This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0651 - Makes various changes to custody, visitation and child support laws
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO. 2488-21
BILL NO. HCS for SS for SCS for SB 651
SUBJECT: Changes to Custody, Visitation, and Child Support Laws
TYPE: Original
DATE: May 4, 1998
FISCAL SUMMARY
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
|
General Revenue |
($875,225) to
$2,662,894 |
($1,062,260) to
$3,204,460 |
($1,087,057) to
$3,200,035 |
| Families | $13,269 | $16,719 | $17,555 |
|
Child Support |
($24,769) to
($224,395) |
($28,094) to ($266,650) | ($26,435) to ($264,992) |
| Domestic Relations Resolution | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Estimated Net
Effect on All State Funds |
($886,725) to
$2,451,768 |
($1,073,635) to
$2,954,529 |
($1,095,937) to
$2,952,598 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| Federal | $11,196 | $14,107 | $14,813 |
| Partial Estimated Net
Effect on All
Federal Funds* |
$11,196 | $14,107 | $14,813 |
* Totals do not include possible unknown losses ranging from $0 to over $77,000,000 annually due to possible loss of federal funding.
This fiscal note contains 17 pages.
FISCAL SUMMARY (continued)
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| Circuit Clerk/Local* | $51,998 to $714,990 | $58,991 to $875,336 | $55,483 to $856,664 |
|
Family Services and Justices** |
$131,895 to $2,412,670 | $158,275 to $2,895,205 | $158,275 to $2,895,205 |
| Partial Estimated Net Effect on All Local Government Funds | $183,893 to
$3,028,042 |
$217,266 to
$3,770,541 |
$213,758 to
$3,751,869 |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
* Totals do not include unknown costs for additional prosecutor/police staff expected to exceed $100,000 annually.
** Unknown costs, expected to exceed $100,000 annually, for educational sessions not included in totals.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Department of Revenue, Department of Public Safety - Highway Patrol, Department of Corrections, Missouri Sheriff's Association, and Office of Administration - Division of Budget and Planning assume this proposal will not fiscally impact their agencies.
Officials from the State Treasurer's Office (STO) have indicated for similar proposals from this session that these types of proposals would increase state revenues by the amount of the filing fees and interest on these new state funds. The STO indicated a new accounting fund would be created for this program and the proposal would slightly increase the number of transactions processed through the state accounting system. The STO indicated they would absorb the costs associated with increased transactions and investment through existing resources.
Officials from the Office of State Public Defender (SPD) did not respond to our request for fiscal impact. However, for similar proposals from this session, the SPD indicated they will provide representation to 1,000 indigent parents accused of violating Family Access court orders. The SPD assumes they will require 2 additional attorneys and .75 FTE for paralegal/investigator and .50 FTE for a legal secretary to provide the additional representation. These additional costs, charged to the General Revenue Fund, would be approximately $140,000 annually.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
The SPD assumes they will require additional expenses for the new FTE, including rental space. Oversight assumes any new employees will locate in existing facilities.
Officials from the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney's Office (STLCAO) assume the proposal could require additional personnel for the City of St. Louis, primarily for the police department. The STLCAO indicated the additional police staff would be necessary to help citizens exercise their custody and visitation rights. Oversight, for the purposes of this fiscal note, will show an unknown cost to circuit clerk/local government funds relating to additional personnel with costs expected to exceed over $100,000 annually.
Officials from the Department of Social Services - Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) assume the proposal will fiscally impact the DCSE.
Support Collections
The proposal will allow the DCSE collect more child support in three following areas:
1. All additional foster care cases could result in additional collections by applying the provisions of this proposal. This is possible since prior to this proposal, the DFS had to appear in court in order to get the child support order changed. This should save 4 months of unreimbursed foster care payments that would have been paid to the foster parents as the DFS was not able to intercept the child support.
The DCSE assumes 6,276 foster care cases to open and 60% of these are cases with previous child support orders. Assuming an average of $165 in child support each month, there could be $621,324 in potential collections each month. Assuming it takes 4 months to establish a new child support order, the DCSE could realize $2,485,296 a year in foster care collections. However, the collection rate on foster care cases in only 6% which reduces the potential for collections to $149,118 annually. These additional collections would be deposited into the General Revenue Fund and the Federal Fund (610).
