EQUALIZED AMONG STAFF, AN AUTOMATED PHONE SYSTEM AND/OR A SMALL DEDICATED STAFF TO ANSWER PHONES BE EXPLORED, AND ADDITIONAL CLERICAL STAFF BE HIRED TO HANDLE FILING.

In Nassau County, advocates have recently convinced their county government to hire more staff. The payback has been tremendous. Nassau has 122 workers for a caseload of approximately 50,000. Their caseload per enforcement worker went from an average of 2,000 cases to an average of 1,000 cases. They have seen a dramatic increase in petitions filed and many income executions attached. In addition, they have another worker that comes in to file. Until recently, they devoted one staff person to work on property executions exclusively, a job that requires expertise and is very time consuming. Currently, three staff are devoted to license suspension. During the first nine months they collected $3 million more in child support. Overall, from December 1995 to December 1996, collections went up 15.69%. They believe that after staff are more seasoned further improvements will be seen.

Although Westchester has a similar staff/case ratio as Nassau, THE TASK FORCE BELIEVES THAT INCREASING STAFF IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT WAYS TO IMPROVE COLLECTIONS AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT. IF WE WANT TO COLLECT MORE, WE MUST INVEST IN THE PEOPLE NECESSARY TO DO THE COLLECTING.

As was mentioned earlier, more staff could mean a more effective job done on establishing orders, attaching income and property executions and the start of a model local in-hospital paternity establishment program.

Interstate Cases with Orders

Enforcement has been very difficult in cases where there is a support order but the noncustodial parent has left New York State. Many child support agencies are not responsive to calls from out-of-state workers. The new federal provisions should help this situation enormously. It is now up to all of the states to comply with the federal requirements as soon as possible. We understand this will require enormous resources. New York State must act as quickly as possible to make these needed changes to our system.

Our staff also cite cases where it is difficult to get information within the state. WE ENCOURAGE NEW YORK STATE TO FOSTER BETTER COOPERATION AMONG AGENCIES WITHIN THE STATE. This does not necessarily mean functions should be centralized. It does mean that agencies having difficulties have a central place to register complaints and have their complaints acted on.

Attorneys

The County Attorney's Office handles all public assistance cases. The office technically represents the district (the Department of Social Services); monies collected are paid to the district. Petitioners in non-public assistance cases are not automatically given a lawyer. However, chapter 111-g of the Social Services Law permits the County Attorney's Office to represent non-public assistance clients when it is specifically requested. The district is still technically the client. There is no attorney/client privilege (this was not raised by anyone as causing a problem although there might be a case where it could be). The County Attorney's Office collects a fee from non-public assistance clients only when there is money collected in that case. They also request from the court that respondents pay for legal fees over and above child support. The current fee is $97/hour which is less than hiring a private attorney. The law does not allow the County Attorney to charge more than 25% of the total child support received.

The Task Force did hear testimony from women who did not know they could get a county attorney to represent them. Most, however, did. The Task Force also heard from women who did know of this service but could not afford representation even at the $97/hour rate. Note that the respondent (the putative father) would be given a lawyer by the court if he could not afford to pay for one on his own.

In Nassau County, $120,000 was set aside in 1996, and more was set aside in 1997, to provide legal assistance for the non-public assistance cases. These monies provide representation for 11-15 cases per month for women not on AFDC, despite income level. Nassau believes that doing a means test would be too labor intensive and instead offers this service to anyone who needs it. The County Attorney's Office was not seen as an option for non-public assistance cases. In Nassau, the County Attorney's Office, is already overburdened with AFDC cases. WESTCHESTER COUNTY SHOULD CONSIDER SETTING ASIDE MONIES TO PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR WOMEN. MANY WOMEN ARE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE, NOT POOR ENOUGH TO BE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BUT TOO POOR TO AFFORD LEGAL REPRESENTATION. WESTCHESTER SHOULD ALSO BE SURE ALL WOMEN ARE INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Recent Westchester Initiatives

In 1995 and 1996, the Department of Social Services referred selected cases to the Department of Public Safety for field investigation of employment and assets. In 1996, selected cases were referred to the District Attorney for possible criminal prosecution. Commissioner Glass reported to the Task Force that these efforts were very expensive and labor intensive and she did not believe the results were worth the expense.

The District Attorney's Office explained to the Task Force that the Penal Law requires the DA to prove that a putative father is intentionally failing or refusing to pay child support without a lawful excuse. Typically, the cases that come to the attention of the DA are the ones that are most difficult, the ones where the father hides his income, quits his job and takes one paid off the books, puts his tangible assets in someone else's name, etc., etc. The investigative work necessary in these cases is tremendous. For the District Attorney's Office to do all that is demanded, staffing would have to be increased. Otherwise, other areas would suffer. This is an avenue worthy of exploring, however, when all other areas are exhausted. The Governor has recommended that the penalty for not paying support be increased to a felony. While increasing the penalty is sending the right message, without increased funding to prosecute these cases, the increased penalty is meaningless.

