Issue:
Should the IV-D child support program be expanded to enforce spousal-only support orders, when not combined with a child support order (or when the child support order has terminated); and should Title IV-D be amended to allow reimbursement to states for costs of enforcing spousal-only support orders?
Background:
Under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, state IV-D agencies receive federal financial participation (FFP) at the rate of 66% for administrative costs incurred for establishing, monitoring and enforcing child support orders. States may enforce spousal support when combined with a child support order, until such time as the child support order is terminated. No FFP has ever been provided for enforcing stand-alone spousal support orders. Indeed, Title IV-D was enacted in 1975 with the specific goal of separating any efforts by states to recoup from other "legally liable relatives", such as spouses, when no children were involved. With this understanding, a few states elected to create separate units to assist with spousal-only support funded only with state dollars, while the vast majority of states focused only on enforcing orders for families with children to ensure that efforts were not diluted by a broader array of responsibilities.
Historically, in family law spousal support is separate from child support, because spousal support is more closely tied to a property division between two divorcing spouses. If there is not enough property to satisfy the future equitable needs of a disadvantaged spouse, spousal support is added to ensure that the spouses part on a more equal footing. Based on this concept, spousal support is not established independently through interstate actions, and the payment and receipt of spousal support remains a taxable event. Child support is treated just the opposite by allowing independent and interstate actions to establish an order, while child support is not a taxable event. Within the program, child support laws have been finely honed over the last 25 years and are not multi-purpose. To add the enforcement of spousal-only support orders into a program that focuses on child support enforcement would not be logical.
The child support program is successful because it focuses solely on the financial and emotional needs of the child and minimizes the often contentious relationship between the two parents. The rancor or anger between the parents can be assuaged - as most parents can agree that a child needs support from both of them. Community partners, such as financial institutions and employers, cooperate more fully, because they embrace the concept that children should, and must, be supported.
A recent proposal to expand the responsibilities of the IV-D program, if approved, would include enforcing spousal-only orders with the same collection tools, including
NCCSD - Spousal-Only Support Orders Page 2
suspension of drivers' and professional licenses. If a state chose this option, the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement would be required to provide FFP for such activities, as well as providing any other appropriate type of funding, such as incentive payments.
This proposal comes at a time when state resources for child support enforcement are increasingly limited in the past 3-5 years by growing budget deficits. Although FFP is not capped, states must expend 34% of the initial cost for any additional staff or other resources, and therefore do not have the funds to draw down any additional federal dollars. In many states, child support budgets have been slashed alongside other state programs. Many states have no resources to pursue all mandated remedies, such as medical support cases.
NCCSD Statement in Opposition:
The National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD) is opposed to any proposal that would expand or further complicate the mission of the IV-D child support program beyond collecting support for children. The responsibilities of the program are already multi-faceted, including pursuit of financial and medical support for children; liaison with or administering fatherhood programs; referring non-custodial parents to employment and education programs; overseeing the highly complex tools, both administrative and court-based that form the core of the program, such as income withholding, IRS refund intercept; passport denial; suspension of licenses, financial institution data match; liens and other levies.
To expand the responsibilities of the program to include pursuit or enforcement of spousal-only orders would dilute its efforts. State resources do not exist to add a new and separate category of thousands of cases. As the program is pushed beyond its capabilities, its success and excellence on behalf of children would falter. Spousal-only orders need enforcement. However, if state remedies fail and this concern becomes a national issue, Congress should establish a separate vehicle or venue other than the child support program.