2. The DCSE will also be able to intercept Missouri State Employees Retirement System (MOSERS) retirement benefits from former state employees that owe child support. The DCSE indicated this could affect five cases and assumes a $2,000 per case collection. This $10,000 increase in collections would be deposited into various funds.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
3. Non-parent caretaker relatives would now be able to institute child paternity actions for children in their care. The DCSE assumes this proposal affects St. Louis County only. The DCSE assumes this could result in 15 additional paternity cases each month and all would be Temporary Assistance to Needy Family (TANF) cases. The DCSE notes the average child support order is $165 each month. The DCSE assumes they could potentially collect $356,400; however, the collection rate is only 11% on TANF cases. Thus, the total collection for paternity action cases is $39,304 annually.
The DCSE assumes a 5% increase in collections each year. Collection revenue was prorated to ten months for FY 99.
Paternity Testing
The DCSE assumes that requiring paternity probability at 99.99% would increase DCSE's cost to do genetic testing. The DCSE provided a range of costs based on a "low end" estimate and a "high end" estimate based on phone calls to the three labs that currently provide blood test work for the division. The DCSE assumes the number of draws (of blood samples) be each contracted vendor would be constant over the three fiscal years. Oversight has ranged the costs for blood tests based on the two estimates. The costs were split between General Revenue Fund and Child Support Fund. Costs for FY 99 were prorated over 10 months.
Federal Non-compliance
The DCSE assumes that enactment of this proposal will place the DCSE out of federal compliance on three different subject areas.
First, the DCSE indicated that Section 452.30 (page 52) amends the statutory requirement that child support continue until the child reaches the age of 18. The amendment lowers the age to 16. Under federal law (Social Security Act) a child can continue to receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, or federal Foster Care until they reach 18 regardless of attendance in school. State statutes provide those benefits to children up to age 18 (chapter 208 and 210 RSMo). The federal child support law, Title IV-D, requires states to establish and collect the child support for these recipients of public assistance. Lowering to 16, the age at which child support terminates, will prohibit DCSE from establishing orders for collecting for a number of children on assistance for the two years between 16 and 18. This will be a violation of the federal mandate and place the state out of compliance with the federal requirements.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Second, the DCSE indicated that Section 454.490 (page 126) deleted language from subsection 1 that allows DCSE to file administrative orders entered under Section 454.470 when no judicial order exists. This deletion eliminates the ability of DCSE to file it's administrative orders and eliminates the ability of DCSE to use the courts to enforce administrative orders. Also, this change eliminates the ability of DCSE to establish paternity under Section 454.485.3. Section 454.485 requires that the administrative order be filed with the court under Section 454.490 to establish paternity. With the elimination of the ability to file under Section 454.490, the state will be out of federal compliance with federal statutory mandates at 42 USC 666 requiring expedited administrative proceeding to establish paternity.
Third, the DCSE indicated that Section 8 (page 145) is a concern also. Under federal law, 42 USC Section 666, states are required to have expedited procedures for the enforcement of support orders. These procedures must occur without the need for a judicial order. These expedited procedures include income withholding, seizing of unemployment benefits, judgements, lotteries, bank accounts, retirement funds and the filing of liens against real and personal property. The language in Section 8 would be a violation of the federal requirement by prohibiting the DCSE from using withholding and other legal proceedings without agreement or a court order.
Therefore, these three items will result in the DCSE being out of compliance with federal regulations, thus losing all federal funding in the child support program and some Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding, according to the DCSE.
The DCSE assumes that to continue the child support program the division costs normally paid from federal funds would have to be paid from the General Revenue Fund. The DCSE indicates the proposal will cost the General Revenue Fund $64,404,495 in FY 99. The estimated costs to the General Revenue Fund include a 10 percent increase in costs from FY 98 to FY 99. The 10 % increase is due to anticipated staffing increases. Costs for FY 00 and FY 01 were estimated at $79,603,956 and $81,992,074, respectively. These costs were increased 3% from FY 99 costs. Oversight, for the purposes for this fiscal note, assumes these costs are unknown and has shown them as a loss of federal funds and not a cost to the General Revenue Fund as the DCSE responded.
Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) noted the proposed legislation contains several statutory changes that would significantly impact the workload of the judges and the circuit clerks. Parties who are denied visitation would be allowed to file a pro se "family access complaint" with the court on a form provided by the circuit clerk. The circuit clerk would be required to explain the form and to assist the party with the filing of same. CTS assumes this process would require a substantial amount of time on the part of the circuit clerk.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
The CTS assumes the total cost of this proposal would exceed $100,000 in any given fiscal year for the CTS alone.
Handbook
The CTS assumes the "custody handbook" required by the proposal would initially cost $8,000 and updates and reprints would cost an average of $2,000 per year. The CTS cannot determine how many of these handbooks would be needed. Oversight assumes the $8,000 initial costs and the $2,000 annual reprinting costs will be sufficient to provide the necessary handbooks.
Pendente Lite
The CTS notes that Section 452.317 provides for an order pendente lite which specifies a temporary parenting schedule, temporary child support, temporary attorney fees and costs, and temporary maintenance. There is a provision for a hearing which may be assigned to a master. These costs are to be paid by the responding party. The CTS notes there will be some, unquantifiable, costs associated with the tracking of dates, including filed, served, and hearing; as well as the potential for some increase in court hearings. There will definitely be an increase in the workload of the courts. Oversight assumes for the purposes of this fiscal note, that the additional CTS FTE could absorb these additional duties as well.
Mediation Costs
The proposal would mandate mediation in dissolution cases where children are involved. The CTS notes that the $35 fee is inadequate to cover the cost of mediation. Although the proposal requires the parties to pay for the mediation program, the CTS assumes the state or county would pay the costs of the mediation program for indigent parties. Ultimately this means the state would be responsible under the Hancock Amendment. The CTS could not provide an estimate on what those costs would be or what unit of government would pay the costs.
The CTS noted that in FY97, there were 6,897 contested dissolutions filed where potential mediation could be ordered. The CTS has no way of determining the number of cases in which children would have been involved, but for purposes of this fiscal note, it was assumed that one-half of the dissolutions would involve children and one-quarter of these persons would be unable to pay the costs for mediation. The average mediation rate charged is $100 per hour with an average of two hours spent on each case. This would result in mediation costs of $172,425 (6,897 x .5 x. 25 x $220). Oversight has charged this amount of unpaid mediation costs to the Family Services and Justice Fund, maintained at the local level, as the proposal allows this fund to pay for implementing the provisions of the legislation.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Costs for mediation in FY 99 were prorated over 10 months.
Other costs incurred at the local level would be for mediation cases involving modification orders. The CTS noted there were 9,249 motions to modify in FY 97. CTS assumed that three-fourths of those cases (7,071) involved children and that one-fourth of those cases (1,768) will include
parties unable to pay for the mediation costs. Assuming 1,768 cases will be unable to pay the costs of mediation at an estimated cost of $200 each, the total cost will be $353,600.
Oversight has charged this amount of unpaid mediation costs to the Family Services and Justice Fund, maintained at the local level, as the proposal allows this fund to pay for implementing the provisions of the legislation. Costs for mediation in FY 99 were prorated over 10 months.
Additional FTE Costs
The CTS expects to need additional FTE as a result of the pro se filings. The CTS declined to
indicate the amount or cost of this additional FTE as it would be difficult to quantify costs without reliable information on the number of new cases which could result. However, the CTS did provide information in order for Oversight to calculate an approximate cost for the additional FTE.
In FY97, there were 390,991 open child support trustee accounts and an unknown number of other domestic relations cases involving children where visitation could become an issue. The CTS estimates it would take approximately one-hour for each case including: assisting litigants in filing the motion; processing the motion; rearranging dockets; creating and maintaining a suspense file; preparing and distributing orders; collecting and disbursing costs; and closing the case file.
The CTS estimates costs based on several different percentages of the 390,991 open child support trustee accounts (e.g., 5% of 390,991 = 19,550 new cases). For purposes of this fiscal note, Oversight ranged the costs from the lowest percentage of new cases (5%) to the highest
percentage of new cases (25%) expected as a result of this proposal. These amounts do not take into account that the contempt motion could be filed each time visitation is denied (i.e., more than once a year) or when other physical and legal or physical or legal custody issues arise.