Better Communication

Each month representatives from the Westchester Department of Social Services and representatives from Family Court meet and review current practices with an eye toward making improvements. While the Director of the Office of Child Support and Enforcement attends those meetings on an ongoing basis, there continues to be some lack of understanding for the reasons many decisions are made in Family Court. Staff believes if there was more direct communication between staff and hearing examiners they would better be able to prepare their cases for court.

Once every quarter Westchester representatives meet with the state. There are staff suggestions and problems not being discussed at those meetings. The staff would like to see, for example, a state hotline to deal with computer problems. Much time is wasted trying to solve technical difficulties by asking one's neighbors. OTHER STAFF GENERATED IDEAS FOR THE STATE INCLUDE LOOKING INTO THE CREATION OF TWO DATA BASES, ONE FOR REAL ESTATE OWNERS AND ONE FOR ESTATES. THEN N.Y.S. SHOULD SET UP AN AUTOMATIC METHOD FOR SEIZING THOSE ASSETS. THIS IS AN IDEA WORTH PURSUING. IT WOULD HELP IN CASES WHERE ASSETS ARE HIDDEN.

While the Task Force conducted its research, many staff came forward to share their ideas for specific operational improvements. A more open dialog with management would encourage staff to share some of those ideas. WE SUGGEST A BETTER MECHANISM BE PUT IN PLACE FOR STAFF TO COMMUNICATE MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH THEIR SUPERVISORS, THE STATE AND WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Several of the above recommendations will have a financial impact on the state and county. They will also have a social impact. It is important to note, as was stated earlier in the report, that the salaries of child support workers and many administrative costs are shared with the federal and state governments. The County's share is only 17%. There will also be real welfare cost avoidance savings. It is much more likely that independence will be achieved for those who leave welfare for an entry level job who can also count on regular child support income to supplement their wages, than for those who leave for a job alone. Moreover, child support collection partially offsets the cost of public assistance. Overall, we believe the benefits to our residents far outweigh the cost. Most of the families on public assistance are headed by single mothers. The poverty rate is 35% for these families. Nationally, only 56% of all custodial mothers and 41% of all custodial fathers have child support orders. Most families do not collect the full amount owed on those orders. The impact on these children living in poverty is immeasurable - no money for class trips, birthday parties, free lunch stigmas, etc. The improvement of our system has the potential of improving relationships between parents and children, as well as long-term reducing the burden on the taxpayers. Children face a terrible burden imposed on them by delinquent parents, a financial burden and a social burden. This burden must be lifted.

CONCLUSION

There is nothing more fundamental than the obligation to support one's children. At the heart of our national discourse on the appropriate role government should play in people's lives is the notion that individuals should accept more responsibility for their own welfare. It is simple logic that parents should be required to support their children. Indeed, it is a fundamental tenet of our free society that people must accept responsibility for their own lives, which includes those children they bring into the world. Unfortunately many parents, for a variety of reasons, do not live up to that basic responsibility. In fact, as of 1993, absentee parents owed New York State and their children almost $8 billion.

The Westchester County Board of Legislators' Task Force on Families at Risk concludes that change is essential. Historically, child support collection has been given a low priority everywhere. In Westchester, we must do better. We believe that the smallest and most vulnerable citizens cannot wait! In fact, they do not wait. They grow up shortchanged by adult ills and an unyielding system with red tape and inappropriate priorities. Resolution of the ills of the system must keep the good and effect change for improvement where possible at all levels.

Personal stories brought to the attention of the Task Force sound like soap operas and pending cases go on for many years with bleak frustration. They are filled with words like "lack of discovery, adjournments, insufficient investigation, impossible tracking, exorbitant legal fees, and ignorance of available resources."

If not broken the system is at least flawed. Changes adopted at the federal level provide some leverage. New York State, too, has lately taken a more aggressive stand on this issue. It is now time for Westchester to take a close look at what can be done locally to improve performance measures. The Department of Social Services has been very successful designing creative solutions to a myriad of problems. We urge the Department to turn its attention to this issue. The Task Force recognizes that shifting to a more administrative approach, improved processes, additional resources and technology must be part of the solution.

When we can boast of sufficient staff, an improved rate of establishing paternity and support orders, and more timely and effective enforcement of orders the safety net for children will have been properly addressed.

