Museado / NARA Collection rr-0840 — Collection rr-0840
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro)

Survos folio item chat

Back to [Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support, Final Report, January 1971

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity
localId
118565138
label
[Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support, Final Report, January 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565138
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565138
sourceUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565138
contentType
document
title
[Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support, Final Report, January 1971
citationUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565138
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
iiifBase
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P39-017-2017.pdf
thumbnailUrl
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P39-017-2017.pdf
largeImageUrl
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P39-017-2017.pdf
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
url
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118565138
naId
118565138
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P39-017-2017.pdf
mediaId
2e524c39250611f9
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers, 1966-74: Press Unit Folder Title: [Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support, Final Report, January 1971 Box: P39 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ PRESS STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD Final Report of the Task Force on ABSENT PARENT CHILD SUPPORT GREAT SEAL EUREKA OF THE STATE THE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY Department of Social Welfare JANUARY 1971 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE - 744 P STREET STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD SACRAMENTO 95814 January 8, 1971 ROBERT E. MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN THOMAS G. DAUGHERTY DR. WALTER W. DOLFINI MRS. DOROTHY D NATLAND ALAN S. RAFFEE MRS. ALEXANDER RIPLEY ARTHUR R. TIRADO SENATOR TOM CARRELL SENATOR H. L. RICHARDSON ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN BURTON ASSEMBLYMAN KENT H. STACEY JACK W. THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY The Honorable Ronald Reagan Governor of the State of California State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor Reagan: I am pleased to transmit herewith the final report of the State Social Welfare Board's Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support. This report incorporates the recommendations contained in our preliminary report transmitted to you on September 30, 1970. In our earlier report, we pointed out the serious so- cial and economic problems resulting from the lack of uniformity in the enforcement of child support obli- gations. We noted that as of June, 1969, only about twenty percent of the absent fathers of AFDC children were contributing to their support. In just one year, this percentage has dropped to about fourteen percent. We are equally concerned about problems in enforcing child support for non-welfare families, and the task force has addressed itself to this subject, as well. We believe the duty of parents to support their chil- dren is a basic moral and legal obligation which should only be assumed by others when circumstances beyond the control of the parents prevent their fulfilling this responsibility. We suggest that every effort should be made to insure that this philosophy is the keystone in enforcement programs throughout the State. Our children have an undisputed right to support from their parents; the people of this State have a right to in- sist that this obligation be clearly recognized and satisfied. Public officials and agencies involved have a duty to provide effective and uniform enforcement services. Page 2. The recommendations discussed in this report are de- signed to alleviate problems identified in our study and to provide a mechanism for prompt and effective enforcement of child support obligations. However, we wish to emphasize the need for a change in attitude on the part of many persons associated with social agen- cies and the various levels of law enforcement. The most effective administrative and statutory tools are of no value in the hands of unwilling, disinterested or untrained people. Your personal support of the positions expressed in this report is respectfully solicited, and we stand ready to assist you and your staff in resolving this serious social and economic problem. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. MITCHELL Chairman REM:ce encl. STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD Final Report of the Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support January 1971 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page State Social Welfare Board Membership List 1 Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support Membership List 2 1. Introduction 4 11. Scope of the Problem 7 A. Characteristics of the Absent Father 7 B. Social and Economic Significance 12 C. County Enforcement of Child Support 13 III. Interagency Cooperation 16 A. Coordination 16 B. Plan of Cooperation 17 C. Fiscal Considerations 23 IV. Prevention and Incentives 26 A. Counseling and Conciliation Courts 27 B. Incentives to Payment of Child Support 30 V. Enforcement Activities 33 A. Identification and Location 34 B. Legal Representation 38 C. Jurisdictional Problems and Prompt Action 39 D. Service of Process 42 E. Collection Resources 44 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 47 Appendix 1 - Aid to Families with Dependent Children (FG) Child Support Contribution Status of Estranged Fathers 52 Appendix 2 - Aid to Families with Dependent Children (FG) Deprivation Status of Father 53 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (FG) Duration of Mother's California Residency at Intake 53 Appendix 3 & SUMMARY - Absent Father Characteristic Study 54 Appendix 4 - Letter of Inquiry - Absent Parent Child Support 57 Appendix 5 - Absent Parent Child Support in AFDC - Monthly Average 58 Appendix 6 - Percentage of AFDC Cases in Which Child Support Contribution was Made 59 Appendix 7 - Proposed Outline Training Program for Welfare Employees on Absent Parent Child Support 60 -1- MEMBERSHIP LIST STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD Chairman Legislative Members Mr. Robert E. Mitchell Senator H. L. Richardson Attorney at Law Pasadena, California Norwalk, California Senator Tom Carrell San Fernando, California Members Assemblyman John Burton Mr. Thomas G. Daugherty San Francisco, California Attorney at Law Sacramento, California Assemblyman Kent H. Stacey Bakersfield, California Dr. Walter W. Dolfini Eureka, California Executive Secretary Mrs. Dorothy D. Natland Laguna Beach, California Mr. Jack W. Thompson 744 P Street Mrs. Alexander Ripley Sacramento, California 95814 Los Angeles, California 916/445-8934 Mr. Arthur R. Tirado Fresno, California Mr. Alan S. Raffee San Diego, California -2- STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD TASK FORCE ON ABSENT PARENT CHILD SUPPORT Mr. Robert E. Mitchell, Co-chairman Attorney at Law Norwalk, California Mr. Thomas G. Daugherty, Co-chairman Attorney at Law Sacramento, California Mr. Jack W. Thompson, Executive Secretary State Social Welfare Board 744 P Street Sacramento, California 95814 916/445-8934 Honorable Joseph G. Babich Mr. Jon Heinzer, Chief Investigator Judge of the Superior Court Office of the District Attorney Sacramento, California Domestic Relations Division Sacramento, California Mr. Michael Barber Deputy District Attorney Mrs. Shirley A. Henderson Domestic Relations Division Senior Deputy Probation Officer Sacramento, California Contra Costa County Probation Department Martinez, California Mr. Benton Clark Training Bureau Honorable John J. Hunter State Department of Social Welfare Ventura County Municipal Court Sacramento, California Oxnard, California Mrs. Gloria F. DeHart Mr. Robert E. Jornlin, Director Deputy Attorney General Contra Costa County Social Service Department San Francisco, California Martinez, California Mr. Arlo W. Dehnert, Chief Mrs. Truly Knox AFDC Bureau Coordinator - Central Registry State Department of Social Welfare Office of the Attorney General Sacramento, California Sacramento, California Honorable James Franson, Member Mr. Earl Osadchey, Head Deputy Board of Supervisors Child Support Division Stanislaus County Office of the District Attorney Newman, California Los Angeles, California Mrs. Betty Frazier, President Mr. Richard N. Parslow, Jr. ANC Mothers Welfare Rights Organization Deputy District Attorney Los Angeles, California Family Support Division Santa Ana, California -3- Mr. Granville Peoples, Director Orange County Department of Social Welfare Santa Ana, California Mr. Richard Peterson, Chief Family Support Division Fresno, California Warren E. Snell Sergeant Marshal Sacramento, California Mrs. Jean Temple, President Association for Children Deprived of Support Northridge, California 1. Introduction In carrying out its statutory function, the Social Welfare Board of the State of California conducts its meetings in counties throughout the state. Since March 1969, the Board has divided its meeting schedule between structured business sessions and community meetings. Community meetings have been held in many parts of the state and are attended by large numbers of welfare recipients, representatives of state and county governments and members of the general public. Early in its initial series of community meetings, the Social Welfare Board heard complaints from citizens on the subject of absent parent child support enforcement. Similar comments were heard in localities across the state indicating the widespread nature of the problem. Members of the State Social Welfare Board have an interest in and concern for children of welfare and nonwelfare families alike. The Board views parental responsibility for support of children as a basic moral and legal obligation and because of its awareness of the social and economic implications, determined to develop additional information on child support enforcement problems. Expert assistance in defining the problem areas was provided by two deputy district attorneys who are generally recognized as among the most active in the field of support enforcement. The Board also established contact with a group of welfare and nonwelfare mothers who had organized for the purpose of pressing for a higher level of enforcement activity in connection with efforts to obtain support from the absent father of their children. -5- Review of the then current report of the State Department of Social Welfare on the contribution status of absent fathers of welfare children (For the month of June 1969, see Appendix 1) indicated that only 20.1% of these estranged fathers were making any contribution to the support of their children. Similar comparative data on the contribution status of the nonwelfare absent father is not available. On the basis of information received from county officials and nonofficial sources, it appeared there was a wide difference in the level of involvement of individual district attorneys in nonwelfare support cases. Since there is no statewide organization which has responsibilities encompassing nonwelfare support