Personal services costs would be incurred at the state level, while the local level would be responsible for expense & equipment costs. Expense and equipment costs were estimated at $2,416 per FTE, per year. Fiscal Year 1999 costs were prorated over 10 months.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Educational Session Costs
The proposal provides the court could order parties involved in dissolution proceedings to attend educational sessions except for good cause. Minor children could be ordered as well to attend the sessions. Even though the proposal allows the court to order educational sessions, the CTS assumes that most courts will order the parties to attend educational sessions. Although the proposal requires the parties to pay for the educational sessions, the CTS assumes the state or county would pay the costs of the educational sessions for indigent parties.
Ultimately this means the state would be responsible under the Hancock amendment. The CTS could not provide an estimate on what those costs would be or what unit of government would pay the costs. Oversight has charged an unknown amount of unpaid educational session costs to the Family Access Fund maintained at the local level as the proposal allows for any necessary costs related to family access orders to be paid from this fund.
Income From New Cases Filed
The proposal would also generate income due to the court case filing fees from the pro se cases expected to be filed. Again, only a range of income will be shown in the fiscal note which would be consistent with the range of costs associated with the pro se cases. According to the CTS, the standard court cost in a domestic relations case is generally a little over $100. Of this amount, $45 would be split 80% - 20% between the state and the local level. The remaining court costs ($55) would be distributed among a variety of entities. The various entity distributions have not
been shown in the fiscal note. According to Oversight's calculations, income for state funds will range from $703,800 to $3,518,928 in FY 00 and FY01, respectively. In addition, income for local funds will range from $175,950 to $879,732 in FY 00 and FY 01, respectively. Income for FY 99 was prorated to 10 months.
Income From Family Access Fee
The proposal would require a $35 "family access fee" to be paid at the time of the filing and deposited into the Family Services and Justice Fund maintained by the various circuit clerks. Violation of a family access order is punishable be a fine of up to $500. Based on the estimated number of filed cases according to the CTS, Oversight calculated the range of income from the fee of $684,250 to $3,421,180 for FY 00 and FY 01.
Income for FY 99 was prorated to 10 months. The income will be generated for the Family Services and Justice Fund.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
Income From $10 Surcharge
The proposal requires an additional surcharge of $10 to be charged for each dissolution case filed in the circuit court. The CTS noted there were 33,050 dissolution cases filed in FY 97. Oversight assumed the same amount of dissolution cases will be filed in FY 99, FT 00, and FY 01. The proposal will generate approximately $330,500 in revenue for the Domestic Relations Resolution Fund in each of the three years. Oversight assumes that unidentified costs of implementing provisions of this proposal will be charged against this income and, as a result, Oversight has shown an equal amount of costs being paid from this fund.
CTS further reports there were 99,623 domestic relations cases filed during Fiscal Year 1997. Therefore, CTS assumes that any appreciable increase in cases would have a significant impact
on the workload and budget of the courts.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | |||
| $586,500 | $703,800 | $703,800 | |
| Income | to | to | to |
| Court Fees (80% of $45 per case filed) | $2,932,440 | $3,518,928 | $3,518,928 |
| Revenue - Department of Social Services - | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement | |||
| Increase in Child Support Collections | $133,069 | $142,467 | $149,590 |
| Revenue - Department of Social Services - | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement | |||
| TANF Collections | $10,207 | $12,861 | $13,504 |
| Costs-State Public Defender | |||
| Personal Service (4 FTE) | ($76,910) | ($94,638) | ($97,003) |
| Fringe Benefits | ($21,558) | ($26,527) | ($27,190) |
| Expense and Equipment | ($36,878) | ($19,164) | ($19,739) |
| Total Costs-State Public Defender | ($135,346) | ($140,329) | ($143,932) |
| Costs-Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) | |||
| Parenting Handbook | ($8,000) | ($2,000) | ($2,000) |
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (continued) | (10 Mo.) | ||
| Filing of Pro Se Motions: | |||
| Personal Service (9 FTE) | ($156,909) | ($192,998) | ($197,823) |
| Fringe Benefits | ($44,013) | ($54,136) | ($55,489) |
