Union-Tribune Editorial

Resolving child support

Measure would cut through bureaucratic maze

September 17, 1998

It's very difficult to find two groups who disagree more vigorously on the sensitive matter of child support than parents who have been awarded custody and parents who have not. So, when both of these groups agree on a bipartisan bill to streamline the child support process, one would think it would enjoy widespread backing in the Legislature.

Think again.

The measure by Assemblywoman Dion Aroner, D-Berkeley, is opposed by the Attorney General's Office and the California District Attorneys Association. They view the measure as a nuisance that will cause problems. And since Gov. Pete Wilson generally sides with these powerful interests, Aroner's bill is in danger of being vetoed.

That's too bad, because the measure is designed to cut through the bureaucratic maze that is responsible for collecting and distributing court-ordered child support payments.

Simply stated, the bill would create a complaint resolution process that would make the system more accountable to parents and the public. The complaint resolution mechanism would be limited to collection, distribution and accounting problems. It would enable custodial families to determine, for instance, why the district attorney has collected the money but refused to pass it along to them. It would also allow noncustodial parents to receive an accounting of the payments they have made.

Today, unless they are prepared to go to court, where dockets are jammed, there is no process by which parents can request a fair hearing to resolve their differences. This is why the Little Hoover Commission, a state panel, recommended changes in the system, many of which are contained in the Aroner bill.

Rather than have the courts resolve child support disputes that are arithmetic -- not legal -- the bill would assign the cases to administrative law judges at the Department of Social Services. This makes sense because this is the agency responsible for overseeing child support statewide.

Federal funds would pay for two-thirds of the dispute resolution process, with state matching funds, approximately $500,000 during the first year, making up the difference. This would not only save the state money in reduced court costs, but it could help ensure that children receive the financial support due them and hasten the departure of single-parent families from the welfare rolls. It even might prompt people to believe in a system that is more responsive to their concerns.

It's important to note that Aroner's measure would not impede prosecutorial discretion. The reform also would permit district attorneys to implement an internal dispute resolution process to handle and settle such cases before they proceed any further.

This measure sailed through the Legislature because it is altogether reasonable and could save the state money in the long run. Gov. Wilson should sign it into law.