enforcement activities specifically, it must be presumed that if comparative data exists at all it exists in various formats at the county level and is reflective only of that county's activities and has no statewide application. The implications involved in the breakdown of the parental support obligations are so vast that the State Social Welfare Board launched a major effort to bring the whole problem into perspective and propose solutions. With the cooperation of a number of state and county agencies and organizations, the Board formed a Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support (see membership roster), co-chaired by Board Chairman Robert E. Mitchell and Board Member Thomas G. Daugherty. The work of the Task Force was directed toward the objectives of: a. Impressing and persuading the public and concerned agencies with the nature and magnitude of the absent parent child support problem. b. Developing more effective remedies to compel enforcement of the child support obligation. -6- C. Proposing model funding and organizational patterns for effective enforcement units, as well as service units designed to gather and disseminate information needed in enforcement work. d. Pointing up the need for continuing efforts to achieve greater coordination among those agencies and individuals involved in child support enforcement activities. e. Encouraging state and local governments to place greater importance on this problem and to devote more resources to its resolution. The first meeting of this action-oriented group, in August 1970, was followed by the appointment of several subcommittees, each of which was assigned an area of responsibility. Subcommittee reports were reviewed and discussed by the entire Task Force membership. Concepts and positions expressed in this report, in most instances, reflect the consensus of the Task Force members, but in all cases the majority viewpoint. The early phase of the Task Force's work was contained in the State Social Welfare Board's Preliminary Report of the Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support published in October 1970. The preliminary report listed a total of fourteen recommendations in the areas of Attitudes and Education; Identification and Location; Procedure - Welfare/District Attorney; Legal Remedies; and, Resources. Generally, the recommendations contained in the preliminary report are restated in appropriate context in this Final Report of the Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support. -7- 11. Scope of the Problem California's divorce rate (1) is one indicator of the seriousness and magnitude of the problem of families in distress which affects children. Breakdown of the family structure involves the potential of psychological damage to individual family members and represents a problem with deep and lasting social and economic significance. One element of this problem is the abrogation of parental responsibility for support of their children. Idealistically, it can be said that the most effective cure for the problem of child support is the strengthening of family life in order to reverse the rising number of family breakdowns. However true this might be, there is much disagreement on the best approach to stem instances of family disunity and it does not deal with the real and immediate problem of providing children of these unions with the necessities of life. Although recognizing the value of preventive services, it is to the latter problem of enforcing financial support by parents for their children that the Task Force addresses itself. A. Characteristics of the Absent Father The term absent father, as used in this report, reflects the fact that it is usually the male parent who is the subject of child support enforcement activities although both parents are obligated under the law. It was immediately apparent that little is known about the characteristics of the absent father. The Task Force was unable to locate any statewide figures on nonwelfare absent fathers and even the mass of information produced on the welfare caseload was remarkably silent on welfare absent fathers as a group. (1) Provisional figures from the State Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics show 73,318 divorces in 1969 with a rate of 3.7 per 1,000 population. In 1960, there were 44,045 divorces with a rate of 2.8 per 1,000 population. -8- Some insights to the scope of the problem of obtaining child support in welfare cases can be gained by reviewing State Department of Social Welfare information on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Family Group) caseload. This is the largest single public assistance program in the State of California currently paying cash subsistence to over 850,000 children. One of the major eligibility requirements is that the child must be deprived of at least one parent. Although a small percentage of the absent fathers in this caseload are incapacitated or dead, almost 230,000, or about 85% of the absent fathers, are absent because of divorce, separation, desertion, imprisonment or because they were never married to the mother of the AFDC child. While the number of absent fathers in this program has increased alarmingly from 52,518 in 1962 to 229,367 in 1970, the percentage of distribution between the various categories of deprivation has changed little. A comparison between the distribution in 1962 and 1969 is contained in Appendix 2. Illegitimacy is a subject which usually evokes an emotional reaction, but it is a part of the absent parent child support problem. Two interesting statistics are available from the Department of Social Welfare with reference to the AFDC(FG) caseload. According to the State Department of Social Welfare, in the nine-year period between 1960 and 1969, there has been a change of only eight-tenths of one percent between those families on AFDC-FG with no illegitimate children and those with one or more illegitimate children. -9- March 1960 June 1969 No illegitimate children 56.0% 55.2% One or more illegitimate children 44.0 44.8 100% 100% Looking at those AFDC-FG families with illegitimate children, an interesting change has taken place over the same period from 1960 to 1969. While there has been a decrease of 8.1% in the families with two or more illegitimate children, there has been almost a corresponding increase of 7.9% of families with one illegitimate child. Related to this subject is the fact that 37% of the absent fathers in the AFDC-FG caseload in 1969 (Items j and k in Appendix 2) were never married to the mother of the AFDC child. These perspectives add emphasis to the need for prompt and effective procedures to establish paternity as a first step in obtaining child support payments for the children of these unions. In order to learn more about the characteristics of absent fathers, the Task Force undertook a study of those associated with welfare families, as well as those whose families were not on public assistance programs. The design of the study provided for the completing of an informational questionnaire on each new case at intake in the county's family support unit, operating either under the auspices of the district attorney or the county welfare director. In order to obtain information on welfare and nonwelfare cases, it was necessary to select for the study those counties in which enforcement activities included both groups. Through the -10- cooperation of officials in the counties of Orange, Ventura, Fresno, Contra Costa and Mendocino, staff members completed information forms on each new welfare support enforcement case for one week and on each nonwelfare case for two weeks. This study which was concluded on December 18, 1970 produced 527 completed welfare questionnaires and 103 nonwelfare questionnaires which did not contain information identifying the individual involved. The informal study (Appendix 3) was not designed to meet the criteria for scientific sampling methods, and the size of the sample in relation to the universe is such that the results are not valid for reliable projection. However, with these factors in mind, the information gained through this method provides some interesting insights into the character- istics of the welfare and nonwelfare absent fathers. A generalized composite of these two "persons" is as follows (Disregarding answers marked "unknown"): Both the welfare and nonwelfare absent father would more likely live in the county where their family resides. Welfare absent fathers are inclined to be a slightly younger group, with most falling between the ages of 20 to 29. The nonwelfare absent fathers are evenly divided between the 20 to 29 year age group and the 30 to 39 year age group. With respect to the ages under 20 years, both groups are about equal with nonwelfare fathers having a slight edge. Both welfare and nonwelfare fathers are likely to have been between the ages of 20 and 29 at the time of their marriage or association with the mother of their children. However, almost twice as many welfare absent fathers were under age 20 at the time of marriage or association as were nonwelfare fathers. The nonwelfare father is more likely to have remarried. The welfare father is more likely than the nonwelfare father to still be married to the mother of the children. -11- With respect to the size of the families in the current nonsupport case, it is interesting that 92% of both the welfare and nonwelfare absent fathers have 3 children or less. There were no striking differences between the welfare and nonwelfare absent fathers with regard to the number of dependent children in their "second" family. Both the welfare and nonwelfare absent father is most likely to be in the employment class of skilled or semi-skilled operative. Only slightly more nonwelfare fathers than welfare fathers were classed in the higher paid occupations. Unemployment was more prevalent among welfare absent fathers. There is little basis for comparing the income of the two groups except that they are reflective of the employment pattern described above. Nonwelfare fathers are slightly more inclined to have held their present job longer than their welfare counter- parts. However, among those who have held their jobs from 1 to 5 years, the two groups are about equal. Welfare fathers are several times more likely to have children for whom a court has not issued an order for support. This may be due to a number of factors, including the fact that welfare fathers are less likely to formally terminate the marriage than nonwelfare fathers. With respect to the time lapse since the last payment of child support, nonwelfare fathers were rather evenly distributed across the several time categories. Welfare fathers were more likely to have never made a child support contribution. The above statements are broad generalizations based on a small data sample which could be skewed because of the large number of "unknown" answers to some questions. However, it is interesting to note that the similarities between the welfare and nonwelfare absent father seem to be more pronounced than is generally thought to be the case. -12- B. Social and Economic Significance There are hundreds of thousands of broken families in California. Each breakdown is usually coupled with a financial crisis and long- lasting emotional turmoil among family members which can have a traumatic impact. Both of these factors, combined with general