| Total Personnel Costs - CTS | ($200,922) | ($247,134) | ($253,312) |
| to | to | to | |
| Personal Service (47 FTE) | ($784,530) | ($964,971) | ($989,096) |
| Fringe Benefits | ($220,061) | ($270,674) | ($277,441) |
| Total Personnel Costs - CTS | ($1,004,591) | ($1,235,645) | ($1,266,537) |
| Costs - Department of Social Services - | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement | |||
| ($68,554) | ($80,333) | ($82,743) | |
| to | to | to | |
| Genetic Testing | ($456,064) | ($543,414) | ($541,482) |
| ESTIMATED NET | ($875,225) | ($1,062,260) | ($1,087,057) |
| EFFECT ON | to | to | to |
| GENERAL REVENUE FUND | $2,662,894 | $3,204,460 | $3,200,035 |
| CHILD SUPPORT FUND | |||
| Revenue - Department of Social Services - | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement | |||
| Increase in Child Support Collections | $10,547 | $13,290 | $13,954 |
| Costs - Department of Social Services (DOS) - | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) | |||
| ($35,316) | ($41,384) | ($40,389) | |
| to | to | to | |
| Genetic Testing | ($234,942) | ($279,940) | ($278,946) |
| ESTIMATED NET | ($24,769) | ($28,094) | ($26,435) |
| EFFECT ON CHILD | to | to | to |
| SUPPORT FUND | ($224,395) | ($266,650) | ($264,992) |
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (continued) | (10 Mo.) | ||
| FAMILIES FUND | |||
| Revenue - Department of Social Services - | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement | |||
| Increase in Child Support Collections | $13,269 | $16,719 | $17,555 |
| ESTIMATED EFFECT ON | |||
| FAMILIES FUND | $13,269 | $16,719 | $17,555 |
| DOMESTIC RELATIONS | |||
| RESOLUTION FUND | |||
| Income | |||
| Surcharge of $10 on Dissolution Filings | $275,417 | $330,500 | $330,500 |
| Costs | |||
| Personal Service, Expense and Equipment | |||
| Necessary to Implement This Proposal | ($275,417) | ($330,500) | ($330,500) |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT | |||
| ON DOMESTIC RELATIONS | |||
| RESOLUTION FUND | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| Revenue - Department of Social Services - | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement | |||
| Increase in Child Support Collections | $11,196 | $14,107 | $14,813 |
| Loss-Department of Social Services- | |||
| Division of Child Support Enforcement | |||
| Noncompliance with Federal Regulations | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
|
PARTIAL ESTIMATED NET EFFECT | |||
| ON FEDERAL FUNDS* | $11,196 | $14,107 | $14,813 |
| * Totals do not include possible unknown losses ranging from $0 to over $77,000,000 annually due to possible loss of federal funding. | |||
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| CIRCUIT CLERK/LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| 146,625 | $175,950 | $175,950 | |
| Income | to | to | to |
| Court Costs (20% of $45 per case filed) | $733,110 | $897,732 | $879,732 |
| Costs | |||
| Personal Service, Expense and Equipment for | |||
| Additional Prosecuting Attorney Staff | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Costs for the Additional CTS FTE | |||
| Expense and Equipment (9 FTE) | ($18,120) | ($22,396) | ($23,068) |
| to | to | to | |
| Expense and Equipment (47 FTE) | ($94,627) | ($116,959) | ($120,467) |
| PARTIAL ESTIMATED | $128,505 | $153,554 | $152,882 |
| NET EFFECT ON CIRCUIT | to | to | to |
| CLERK/LOCAL FUND* | $638,483 | $780,773 | $759,265 |
| * Unknown costs expected to exceed $100,000 to local prosecutors/law enforcement agencies related to creation of new crimes are not included in the totals. | |||
| FAMILY SERVICES AND JUSTICE FUND | |||
| Income | $570,208 | $684,250 | $684,250 |
| to | to | to | |
| Court Costs-$35 Family Access Fee | $2,850,983 | $3,421,180 | $3,421,180 |
| Costs | |||
| Unpaid Educational Sessions | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
| Unpaid Mediation Ordered in Dissolutions | ($143,688) | ($172,425) | ($172,425) |
| Unpaid Mediation Ordered in Modifications | ($294,625) | ($353,550) | ($353,550) |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| (continued) | (10 Mo.) | ||
| ESTIMATED NET | $131,895 | $158,275 | $158,275 |
| EFFECT ON FAMILY | to | to | to |
| SERVICES AND JUSTICE FUND* | $2,412,670 | $2,895,205 | $2,895,205 |
| * Unknown costs for educational sessions not included in total. | |||
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
Small businesses, operating as genetic testing laboratories, may be fiscally impacted by this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal makes various changes to laws concerning divorce actions and related proceedings that involve minor children. Parties are required to retain their original denomination (i.e. petitioner, respondent) throughout any proceedings under Sections 452.300-.415, RSMo, and are allowed to change the venue of a dissolution case in situations where the other party takes a child, moves, and files for dissolution in the new county.
