Senate Bill S4091A

                                BILL NUMBER:S4091

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the family court act and the
social services law, in relation to
orders for child support obligors to seek employment or participate in
job training, employment counseling or other available programs designed
to lead to employment

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge Upon the recommendation of her Family
Court Advisory and Rules Committee.

Chapter 182 of the Laws of 2010 added a new section 437-a to the
Family Court Act authorizing Family Court to require individuals who
are liable for child support, other than those who are receiving
supplemental security income or social security disability benefits,
to seek employment or to participate in job training, employment
counseling or other available programs designed to lead to
employment. This salutary provision adds to the tools available to
Family Court to enhance the collection of child support for the
benefit of children and families. However, in two respects, the new
statute is unnecessarily limiting, that is, in the individuals
covered by the law and in the phases of child support proceedings to
which the law applies. This measure would remove these limitations.
              

First, the measure would substitute the phrase "support obligor" for
the term "respondent" in both Family Court Act §437-a and Social
Services Law § 111-h, since the parent liable for child support is
not always the respondent in the proceeding before Family Court.
Family Court Act §437-a also would be amended to apply to both
underemployed and unemployed individuals. For example, a parent who
seeks a downward modification of his or her child support obligation
is deemed the petitioner in such an action. While alleging that he or
she is living in reduced circumstances, such a petitioner may not be
entirely unemployed. In determining whether a downward modification in
such a case is appropriate, the Court may well deem it helpful to
direct the parent to participate in employment-related activities
that will enhance the parent's ability to provide child support.
Significantly, the legislative history behind chapter 182 uses the
phrase "non-custodial parent," not respondent, indicating a
legislative intent that the statute not be limited in scope to
respondents. See Legislative Memorandum in Support of A.8952 [2010].
Moreover, the Federal requirement for states to have procedures in
place for issuance of employment-related orders applies to
individuals who owe "overdue" child support, not simply respondents
in child support proceedings. See 42 U.S.C.A. §666(a)(15).

Second, the measure would amend section 437-a to authorize
employment-related orders to be made in proceedings to modify or
enforce, as well as to establish, orders of child support and would
harmonize section 454 of the Family Court Act with the parameters of
the new statute. Family Court Act §437-a refers only to proceedings
to establish child support, thus implying that employment-related
directives may only be issued at the stage of issuance of an initial


order of child support. This creates an apparent inconsistency with
Family Court Act §454, which permits such orders to be made as a
remedy for violations of child support orders, and, as noted above,
with the Federal statutory requirement for states to authorize such
directives as remedies for overdue support payments: See 42 U.S.C.A.
§666(a)(15). Moreover, Family Court Act §437-a in its current form
fails to authorize such orders in proceedings in which support
obligors seek downward modifications of child support orders in which
they may, as mentioned, be extremely helpful. This measure would,
therefore, encompass modification and violation proceedings in the
authorization for employment-related directives and, with respect to
violation proceedings, would incorporate the
preclusion of such orders against individuals receiving
supplemental security income or social security disability benefits
contained in section 437-a into section 454 of the Family Court Act.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact upon the State, would
take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.

2011 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None. New proposal.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall
have become a law.

                                BILL NUMBER:S4091B

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the family court act and the
social services law, in relation to
orders for child support obligors to seek employment or participate in
job training, employment counseling or other available programs designed
to lead to employment

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her Family
Court Advisory and Rules Committee.

Chapter 182 of the Laws of 2010 added a new section 437-a to the
Family Court Act authorizing Family Court to require individuals who
are liable for child support, other than those who are receiving
supplemental security income or social security disability benefits,
to seek employment or to participate in job training, employment
counseling or other available programs designed to lead to
employment. This salutary provision adds to the tools available to
Family Court to enhance the collection of child support for the
benefit of children and families. However, in two respects, the new
statute is unnecessarily limiting, that is, in the individuals
covered by the law and in the phases of child support proceedings to
which the law applies. This measure would remove these limitations.
              

First, the measure would substitute the phrase "support obligor" for
the term "respondent" in both Family Court Act §437-a and Social
Services Law § 111-h, since the parent liable for child support is
not always the respondent in the proceeding before Family Court. For
example, a parent who seeks a downward modification of his or her
child support obligation is deemed the petitioner in such an action.
Significantly, the legislative history behind chapter 182 uses the
phrase "non-custodial parent," not respondent, indicating a
legislative intent that the statute not be limited in scope to
respondents. See Legislative Memorandum in Support of A. 8952 [2010].
Moreover, the
Federal requirement for states to have procedures in place for
issuance of employment-related orders applies to individuals who owe
"overdue" child support, not simply respondents in-child support
proceedings. See 42 U.S.C.A. §666(a)(15).

Second, the measure would amend section 437-a to authorize
employment-related orders to be made in proceedings to decrease or
enforce, as well as to establish, orders of child support and would
harmonize section 454 of the Family Court Act with the parameters of
the new statute. Family Court Act §437-a refers only to proceedings
to establish child support, thus implying that employment-related
directives may only be issued at the stage of issuance of an initial
order of child support. This creates an apparent inconsistency with
Family Court Act §454, which permits such orders to be made as a
remedy for violations of child support orders albeit only in cases
where the persons for whom the support obligor has failed to pay
support are applicants for or recipients of public assistance.
Moreover, Family Court Act §437-a in its current form fails to


authorize such orders in proceedings in which support obligors seek
downward modifications of child support orders in which they may be
extremely helpful. This measure would, therefore, encompass downward
modification and violation proceedings in the authorization for
employment-related directives. With respect to violation -
proceedings, it would expand the work program referral provision
s of section 454 of the Family Court Act (FCA 454(2)) to include all
child support obligors who have failed to pay child support as
ordered and not just those who are obligated to pay support for
applicants or recipients of public assistance.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact upon the State, would
take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.

2011 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Senate 4091 (Savino) 3rd Rdg.
Assembly 7794 (M. of A. Weinstein) [Codes]