economic conditions, contribute to the failure of parents to provide adequately for their children. In the face of this problem, concern is expressed at the cavalier attitudes on the subject of child support expressed by some individuals whose work responsibilities put them in daily contact with persons affected by the problem. Some of these individuals believe that child support is punitive and that public assistance programs are designed as a more acceptable alternative to the enforcement of parental responsibility. This attitude has become more pervasive in recent years. This abdication of parental responsibility erodes the moral fiber of society; promotes dependency on public programs; interferes with parent/child relationships and places a huge and inequitable fiscal burden on our taxpayers. Child support payments do make a difference. In the AFDC-FG program alone, an estimated $36,500,000 in child support was collected from only about 15% of the absent fathers during fiscal year 1969-70. In some instances, individual families were able to use these funds to balance their budget. A major share of the amount collected represented an offset to the welfare grant with resulting savings in county, state and federal tax dollars. -13- Child support payments have an important effect on the stability and independence of nonwelfare families. In many cases, mothers are able to maintain their families through a combination of their full or part- time earnings and child support contributions from the absent father. Faced with a delay or cessation of child support payments, mothers in this situation generally do not have the means to retain private counsel. The lack of prompt and effective enforcement action at this crucial time frequently forces the mother onto the welfare rolls. Often the line separating nonwelfare mothers from welfare mothers is thin indeed. Receipt of child support payments on a regular basis does make the difference. Involved individuals and members of the general public have a right to expect that the needs of children be met. Further, they have the duty to insist that individuals and agencies charged with responsibility for enforcing support laws do so promptly, effectively and on a priority basis at least equal to the enforcement of other laws of this state. C. County Enforcement of Child Support As mentioned elsewhere in this report, figures are not available on the level of child support enforcement in nonwelfare cases. There is a lack of uniformity in the involvement of district attorney's offices in the handling of nonwelfare support cases. This contributes to the serious problem discussed in the previous section. Some information is available on the level of statewide support activities in welfare cases through the State Department of Social Welfare. The department maintains a permanent random sample of the statewide caseload on which statistical projections can be based. -14- Extracts from State Department of Social Welfare reports are reflected in the chart in Appendix I entitled Child Support Contribution Status of Estranged Fathers in the AFDC-FG program. It is evident that during the time the number of estranged fathers were increasing rapidly, the percentage of estranged fathers making any contributions to their AFDC children dropped to a new low of 14.7% in June 1970. This means that over 85% of the 230,000 absent welfare fathers have shifted the entire burden of supporting their children on the taxpaying public. The financial implications of the failure by these fathers is evident and staggering. In order to place the problem of enforcement in a more understandable perspective, the Task Force, with the cooperation of the State Department of Social Welfare, developed similar information on the welfare caseload on a county-by-county basis. An inquiry form (Appendix 4) was sent to each county welfare director requesting certain information for each month in the fourth quarter of the 1969-70 fiscal year. These figures were then averaged for each county to arrive at the monthly average number of AFDC cases in which the basis of deprivation was the absence of a parent; the number of cases in which a child support payment was made; and, the amount of child support paid. The averaging process was necessary to avoid a situation in which a court trustee or other officer carried over for a month or two and made a large transfer of child support funds in a single month. -15- The results of this study are shown in Appendices 5 and 6. The figures developed by the Task Force compare favorably, but not exactly, with the statewide figures of the State Department of Social Welfare because of the difference in the information base. The Task Force's study produced interesting and valuable results. However, care should be exercised in studying the figures since valid inferences cannot be made on the basis of this information as to specific problems within a county which affect its enforcement level. -16- 111. Interagency Cooperation A. Coordination There are few functions of government which equal the need for inter- agency cooperation than the child support enforcement function of county government. At the state level, the Department of Social Welfare and the Office of the Attorney General each play a part. The traditional partnership at the county level is between the office of the district attorney and the county welfare department. Clearly, however, there are a number of other agencies involved in some way. Some of these are the judiciary, boards of supervisors, the probation department, the sheriff's office, the marshal, etc. The complex interrelationship of the government entities involved in child support enforcement compounds efforts at problem-solving and underscores the need for coordination. Each group needs to have a clear understanding of its role and responsibilities, and an awareness and knowledge of the function performed by others in the network. The effective functioning of a number of agencies can be negated by the failure or lack of interest on the part of any single agency involved. Recommendation #1 There should be a clear restatement of public policy that parents have primary responsibility for the care and support of their children and that a family breakdown, separation, divorce or private dispute does not absolve them of this moral and legal obligation. This obligation exists whether the child was born to parents who are married or not. -17- Recommendation #2 There is a need for the development of a positive attitude on the part of all public agencies involved in the process of the enforcement of child support obligations, including members of the judiciary. A default by one of these individuals or agencies will result in failure of the entire system. Recommendation #3 Statutes should be amended to provide that in addition to its other mandated functions, each county grand jury should annually review the county's nonsupport program and the functioning of the several county agencies related thereto. B. Plan of Cooperation With respect to the enforcing of child support obligations in welfare cases, State Department of Social Welfare regulations require that a plan of cooperation be negotiated between the county welfare departments and the respective district attorney's offices for handling welfare cases. There are many benefits to be gained from expanding such agreements to include other agencies involved in the enforcement process, as well as activities related to nonwelfare cases. Such a document would have the effect of clearly defining the functions and responsibilities of each governmental entity and would be an aid in achieving greater coordination of effort at the county level. It is the position of the Task Force that the process of enforcing child support orders is a law enforcement function. Other agencies in county and state governments have an important but ancillary role to play in connection with the individuals involved in the support matter. Counseling and other helping relationships can be an asset in preventing child support problems. However, when there is a failure on the part of a parent to meet his obligation, other services should assume a secondary role in favor of prompt enforcement action. -18- State law and Department of Social Welfare regulations provide for the referring of the welfare case from the county welfare department to the district attorney's office within 45 days if the county welfare department is unable to enter into a satisfactory support agreement with the absent parent. There are several major problems associated with this procedure. This places the county welfare employee in the position of determining who is capable of supporting their children and who is not. Often this decision is based on inadequate information and insufficient objective investigation of the absent father's resources. In addition, the negotiating of voluntary agreements by county welfare staff injects an element of confusion. The voluntary agreement is not binding on the nonsupporting father and does not absolve him from responsibility for the full amount of court-ordered child support. Although he may have entered into the voluntary agreement in good faith, he may find himself faced with a nonsupport action for the amount of the arrearage at a later date. Further, in an effective nonsupport program, prompt investigation, early action and regular follow-up are vital ingredients to establishing a regular habit pattern on the part of the absent father. The additional delay of up to 45 days, plus the involvement of two separate county government agencies, detracts from the effectiveness of such a program. Recommendation #4 The judiciary has ultimate responsibility for fixing child support and collection of child support should be bound by the court's order. Section 11476 of the Welfare and Institutions Code should be amended to eliminate the practice of welfare agencies making voluntary agreements for the payment of child support. -19- Recommendation #5 Section 11476 of the Welfare and Institutions Code should be amended to require the immediate referral of all cases by the welfare department to district attorney's office in which the absent parent is not paying the full amount of court-ordered child support for whatever reason or cases in which there is no court order. The State Department of Social Welfare should change its regulations to require immediate referral of cases to the extent permitted by existing law. Eliminating the use of voluntary agreements by county welfare department staff and providing for prompt referral of cases places a burden of responsibility on the district attorney to insure that action is taken on each case. Nothing is accomplished by simply referring the case if it remains inactive in another county office. That county agency designed to receive and handle the child support collections not only has responsibility for conducting its affairs in a business-like manner, but should carefully consider the importance of the needs of individuals involved in a child support case. It is important to the development of the child to know that his father is supporting him either wholly or in part. Often this information can be used in counseling to assist in building closer ties among the individuals in a broken family. Recommendation #6 The county agency charged with responsibility for processing child support payments