The proposal changes the requirements for a judgment of legal separation by requiring the court to find that there is a reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved and therefore it is not irretrievably broken. Under current law, a court must enter a judgment of legal separation if a
party requests it. The party with "actual physical custody" of a child must be named in the petition; the proposal defines this phrase, and clarifies that this initial custody does not create a preference in the final custody determination.
The propsoal amends Section 452.315, RSMo, dealing with what initial temporary orders a court can or must enter, how long those orders are effective, and how those orders can be modified and/or enforced, and provides for an expedited special master procedures. Parties may enter into marital settlement agreements, which, except for child support terms, are binding on the court unless it finds that the agreement is unconscionable or not in the best interest of each child. The court shall divide marital property and debts, taking into consideration the parenting time schedule. The public policy of the state with regard to children involved in dissolution proceedings includes encouraging parents to resolve disputes amicably through alternative dispute resolution.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
The proposal eliminates a specific semester or term hour requirement for children with physical or learning disabilities or diagnosed health problems in order for that child to continue to receive child support beyond 18 years of age. Courts may modify an award of maintenance in a legal
separation for good cause shown.
Courts shall order parties to a proceeding for dissolution or modification to attend educational
sessions and participate in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program to resolve issues of
child custody or parenting time, except for good cause shown. The ADR program will be paid for by the parties. Prior to participating in the ADR program, the parties must complete a proposed parenting plan provided by the ADR program. If the parties reach an agreement, they will submit the agreement to the court as a joint parenting plan. Each circuit will be required to establish an ADR program by no later than December 31, 2001. The Supreme Court will devise a standard parenting plan form to be used by the participants in an ADR program. The form will list the information to be included in the parenting plan.
The proposal amends current law regarding child custody and parenting time issues. In its main
provisions, the rewritten section (1) reorders the subsections, placing the public policy statement
at the beginning of the section; (2) redefines the terms describing the alternative custody arrangements; and (3) reorders the factors a court must consider prior to entering a custody or
parenting plan. Home school shall not be a factor that the court considers in determining legal
custody or parenting time. The burden of coming forward with evidence that a particular
arrangement is not in the best interest of the child shall be on the party opposing the arrangement.
Upon request, the court shall enter a written finding detailing the specific factors supporting the
order.
Any parent is prohibited from changing his, her, or the child's residence without providing notice,
within certain time frames, to the other parent or third party entitled to contact with the child.
Contents of the notice are delineated. A court may waive or modify the notice requirement for
safety reasons. Failure to provide notice a sufficient reason to modify a custody order, compel the
return of the child, or order the payment of attorney's fees and court costs. The relocation of a
child is permitted unless a parent files a motion objecting to the move within fifteen days after
receipt of notice. A third party entitled to contact with the child may obtain a revised schedule of
contact from a court. A court must consider certain factors when determining the relocation issue.
If relocation is permitted, the court shall make any necessary orders (including orders modifying
prior orders) to best effectuate the relocation and custody arrangements.