This study is intended to set the tone for achievable goals such as implementing federal and state legislation in Westchester, investing in administrative improvements where necessary and improving data-based performance success. As we strive to make these improvements, we expect there will be arguments regarding which ones, if any, should be carried out. We ask everyone to keep one thing in mind as these proposed changes are discussed, the system's victims, the children. It is crucial that we all work together to help the children.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE

1. NEW YORK STATE MUST INVEST THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE NEW FEDERAL CHANGES.

2. NEW YORK STATE MUST IMPLEMENT THE FEDERAL CHANGE IMMEDIATELY ENDING THE CONFUSING PRACTICE OF ALLOWING THE FATHER TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT HE IS THE PARENT INSTEAD OF SIGNING A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY. THIS SYSTEM ALLOWS THE FATHER'S NAME TO BE PUT ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BUT HAS NO FORCE OF LAW.

3. NEW YORK STATE SHOULD ADOPT LEGISLATION ALLOWING CHILD SUPPORT AGENCIES TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY ORDERS ADMINISTRATIVELY IN ALL IV-D CASES, WHERE A JUDICIAL HEARING IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED, INCLUDING CASES THAT ARE CONTESTED.

4. NEW YORK STATE SHOULD CONTINUE TO OFFER THE $50 PASS THROUGH TO FOSTER COOPERATION AMONG PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS.

5 NEW YORK STATE SHOULD ADOPT THE WELLSTONE/ MURRAY FAMILY VIOLENCE OPTION AS PART OF THE WELFARE PLAN.

6. THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE MUST ADOPT THE NECESSARY LEGISLATION TO ALLOW NEW YORK STATE TO SET UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM TO ESTABLISH SUPPORT.

7. NEW YORK STATE SHOULD DEVELOP A PAMPHLET FOR EMPLOYERS WITH INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ON INCOME EXECUTION (IEX).

8 THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE FOR FAILING TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT TO ALLOW JUDGES THE DISCRETION TO SENTENCE A VIOLATOR TO PROBATION. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE TRAINING FOR LOCAL JUDGES ON THE IMPORTANCE OF USING THEIR COURTS TO HELP ON THIS ISSUE.

9. PROFESSIONAL LICENSE REVOCATION SHOULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, INSTEAD OF AFTER JUDICIAL REVIEW. NEW YORK STATE SHOULD AMEND THE LAW ACCORDINGLY.

10. NEW YORK STATE HAS BEEN WORKING FOR SOMETIME TO AUTOMATE MEDICAL SUPPORT EXECUTION. WE URGE THE STATE TO GET THIS SYSTEM IN PLACE. THERE ARE TOO MANY CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH BENEFITS.

11. NEW YORK STATE SHOULD REQUIRE ALL PARENTS TO KEEP THE COURT/AGENCY WHICH ISSUED THE ORDER APPRAISED OF THEIR CURRENT ADDRESS. REGULAR MAIL SERVICE AT THE ADDRESS KEPT ON FILE WOULD THEN BE SUFFICIENT.

12. NEW YORK STATE SHOULD FOSTER BETTER COOPERATION AMONG CHILD SUPPORT UNITS WITHIN THE STATE.

13. THE STATE SHOULD LOOK INTO THE CREATION OF TWO DATA BASES, ONE FOR REAL ESTATE OWNERS AND ONE FOR ESTATES. THEN N.Y.S. SHOULD SET UP AN AUTOMATIC METHOD FOR SEIZING THOSE ASSETS.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY

14. WE RECOMMEND THAT WESTCHESTER HIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF AND DEVELOP AN INTENSIVE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CURRENT STAFF TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT THE NEW FEDERAL AND STATE CHANGES.

15. WE RECOMMEND THAT WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEDICATE AT LEAST ONE STAFF PERSON TO ESTABLISHING PATERNITY IN HOSPITALS AND BIRTHING CENTERS. WESTCHESTER SHOULD SEEK POSSIBLE STATE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIS LOCAL INITIATIVE.

16. WE RECOMMEND THE ADMINISTRATION WORK WITH THE STATE, THE COURTS, LOOK AT OTHER MORE SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITIES WITHIN NEW YORK STATE AND TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO IMPROVE WESTCHESTER'S PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT RATE AND SUPPORT ORDER ESTABLISHMENT RATE.

17. WE RECOMMEND THAT WESTCHESTER BEGIN TO LOOK AT SPACE NEEDS FOR THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT AND ENFORCEMENT. THEY WILL BE INTERVIEWING A MUCH LARGER POPULATION WHEN THEY ARE ALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY TO ORDER GENETIC TESTS AND ESTABLISH PATERNITY IN UNCONTESTED CASES. THEY MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACE.