should provide the mother of the children with a form noting the date and amount of each child support check received. When a welfare family goes off aid, immediate steps should be taken to route child support payments directly to the mother. -20- Existing county plans of cooperation between county welfare departments and district attorneys should be reviewed to insure that functions, relationships and responsibilities are clearly defined. These agreements should be expanded to include nonwelfare cases as well and should include reference to other involved county agencies. After studying several county plans of cooperation, the Task Force has identified key elements which should form the basis of an effective nonsupport program. They are as follows: a. The auspices must be clear, the focus of responsibility definitively placed and the program consolidated as to administrative arrangements. Responsibility should be total. b. In order to achieve its prime objective, the program and administrative arrangements must be balanced to provide for both law enforcement and collections in a business-like manner. C. The plan must be comprehensive in scope, inclusive of the following components as to child support activities: 1. Intake 2. Investigations - Child Support 3. Probation 4. "Family Court" 5. Collections d. Associated with a plan under primary auspices of either district attorneys or county welfare departments may be units dealing with all aspects of fraud related to public assistance programs. e. The plan must address itself to a description and delineation of the interrelationships, collaborative and cooperative arrangements between the district attorney's office, the county welfare department, the courts, the probation department and other local agencies. -21- f. Forms and procedures are basic for a sound child support system and enhance cooperative working relationships. Additionally, an effective and workable plan of cooperation embodying the above principles should encompass a number of other elements. One of these is the encouragement of close working relationships between welfare intake and child support intake geared to mutual interests in promptness of action in securing child support from responsible parents. In keeping with the basic objective of getting support quickly and efficiently, family support units, in addition to providing key resources and activities internally, must relate to other community resources in furtherance of the above objective. External community resources include conciliation court, marital counseling and, in some instances, financial and employment counseling with the father. The district attorneys and law enforcement elements must use all possible legal remedies including modifications, civil paternity suits and the provisions of Penal Code Section 270. While the ideal arrangement may be one centralized operational unit located and housed in one place in the county, it is recognized that organizational arrangements should reflect the (varying) size and degrees of spread of population in various counties typically with several larger urban centers or cities. Considering the varying population/geographical sizes of counties, completely consolidated administrative and centralized operational -22- arrangements may not be workable in some counties. Organizational arrangements to provide for district stations or suboffices with a complete range of activities available on a decentralized basis wherever practical would be an appropriate modification. In almost all counties, except the several small counties, special job classifications and adequate staffing are required for purposes of a successful child support program. Training of this staff will assume even greater importance with the demand for increased coordination and effective action between agencies of county government. Training manuals and programs should provide an overview of the child support problem, a brief resume of applicable laws, the interrelationship of county agencies and the specific functions and responsibilities of the staff members undergoing the training. One group which plays a role in the total nonsupport program is the county welfare department staff. The State Department of Social Welfare regularly provides training manuals and other aids related to the several functions of county welfare departments. A training manual should be developed on the specific subject of child support for use by county welfare staff. A proposed outline for such training material is provided in Appendix 7. Training programs should emphasize the importance of involving staff members of the family support unit to assist with the instruction in order to provide a well-rounded program. Recommendation #7 The State Department of Social Welfare should publish a training guide for county welfare staff on the subject of absent parent child support and their appropriate role. Such a guide should emphasize the ways in which law enforcement staff can contribute their knowledge and experience in such a program. -23- The Task Force has found many counties eager to share their experience in nonsupport programs with other counties. Some of this is possible through statewide professional associations. Counties also express a willingness to demonstrate their programs through visitation by staff members from other agencies and counties. Among those expressing an interest in this type of consulting role are Orange, Fresno and Sacramento Counties. The major statewide organization related to nonsupport is the Family Support Council which functions under the auspices of the District Attorneys and County Counsels Association of California. This group provides important consultative services, a forum for review of pending legislation and an effective vehicle for interagency communication and development of operational guides and standards among nonsupport units across the state. Recommendation #8 The Family Support Council should work with the Attorney General's Office to update the Enforcement Officers' Manual & Guide to the Absent Parent Problem in California, January 1957, which should incorporate the work of the Task Force. C. Fiscal Considerations The Task Force recognizes the fiscal dilemma faced by county government but suggests that an effective nonsupport program for welfare, as well as nonwelfare, cases has important cost benefits. The prompt referral of welfare cases to the family support unit and their deeper involvement in nonwelfare cases each involve the possibility of increased staffing. However, in nonwelfare cases, the cost to the county of such additional -24- staff will be partially offset to the extent that the efforts of the nonsupport unit are successful in enforcing the support obligation, thus providing a resource other than public assistance for these families. Recent legislation offers some financial relief for counties in their nonsupport efforts on welfare cases. The 1967 Amendments to the Federal Social Security Act provided the authority for fiscal participation with counties in the cost of extended efforts beyond a base period to establish paternity and collect child support in welfare cases. The State Department of Social Welfare has published some material on this financial partnership, but there remains much confusion and misinformation on the part of the counties with respect to specifics. Resolution of this problem will help the counties meet the cost of their nonsupport programs. Recommendation #9 The State Department of Social Welfare should immediately publish specific information to counties on the nature of federal claimable items in the county's nonsupport and paternity program and provide detailed instructions on the procedure for claiming reimbursement. The Task Force supports the provisions of Assembly Bill 1648 which was passed by the 1970 Session of the California Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. Generally, this bill provides that in welfare nonsupport cases, the state share of welfare revenues received by the county are subject to deduction of the county's costs of child support enforcement. This bill will aid counties in recovering some of their costs and should help to stimulate an increased level of support enforcement activities. -25- Recommendation #10 The State Department of Social Welfare should immediately publish instructions to counties for the partial recovery of their expenses related to child support enforcement and establishing paternity as provided in AB 1648. -26- IV. Prevention and Incentives Prevention, as used in this section, refers to preventing a situation in which there is a default in child support payments requiring enforcement action. Reference is not made to the prevention of marriage dissolution since this is a subject beyond the charge of the Task Force. However, it is likely that many of the concepts and proposals expressed in this section can have a positive effect on reconciliation and the amelioration of hostile feelings among the individuals involved. Nonsupport problems are not necessarily associated only with the formal dissolution of a marriage. They can occur in connection with formal or informal separation of the parents, in situations where the parents were not married and did not live together and, perhaps, in some instances even when both parents remain in the home as an intact family. Regardless of the conditions under which the nonsupport situation arises, the people of California must demand that first priority must be given to providing for the care and necessities of life of the children over any other consideration. This concept must form the basis for the relationship between parents and county government agencies with whom they come in contact. It is especially important that this position be established in law and applied by members of the judiciary in dissolution matters and other related proceedings. It is reported that some private attorneys representing clients in dissolution proceeedings have advised mothers to apply for public assistance for their children while the property settlement apportions the father's income and resources among the various creditors. In this manner, the creditors are paid one-hundred cents on the dollar while the absent father "bankrupts" himself insofar as his children are concerned shifting the burden of their support on the taxpaying public. -27- Recommendation #11 Legislation should be enacted which would establish the priority of child support over debts owed to creditors in dissolution and related proceedings. The priority of family allowances over creditor's claims in probate law is a precedent for such a proposal. A. Counseling and Conciliation Courts As stated elsewhere in this report, the enforcement of the support obligation should be viewed as a law enforcement problem. However, the Task Force recognizes that the breakdown of family life represents a time of extreme crisis for the adults and children. There is often a change in the life style of the individuals involved and a changing of responsibilities and roles by the adults which adds to the confusion faced by the children. The hostile attitudes and other elements of the crisis must be dealt with through counseling and guidance for the good of all concerned. Recommendation #12 Parents should have both child support assistance and counseling available although conducted by staff with different orientations. It