A family access procedure shall be created for ease of enforcement of visitation orders.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
Procedures shall include: pro se form, cost not to exceed $35, alternate dispute resolution may be
scheduled within 14 days after notice has been mailed. Upon finding that a previous order has
been violated, the court may award compensatory time, fine the party in violation, require a bond
to be posted, order the violator to pay the costs of counseling, and pay for the costs of the action,
including legal fees. Final disposition shall take place not more than 60 days after service.
Family court commissioners are allowed to hear Chapter 452 proceedings. Each party is allowed
one disqualification of a guardian ad litem per proceeding within 10 days from appointment. A
party may disqualify more than one guardian ad litem in a proceeding for good cause shown.
A ten dollar surcharge is added to any other court costs in dissolution proceedings, to go to the
Domestic Relations Resolution Fund, used to reimburse local circuits for costs associated with
implementation of this act. The State Courts Administrator shall create a handbook outlining
procedures regarding parenting plans, alternate dispute resolution, family access motions,
assumptions regarding child support and a party's rights and responsibilities. All circuits shall
establish educational programs for parties to a dissolution proceeding.
The statute of limitations for fraudulent claims of child support to a public servant shall be three
years. The common-law torts of alienation of affection and conspiracy to alienate affection are
abolished. Modification to court orders involving child custody and support entered before
January 1, 1999, based solely upon the changes in Chapters 452 and 454, RSMo, are
prohibited.
A person who has erroneously received child support payments from the Division of Child
Support Enforcement must repay such money. A person who fails to repay such money upon
request by the division is guilty of stealing as defined in Section 570.030 RSMo. A court may
require a neutral location for the exchange of a child, and requires that a neutral third party be
present.
In order to enforce custody or visitation orders, a party request the assistance of a sheriff must
first show the sheriff that the person with possession of the child is not entitled to have the child.
The proposal also revises laws concerning child support enforcement. The required notice to a mother and putative father regarding legal consequences and benefits of establishing paternity may be provided by use of audio or video equipment. The qualifying date is removed for presumption by consent when the father married the mother and his name is listed on the birth certificate. Any person having physical or legal custody of a child may file a paternity action. Probability of paternity from blood tests must be at least 99.99 percent. The application of the Uniform Parentage Act to the Uniform Interstate Parentage Support Act is clarified.
DESCRIPTION (continued)
The proposal removes the requirement that the Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE)
respond within five days and use automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases.
Cooperation by person receiving assistance from a program funded pursuant to Part A or Part E
of the Social Security Act, Title XIX of the Social Security Act or the Food Stamp Act, in cases
involving the establishment, enforcement or modification of child support shall be determined by
DCSE. A party ordered to make child support payments pursuant to the child support
enforcement laws may receive a summary of the expenses paid on behalf of the child.
Parties to a paternity or child support proceeding must file identifying information with the State
Case Registry instead of court. Listed address information shall be deemed valid if other diligent
efforts to locate a party fail, including service by publication and certified mail to the last known
address.
DCSE may use all sources of information and available records to determine the location of any
child or parent regarding unlawful taking of a child, child custody or visitation purposes, except in
cases involving domestic violence. All penalties applicable to a party not paying child support also applicable to a party denying or interfering with custody or parenting time.
Retirement benefits of state employees shall be considered income for purposes of child support
enforcement. Credit for direct and in kind support to the custodial parent shall be allowed upon
affidavit of custodial parent alone. Child support may be redirected to state agency when court
places custody of a child with that agency. Any order of the Director of DCSE may be filed in the
county where the dissolution or paternity judgment was entered, or if no such judgment was
entered, where the parent or child resides or the county where the support order was filed. The
proposal removes the prerequisite that a child receive assistance under Part IV-A of the Social Security Act before a plan for work activity can be ordered. No garnishment or withholding order shall be levied or maintained against a party whose child support obligation has been fulfilled or brought to term, unless by voluntary agreement or court order. The burden of proving noncompliance is on the Division of Child Support Enforcement.
The effective date of the act is January 1, 1999.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Social Services
Department of Revenue
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Department of Corrections
Department of Public Safety - Highway Patrol
Office of State Courts Administrator
Office of State Public Defender
Office of Administration - Division of Budget and Planning
Office of the State Treasurer
St. Louis City Circuit Attorney's Office
Missouri Sheriff's Association
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
May 4, 1998