18. WE RECOMMEND THAT HEARING EXAMINERS AND JUDGES ISSUE SUPPORT ORDERS AT THE INITIAL PATERNITY HEARING.

19. WE RECOMMEND THAT STAFF INFORM PETITIONERS OF THE OPTION OF PAYING FOR PERSONAL NOTICE IN A TIMELY WAY.

20. WE RECOMMEND THAT REGISTERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED SHOULD BE USED AS A FIRST METHOD OF SERVICE WHEN THERE IS A HISTORY OF UNCOOPERATIVENESS ON THE PART OF THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT. IF THE SITUATION WARRANTS IT, PERSONAL SERVICE BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. GUIDELINES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TO DECIDE WHEN TO USE THESE TYPES OF SERVICE. THE BURDEN (COST) SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE COURT, AND NOT ON THE PETITIONER. FURTHERMORE, THE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION, AT HIS OR HER OWN EXPENSE, OF REGISTERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OR PERSONAL SERVICE, IF HE OR SHE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES. TO KEEP COSTS DOWN, THE COURT SHOULD ASSESS THE COST OF SERVICE AGAINST THE OBLIGOR AT THE END OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS "COURT COSTS." THE UP-FRONT COSTS OF THESE MORE EXPENSIVE SUMMONS COULD THEN BE PARTIALLY RECOUPED.

21. WE RECOMMEND A LOCAL STUDY BE DONE TO MAKE SURE WESTCHESTER IS FOLLOWING THE CSSA GUIDELINES.

22. IT WAS REPORTED TO THE TASK FORCE THAT SOME JUDGES AND HEARING EXAMINERS CURRENTLY REQUIRE RESPONDENTS TO KEEP THEIR ADDRESSES ON FILE WHILE OTHERS DO NOT. THIS SHOULD BE VERIFIED, AND IF TRUE, WE RECOMMEND THAT JUDGES AND HEARING EXAMINERS REQUIRE THIS ALWAYS. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COURT USE EVERY TOOL AVAILABLE TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY DELAYS.

23. THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE MUST ADOPT THE NECESSARY LEGISLATION TO ALLOW NEW YORK STATE TO SET UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM TO ESTABLISH SUPPORT. WE RECOMMEND THAT WESTCHESTER COUNTY OFFICIALS LOBBY THE STATE TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

24. WE RECOMMEND THAT JUDGES MORE OFTEN IMPOSE JAIL TIME ON DELINQUENT FATHERS, ESPECIALLY WEEKEND SENTENCES.

25. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE USE OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT BE EXPLORED FOR COLLECTING SUPPORT.

26. WE RECOMMEND THAT CASELOADS BE REDUCED IMMEDIATELY BY HIRING ADDITIONAL CHILD SUPPORT STAFF, CASELOADS BE EQUALIZED AMONG STAFF, AN AUTOMATED PHONE SYSTEM AND/OR A SMALL DEDICATED STAFF TO ANSWER PHONES BE EXPLORED, AND ADDITIONAL CLERICAL STAFF BE HIRED TO HANDLE FILING.

27. WE RECOMMEND THAT WESTCHESTER COUNTY CONSIDER SETTING ASIDE MONIES TO PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR WOMEN. MANY WOMEN ARE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE, NOT POOR ENOUGH TO BE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BUT TOO POOR TO AFFORD LEGAL REPRESENTATION. WESTCHESTER SHOULD ALSO BE SURE ALL NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS ARE INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

28. WE SUGGEST A BETTER MECHANISM BE PUT IN PLACE FOR STAFF TO COMMUNICATE MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH THEIR SUPERVISORS, THE STATE AND WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

RESOURCES

Persons Interviewed

Pat Anello, petitioner

Constance Fox, CSEA Officer

Monica Getz, Coalition for Family Justice

Commissioner Mary Glass, Westchester Department of Social Services

Alison Greene, Regional Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Sue Henry, CSEA Officer

Barbara Kukowski, County Attorney's Office

Deborah Lindsey, petitioner

Lisa Linsky, Westchester County District Attorney's Office

Laura McGraw, petitioner

Mary Ellen Martirano, Chief, Special Prosecution Division, District Attorney's Office

Laurie Nevin, Coalition for Family Justice

Adrienne Petrook, petitioner

Paula Roberts, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

Judge Adrienne Scancarelli, Family Court

Bill Snyder, Chairman of ACES, Nassau County Chapter (interviewed by telephone)

Staff from the Nassau County Office of Child Support and Enforcement

Staff from the Westchester County Office of Child Support and Enforcement

Russell Sykes, State Communities Aid Association (SCAA) (interviewed by telephone)

Janice Walters, petitioner

Written Material

New York State Department of Social Services. New York State Child Support Services Handbook. September 1994.

New York State Department of Social Services. New York State Child Support Statistics. Office of Child Support Enforcement. September 1996.

New York State Department of Social Services. New York State Department of Social Services Performance Measures. Office of Child Support Enforcement. September 1996.

Summary of Child Support Accomplishments of the Pataki Administration. April 1997.

Sykes, Russell, Frederick Griesbach Associates. Orders in the Court. State Communities Aid Association. September 1995.

Turetsky, Vicki. Child Support Administrative Processes: A Summary of Requirements in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Center for Law and Policy. January 1997.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child Support Enforcement, Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress, for period ending 09/30/94.