appears that the conciliation courts are the appropriate body for this type of service. Conciliation courts currently function in less than 20% of California's counties. Counties are required to provide marriage conciliation services to AFDC recipients where such services are warranted, either as a direct service or through a purchase of service ageeement. This requirement is discussed in State Department of Social Welfare regulations Section 10-050.4 as "services to strengthen individual and family life." The funding relationship for providing this service to AFDC recipients under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act is 75% federal and 25% county. -28- Marriage conciliation services can also be provided to former and potential welfare recipients under the same funding relationship provided that all such former and potential recipients in that area (county) become eligible for the service. If the county provides such service to non-AFDC recipients and those who are neither former nor potential recipients, the service costs for these nonwelfare-linked individuals is borne by the county. Standards which must be met to obtain federal reimbursement are set forth in State Department of Social Welfare regulations Section 10-001 and 10-003 for providing direct service and Section 10-034 for purchase of service agreements. The Annual Report of the Contra Costa County Conciliation Court published in April 1970 contains valuable information on the characteristics of the people being serviced and the scope of services provided. The report states that the reconciliation rate is approximately 40%. It goes on to point out, however, "Healthier family climate can only be a subjective evaluation made by the people who are involved in counseling.. we have not found a way to measure family comfort, two weeks, two months, or two years after counseling." Aside from the obvious personal and social benefits in a reconciliation, the Task Force believes there are additional benefits to be gained from this type of service. Among these are an improved relationship between the adults and children in the family; more consideration for the rights of the other party with respect to custody, visitation, etc., and less likelihood of a serious nonsupport problem in the future. -29- Using the present Conciliation Court Law, Section 1769(c), California Code of Civil Procedure, the court can direct the parties to appear before it under the penalty of contempt to set an order for child support. Using this vehicle, mothers could get prompt support orders without the necessity of filing dissolution proceedings. As an addition to the Conciliation Court structure provided in this statute, provision should be made for a Financial Referee and supportive staff who would interview each family with children going through dissolution proceedings. This staff, which could be acquired under a purchase of service agreement with another county agency, would function under the direct supervision of the Conciliation Court. The primary responsibility of the Financial Referee would be to obtain an agreement between the parties in regards to custody and support with a realistic view toward the welfare problem. He would refer the families for counseling as requested or indicated and would file his recommendations or the parties' agreement as to custody, visitation and support with the Conciliation Court Judge for judicial approval. Except as to the Financial Referee's involvement in counseling activities, no privilege would attach. Recommendation #13 Present Conciliation Court Law, Section 1769(c), California Code of Civil Procedure, should be amended to provide for a Financial Referee and supportive staff who would work with each family with children going through dissolution proceedings for the purpose of obtaining an agreement from the parties, subject to judicial review, on such matters as custody, visitation, support and referral for counseling. Recommendation #14 Section 4702(b), California Civil Code, should be amended to permit the immediate entry of a support order by the Conciliation Court in nonwelfare cases. This can be accomplished by substituting the words "child support to a parent" for "child support to a former spouse." -30- B. Incentives to Payment of Child Support One of the requisites of a good payment pattern on the part of the absent father is the reasonableness of the court's child support order. There are instances of excessive orders which place an impossible burden on the absent father. Conversely, there are also very low orders which fail to take into consideration the cost of raising children today, thus placing more of the burden on the mother and/or the tax-supported public assistance programs. For example, in the Task Force's survey of the characteristics of nonwelfare absent fathers, of those who were subject to a formal court order, almost 33% had been ordered to pay $50 or less per month. The answer to the problem of unreasonable child support orders lies in a full and complete disclosure by the parents of their income and resources and an interested and inquiring judiciary. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the judge to determine the amount of child support. This can only be accomplished adequately by compelling the presence of the absent father through subpoena, if necessary, and requiring a full and complete disclosure on his part in any proceeding where child support is to be fixed. Any petition or other document served on the absent father should place him on notice by stating the amount of child support being requested. Recommendation #15 Appropriate statutes should be modified to require the presence of the husband/father at any proceeding where child support will be set and courts should be provided with the statutory power to issue a subpoena if he does not appear. With both parties present, the court should give specific instructions on such matters as custody, support, visitation rights and other duties and obligations. -31- Recommendation #16 Statutes should be amended to provide that any petition or other document served on a parent in connection with a child support proceeding specify the amount of child support requested. Considering the number of absent fathers who pay nothing for support of their children, the father who makes his support payments diligently receives no consideration other than personal satisfaction that he is fulfilling his responsibilities. Some of these fathers, who are paying their full obligation at the expense of a severe financial strain, are harassed by former wives who repeatedly file petitions for modification of the child support order. Even though the petition may prove to be capricious in light of the father's circumstances, normally he is obligated to pay attorney's fees and court costs. Some direct incentives need to be provided for these fathers. They also have the right to expect that the noncontributing father is being actively pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Recommendation #17 There should be broader use of the work-furlough plan in county jails. Under this plan, the nonsupporting father who is confined to jail serves his term during nights and weekends and works during the day . His income is used to support his family and pay the expenses of his incarceration. Recommendation #18 Federal and state statutes should be amended to provide for some income tax incentive for those absent fathers who are meeting the full obligation of support established by court order. -32- Recommendation #19 The United States Internal Revenue Service and the State Franchise Tax Board should maintain an ongoing interest in and vigorously pursue those cases in which the absent father is claiming the child as a dependent and, in fact, is not contributing over half of the child's support. State and county agencies involved in nonsupport activities should cooperate in this effort. Recommendation #20 State statutes should be amended to provide that in any petition for modification of child support, the court is empowered to award fees to the prevailing party as a means of reducing capricious and vindictive petitions. -33- V. Enforcement Activities There is a wide variance among the counties of California in the success of their welfare child support programs. The Task Force's study of these activities, described in Section 11-C of this report, is reported in Appendices 5 and 6. Although reasons for differences between counties cannot be inferred from information gained in this study, it is clear that California's support laws are being unequally applied. This situation results in children not receiving the protection and support to which they are legally and morally entitled and an unfair burden on tax-supported programs. It is a problem which demands correction. Enforcing support is a difficult, frustrating unspectacular job at best. In too many California counties, the nonsupport unit is relegated a low priority in relation to the emphasis placed on more interesting and popular types of legal activities. This attitude has a tendency to permeate the staff in other county agencies who have a role to play in the nonsupport program, as well as to reinforce the position of those who feel that the whole idea of child support is punitive. What is needed is a career enforcement staff that is interested in innovating and highly trained in the intricate techniques required. It is suggested that there is no other area of law enforcement in which dramatic improvements can be made. Further, the nonsupport field is the only major area of law enforcement in which there is a direct cost/benefit to the taxpayer. -34 Based on information received in the course of this study, there is a problem of equal magnitude with respect to obtaining support in nonwelfare cases. Mothers of nonwelfare children who are attempting to maintain the stability and financial independence of their families, in some counties, cannot receive enforcement assistance from their district attorney's offices nor do they have the means to retain private counsel. Faced with a financial crisis because of a child support problem, a mother in these circumstances often has no other alternative but public assistance. This contact with welfare and free medical care need not be a short-term relationship. Exposed to the allowable deductions and federally-mandated earned income exemptions, the mother can build up a substantial monthly income before she becomes ineligible for public assistance. It is the position of the Task Force that district attorneys should take responsibility for enforcing nonwelfare child support matters for former and potential recipients, as well as other low-income mothers. However, it is recognized that other alternatives might be possible. Recommendation #21 The state and county bar associations and federally-funded legal aid programs should accept the challenge to promptly resolve the problems of low-income and potential recipient- mothers in obtaining legal assistance to enforce child support orders. A. Identification and Location The first step in establishing a consistent child support payment pattern is locating the absent father. Certain jurisdictional problems are encountered when the absent father is in another county and these problems are compounded when he leaves the state. There are legal remedies -35- designed to minimize such problems but, for the most part, the workings of Intercounty Reciprocal Act and the nationwide Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act usually involve delays. There is good reason to believe that most California welfare and nonwelfare absent fathers can be located in this state. In the Task Force's Characteristic Study of Absent Fathers (Appendix 3a), it was determined that of those absent fathers whose whereabouts were known, 72% of the welfare and 84% of the nonwelfare fathers were in California. Additional insights can be gained in welfare cases by analyzing the duration of the applicant/mother's residency in California at the time of intake. (See Appendix 2) This information reveals that almost 75% of the mothers who applied for AFDC for their children had been residents of California for seven years or longer. If a similar pattern can be attributed to the estranged father, it would suggest strong social and economic associations in this state suggesting that the father remains within the jurisdiction of California's support enforcement agencies. Aside from local resources used in locating nonsupporting absent fathers, the key element of state government directly involved in this activity is the Central Registry in the Office of the Attorney General. This unit receives requests for locating-information on absent fathers from counties throughout the state. The Central Registry sends simultaneous inquiries to the State Departments of Human Resources Development, Motor Vehicles and to the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation -36- in the Office of the Attorney General. It coordinates and collates the responses from these agencies and forwards the information package to the requesting county agency. Since its inception in 1953, this unit has provided a valuable service to California's support enforcement programs. Increased use of the Central Registry service by agencies of county government, lack of centralized responsibility for initiating an inquiry, duplicatory requests and staff shortages have combined to hamper the Central Registry's ability to respond to information requests on a timely basis. Inquiries have increased from 1500 to 5000 per month. The recent backlog was between 5000 and 9000 inquiries and response time averaged about 90 days. There were additional problems since the Central Registry functioned within the organizational structure of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation which was one of the information- contributing agencies of state government. Early in the work of the Task Force, a subcommittee was appointed to work with representatives of the Attorney General's Office who had long demonstrated their interest in providing an effective service. This subcommittee recommended that the Central Registry be designated as an organizational entity separate and apart from the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. The Task Force is gratified to report that this organizational change was adopted by the Attorney General effective October 1, 1970. In addition, the Task Force supported the recommendations of the subcommittee on a number of other related subjects. -37- The Task Force recognizes child support enforcement as primarily a law enforcement problem. The records of law enforcement agencies at the county level and their other sources of information are of value in locating absent parents. The utilization of these resources will reduce the volume of unnecessary inquiries to the Central Registry. In addition, centralizing responsibility for making inquiries to the Central Registry will avoid duplicatory inquiries. Recommendation #22 Responsibility for originating Central Registry inquiries should be placed with the District Attorney's Offices throughout the state, regardless of placement of the Family Support Division in the county's organizational structure (district attorney's office or county welfare department) and local information sources should be utilized before an inquiry is made. In recent years, certain federal records have been made available to aid in locating absent nonsupporting parents. However, the system for extracting information from these federal sources is cumbersome and is not effectively used at this time. Currently, the Central Registry obtains information from the records of three state agencies. It is suggested that a similar relationship could be developed with other state agencies and that the Central Registry could represent an important time-saving link in obtaining information from federal sources. Such a change in the operations of the Central Registry should be accomplished by means of a State Department of Social Welfare demonstration project with a built-in evaluation component to test the effectiveness of this new format on the basis of input data from the local child support -38- enforcement units. In connection with this proposal, a letter of intent was filed with the State Director of Social Welfare and a proposed project design is now under consideration for funding on a 50% federal matching basis. Recommendation #23 A high priority should be accorded the application for demonstration project funds by the Department of Social Welfare in connection with innovative information- gathering activities of the Central Registry. The small staff assigned to Central Registry is state funded. Attention should be given to the needs of this unit in the light of its increased workload. In addition, the 1967 Amendments to the Social Security Act provided for 50% federal reimbursement for extended effort beyond activities in a base period in the field of child support enforcement and establishing paternity. Since approximately 90% of the Central Registry's workload is related to welfare cases, it is likely that some federal funds could be made available for this unit's extended effort beyond the base period. Recommendation #24 An effort should be made to obtain federal participation in the funding of the Central Registry based on the provisions of the 1967 Amendments to the Social Security Act related to extended effort in enforcement of child support and establishing paternity in welfare cases. B. Legal Representation Elsewhere in this report, the Task Force discussed the reasons for its position that prompt and effective action to enforce child support orders by district attorneys throughout the state should be uniformly available -39- to welfare recipient mothers and other low-income mothers. The Task Force has also recommended that the state and county bar associations and federally-funded legal aid programs review the problem of legal representation for low income people and potential recipients. This is seen as a critical need which must be met by the district attorney unless a more effective alternative can be developed. Related to this, provision should be made for payment of court costs and attorney's fees to the county in those nonwelfare cases represented by the district attorney where some financial ability exists. Recommendation #25 Section 270 (f) of the Penal Code should be amended to make explicit the obligation of the District Attorney to prosecute both civilly and criminally welfare and nonwelfare nonsupport cases. This service should be uniformly available throughout the State of California. Recommendation #26 Section 4702(c), California Civil Code, should be amended to provide that in any court proceeding processed by the district attorney to enforce a child support order pursuant to this section, the court shall have the discretion to order either or both parties to pay to the county reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. C. Jurisdictional Problems and Prompt Action Jurisdictional problems add an element of confusion to the already difficult problem of enforcing the child support obligation. In California, both municipal and superior courts are involved. The effort is further complicated when either or both the complaining witness and the defendant are located in different counties or in jurisdictions other than the one in which the original court order was -40- filed. It is possible under California law for a nonsupporting defendant/absent father to find himself the subject of a court proceeding in two courts at the same time or in two counties at the same time. Earlier, the Task Force recommended that the statutes be amended to preclude welfare employees from taking voluntary agreements for child support. These voluntary agreements add a third element of confusion since they do not absolve the absent father from prosecution in connection with the difference between the amount of child support ordered and the amount paid. Methods must be developed to simplify these intricate jurisdictional problems in order that swift justice can be obtained. The Task Force addressed itself to this problem and proposes several related courses of action. Recommendation #27 Misdemeanor (270 P.C.) nonsupport cases should be transferred from lower courts to the superior courts so that one court would handle the problem of nonsupport in all its phases. Recommendation #28 Statutes should be amended to provide for a simple change in venue process 50 that enforcement of existing child support orders can follow the payee. Recommendation #29 The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act should be amended to provide a simple means of resolving the problem of enforcing support orders when the plaintiff moves to another jurisdiction. Recommendation #30 Section 270 of the California Penal Code related to felony convictions should be amended to satisfy the objections of the Supreme Court contained In re: Clennon Washington King on Habeas Corpus, California Supreme Court Criminal 14130 (October 2, 1970) in order to restore the felony provisions. -41- Once jurisdiction of the nonsupport case is established, another problem arises in the form of unreasonable delays between the time the action is filed and the parties have their day in court. There are a number of procedural. problems involved in this delay including the time normally required to serve the necessary papers on the defendant. Legal maneuvering by defendant's counsel can add to the delay. It is evident that this is a crucial period. Children are deprived of support and each day of delay adds to the problem. It is at this point in time that alternative support arrangements, such as public assistance, must be considered by the mother. Successful delaying tactics can also create the impression on the part of the nonsupporting father that enforcement processes are ineffective. What is needed is the statutory authority for issuing a forthwith enforcement order. This proposal is not inconsistent with the Task Force's earlier recommendation for broadening the duties and responsibility of the Conciliation Courts. The Task Force supports a plan where, in a dissolution action, a three- day order to show cause in nonsupport cases could be issued. Such a process would be based on an affidavit by the mother, which could be filed in pro per, to the effect that: a. She has actual physical custody of the children. b. She has not received a child support payment or a substantial payment within 30 days. C. The child support payments are necessary to provide the necessities of life. Those eligible for public assistance shall be deemed to be deprived of the necessities. d. That the father has income, has been requested to pay and has refused or failed to do so. -42- Under such a plan, the court would issue an order requiring the father to pay the support forthwith to the mother, court trustee or other agency, or to appear within 3 court days (10 days if out of county) to show cause. First priority of personal service of the order would be on the father and second priority on the employer with the restriction that this action would not be cause for dismissal of the father/employee. Service of the order and the hearing would be on a priority basis with fees not to exceed $3.00. The court could enforce the support order, discontinue the action, insure visitation rights, order payment of support to a vendor and/or order support pending a date set for a hearing to modify the amount of support. Support ordered under this procedure could not exceed one-half of the father's net earnings. Recommendation #31 Statutes should be amended to provide for a quick remedy in enforcing child support. Service of process and date of appearance should be limited to 3 court days (10 days if out of county). D. Service of Process There is no system of priorities associated with the service of papers in connection with child support enforcement activities. In some jurisdictions, thousands of warrants remain unserved. There are instances where even traffic warrants are given a higher priority. Jurisdictional problems exist between political subdivisions of the state and, in some areas, between marshals and constables. Fees for service are inclined to vary to a considerable extent, depending on which agency effects service of the document. -43- At least one county has found an effective means to circumvent delays associated with personal service of documents and at a reduced cost. This procedure involves a letter-form of citation instructing the individual to appear in connection with an outstanding nonsupport warrant. A study has shown that of those individuals who actually received the letter-citation by first class mail, 95% made a personal appearance in the support enforcement unit in answer to the outstanding warrant. Recommendation #32 Each county's child support unit should adopt a letter- citation type of voluntary arraignment in efforts to collect child support and enforcement of 270 PC warrants as a first step before attempting personal service of the citation. Regardless of the success of the letter-citation form of voluntary arraignment, a concerted effort must be made to resolve the problem of priority for child support warrants and to cope with the large backlog of unserved warrants throughout the state. Each day the warrant remains unserved, there is another day's loss of support for children and the potential for increased use of tax dollars for that support. Recommendation #33 Wherever possible, Marshals attached to Municipal Courts should be used to serve warrants in child support matters considering their slightly reduced workload following removal of responsibility for prejudgment garnishments. Recommendation #34 Statewide organizations whose members are involved in the service of warrants should accept the challenge to conduct general educational programs through all available channels on the importance of timely and priority service of 270 PC warrants. -44- Recommendation #35 The Attorney General's Office should determine the feasibility of requiring reports from warrant-serving agencies. E. Collection Resources The Task Force expresses concern about child support provisions of federal legislation designed to reform the welfare system which are pending at this time or introduced in the future. Included in such legislation should be a mechanism through which local agencies could recover child support funds out of moneys owed by the federal government to nonsupporting parents (income tax refunds, etc.). In view of the expressed interest by all levels of government in the welfare and support of children, there is little justification for these potential resources to be exempt from execution for child support. Recommendation #36 Federal welfare reform legislation now pending or introduced in the future should provide a mechanism which would permit local agencies to recover unpaid child support from moneys owed to the nonsupporting parent by the federal government (income tax refunds, etc.). Other federal laws and regulations have long been a barrier to collecting absent parent child support. There appears to be no rational reason for some federal laws and regulations to provide for financial participation in child support enforcement activities while, at the same time, other federal laws and regulations impose barriers to these activities. This inconsistency exists with respect to federal employees, retired federal employees and members of the military. The same principles apply to -45- other public retirement systems which are now exempt. The following proposals are designed to provide the means of enforcing support from these individuals who, because of the nature of their employment, receive protections not afforded to others in similar circumstances. All of this to the detriment of their children and the tax-paying public. Recommendation #37 Notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity, legislation should be enacted to provide for garnishment and execution of wages of federal employees, retired employees, members of the military and other exempt public employment resources, as well as wage assignments for the purpose of collecting child support. Recommendation #38 Federal statutes and Department of Defense regulations should be changed to provide for support of an illegitimate child who is acknowledged by the father or legitimated by court order so as to be consistent with the federal Social Security Act. There is another inconsistency in the field of child support collection activities. Nonsupporting fathers, or those who owe an arrearage of child support, may engage in real property transactions in this state with relative impunity. Enforcement authorities may not have been successful in locating him. His monthly income may be sufficient to pay current support, but not the accumulated arrearage. Regardless of these circumstances, currently, his real estate transactions are relatively free of scrutiny and attack. This is a form of protection not accorded the debtor in other transactions (mechanics' liens, etc.) which are less basic to our social structure than is the matter of the individual's obligation for support of his children. -46- Under present state statutes, the authority exists for the recording of the abstract of judgment related to the child support order. The recording of this document creates a lien against any real property in the county owned by the nonsupporting father in the amount of the arrearage. When the property is sold, the title search will disclose this lien which will have to be satisfied or released before proceeds of the sale are paid to the absent father. The practice of recording the abstract of judgment with the county recorder should be adopted by child support units throughout the state as a first step in collection efforts. Recommendation #39 Family Support Divisions throughout the state should record an abstract of judgment related to child support orders with the County Recorder as the first step in the collection process which would have the effect of imposing a lien on real property in the county owned by the nonsupporting father in the amount of the arrearage. Considering the mobility of California's population and the fact that an increasing number of people own real property in more than one county, there is ample justification for extending the above child support lien provision to the state level. What is involved in the Task Force's proposal is legislation which would provide for the recording of child support judgments on a statewide basis, which would create a lien against any real property owned by the nonsupporting father in the State of California. Recommendation #40 Legislation should be enacted to permit Family Support Divisions to file an abstract of judgment for child support with the Secretary of State who shall effect recording of this abstract in all counties, or such counties as may be requested by the Family Support Division. Liens thus imposed may be released by the Family Support Division. -47- SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Interagency Cooperation 1. There should be a clear restatement of public policy that parents have primary responsibility for the care and support of their children and that a family breakdown, separation, divorce or private dispute does not absolve them of this moral and legal obligation. This obligation exists whether the child was born to parents who are married or not. 2. There is a need for the development of a positive attitude on the part of all public agencies involved in the process of the enforcement of child support obligations, including members of the judiciary. A default by one of these individuals or agencies will result in failure of the entire system. 3. Statutes should be amended to provide that in addition to its other mandated functions, each county grand jury should annually review the county's non- support program and the functioning of the several county agencies related thereto. 4. The judiciary has ultimate responsibility for fixing child support and collection of child support should be bound by the court's order. Section 11476 of the Welfare and Institutions Code should be amended to eliminate the practice of welfare agencies making voluntary agreements for the payment of child support. 5. Section 11476 of the Welfare and Institutions Code should be amended to require the immediate referral of all cases by the welfare department to district attorney's office in which the absent parent is not paying the full amount of court-ordered child support for whatever reason or cases in which there is no court order. The State Department of Social Welfare should change its regula- tions to require immediate referral of cases to the extent permitted by existing law. 6. The county agency charged with responsibility for processing child support payments should provide the mother of the children with a form noting the date and amount of each child support check received. When a welfare family goes off aid, immediate steps should be taken to route child support payments directly to the mother. 7. The State Department of Social Welfare should publish a training guide for county welfare staff on the subject of absent parent child support and their appropriate role. Such a guide should emphasize the ways in which law enforce- ment staff can contribute their knowledge and experience in such a program. 8. The Family Support Council should work with the Attorney General's Office to update the Enforcement Officers' Manual & Guide to the Absent Parent Problem in California, January 1957, which should incorporate the work of the Task Force. -48- 9. The State Department of Social Welfare should immediately publish specific information to counties on the nature of federal claimable items in the county's nonsupport and paternity program and provide detailed instructions on the procedure for claiming reimbursement. 10. The State Department of Social Welfare should immediately publish instruc- tions to counties for the partial recovery of their expenses related to child support enforcement and establishing paternity as provided in AB 1648. Prevention and Incentives 11. Legislation should be enacted which would establish the priority of child support over debts owed to creditors in dissolution and related proceedings. The priority of family allowances over creditor's claims in probate law is a precedent for such a proposal. 12. Parents should have both child support assistance and counseling available although conducted by staff with different orientations. It appears that the conciliation courts are the appropriate body for this type of service. 13. Present Conciliation Court Law, Section 1769(c), California Code of Civil Procedure, should be amended to provide for a Financial Referee and supportive staff who would work with each family with children going through dissolution proceedings for the purpose of obtaining an agreement from the parties, subject to judicial review, on such matters as custody, visitation, support and referral for counseling. 14. Section 4702(b), California Civil Code, should be amended to permit the immediate entry of a support order by the Conciliation Court in nonwelfare cases. This can be accomplished by substituting the words "child support to a parent" for "child support to a former spouse." 15. Appropriate statutes should be modified to require the presence of the husband/father at any proceeding where child support will be set and courts should be provided with the statutory power to issue a subpoena if he does not appear. With both parties present, the court should give specific instructions on such matters as custody, support, visitation rights and other duties and obligations. 16. Statutes should be amended to provide that any petition or other document served on a parent in connection with a child support proceeding specify the amount of child support requested. 17. There should be broader use of the work-furlough plan in county jails. Under this plan, the nonsupporting father who is confined to jail serves his term during nights and weekends and works during the day. His income is used to support his family and pay the expenses of his incarceration. 18. Federal and state statutes should be amended to provide for some income tax incentive for those absent fathers who are meeting the full obligation of support established by court order. -49- 19. The United States Internal Revenue Service and the State Franchise Tax Board should maintain an ongoing interest in and vigorously pursue those cases in which the absent father is claiming the child as a dependent and, in fact, is not contributing over half of the child's support. State and county agencies involved in nonsupport activities should cooperate in this effort. 20. State statutes should be amended to provide that in any petition for modification of child support, the court is empowered to award fees to the prevailing party as a means of reducing capricious and vindictive petitions. Enforcement Activities 21. The state and county bar associations and federally-funded legal aid programs should accept the challenge to promptly resolve the problems of low-income and potential recipient-mothers in obtaining legal assist- ance to enforce child support orders. 22. Responsibility for originating Central Registry inquiries should be placed with the District Attorney's Offices throughout the state, regardless of placement of the Family Support Division in the county's organizational structure (district attorney's office or county welfare department) and local information sources should be utilized before an inquiry is made. 23. A high priority should be accorded the application for demonstration project funds by the Department of Social Welfare in connection with innovative information-gathering activities of the Central Registry. 24. An effort should be made to obtain federal participation in the funding of the Central Registry based on the provisions of the 1967 Amendments to the Social Security Act related to extended effort in enforcement of child support and establishing paternity in welfare cases. 25. Section 270(f) of the Penal Code should be amended to make explicit the obligation of the District Attorney to prosecute both civilly and criminally welfare and nonwelfare nonsupport cases. This service should be uniformly available throughout the State of California. 26. Section 4702(c), California Civil Code, should be amended to provide that in any court proceeding processed by the district attorney to enforce a child support order pursuant to this section, the court shall have the discretion to order either or both parties to pay to the county reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. 27. Misdemeanor (270 P.C.) nonsupport cases should be transferred from lower courts to the superior courts so that one court would handle the problem of nonsupport in all its phases. 28. Statutes should be amended to provide for a simple change in venue process so that enforcement of existing child support orders can follow the payee. -50- 29. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act should be amended to provide a simple means of resolving the problem of enforcing support orders when the plaintiff moves to another jurisdiction. 30. Section 270 of the California Penal Code related to felony convictions should be amended to satisfy the objections of the Supreme Court contained In re: Clennon Washington King on Habeas Corpus, California Supreme Court Criminal 14130 (October 2, 1970) in order to restore the felony provisions. 31. Statutes should be amended to provide for a quick remedy in enforcing child support. Service of process and date of appearance should be limited to 3 court days (10 days if out of county). 32. Each county's child support unit should adopt a letter-citation type of voluntary arraignment in efforts to collect child support and enforcement of 270 PC warrants as a first step before attempting personal service of the citation. 33. Wherever possible, Marshals attached to Municipal Courts should be used to serve warrants in child support matters considering their slightly reduced workload following removal of responsibility for prejudgment garnishments. 34. Statewide organizations whose members are involved in the service of warrants should accept the challenge to conduct general educational programs through all available channels on the importance of timely and priority service of 270 PC warrants. 35. The Attorney General's Office should determine the feasibility of requiring reports from warrant-serving agencies. 36. Federal welfare reform legislation now pending or introduced in the future should provide a mechanism which would permit local agencies to recover unpaid child support from moneys owed to the nonsupporting parent by the federal government (income tax refunds, etc.). 37. Notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity, legislation should be enacted to provide for garnishment and execution of wages of federal employees, retired employees, members of the military and other exempt public employment resources, as well as wage assignments for the purpose of collecting child support. 38. Federal statutes and Department of Defense regulations should be changed to provide for support of an illegitimate child who is acknowledged by the father or legitimated by court order so as to be consistent with the federal Social Security Act. -51- 39. Family Support Divisions throughout the state should record an abstract of judgment related to child support orders with the County Recorder as the first step in the collection process which would have the effect of imposing a lien on real property in the county owned by the nonsupporting father in the amount of the arrearage. 40. Legislation should be enacted to permit Family Support Divisions to file an abstract of judgment for child support with the Secretary of State who shall effect recording of this abstract in all counties, or such counties as may be requested by the Family Support Division. Liens thus imposed may be released by the Family Support Division. Appendix 1 AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (FG) CHILD SUPPORT CONTRIBUTION STATUS OF ESTRANGED FATHERS 1962 1970 Percentage of Estranged Fathers Contributing Number of Noncontributing Estranged Fathers (1962 and 1970) 32 245,000 30.3 30 230,000 28 215,000 26 200,000 24.9 24.5 Percentage of Estranged Fathers Contributing to Support of AFDC Children 24 185,000 23.2 22 170,000 20.1 20 155,000 19.0 18 140,000 16 125,000 14.7 Number of Noncontributing Estranged Fathers in AFDC Caseload 14 110,000 12 95,000 10 80,000 8 65,000 6 50,000 JULY JULY JULY JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE '62 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 70 As indicated by the above chart, the percentage of estranged fathers contributing child support to their AFDC children dropped to an eight-year low of 14.7% in June 1970. Equally alarming is the fact that the number of estranged noncontributing fathers increased from 52,518 in July 1962 to 229,367 in June 1970. Appendix 2 AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (FG) DEPRIVATION STATUS OF FATHER (1962 - 1969) (Refers to father of youngest eligible AFDC child) DEPRIVATION STATUS 1962 1969 A. Child not deprived of father 1.5% 1.8% B. Father incapacitated 8.9 11.0 C. Father dead 4.9 3.1 D. Imprisoned 4.8 3.1 E. Deported or excluded 0.8 0.4 F. Divorced or annulled 19.1 20.3 G. Legally separated 2.2 4.2 H. Married, separated without court decree 12.1 12.5 I. Married, deserted 6.5 6.6 J. Never married to mother, never lived together 29.8 30.5 K. Never married to mother, but lived together 9.4 6.5 There has been little appreciable change in the deprivation status of fathers with children represented in the AFDC caseload during this period. The chart reveals that 37 percent of the fathers were not married to the mother of the AFDC child (Items J and K), thus emphasizing the need for prompt and effective procedures to establish paternity as a first step in obtaining child support. AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (FG) DURATION OF MOTHER'S CALIFORNIA RESIDENCY AT INTAKE June 1969 PERCENTAGE Less than 1 year 3.0% 1 year 6.1 2 years 3.8 3 years 3.5 4 - 6 years 9.0 7 - 9 years 7.2- 10 - 14 years 12.5- 15 - 19 years 17.6- 20 - 24 years 16.9- 25 years or more 20.4- The median years of California residence is 15.9. This median has fluctuated less than six-tenths of a year since July 1965. The chart reveals that almost 75 percent of the AFDC mothers at intake had been California residents for seven years or longer. If a similar pattern can be attributed to the estranged father, it would indicate strong social and economic associations in this state, suggesting that the father would remain within the jurisdiction of California's support enforcement agencies. Appendix 3a SUMMARY Absent Father Characteristic Study Based on a study of new child support cases conducted in the counties of Orange, Ventura, Fresno, Contra Costa and Mendocino during the period December 7, 1970 through December 18, 1971. (All percentages rounded.) Welfare Nonwelfare Total Item Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1. Responses Contra Costa 65 78 18 22 83 100 Fresno 144 83 29 17 173 100 Mendocino 53 94 2 6 35 100 Orange 221 82 46 18 267 100 Ventura 64 88 8 12 72 100 Total 527 103 630 2. Last known location of absent father In county 207 39 46 46 253 40 In state 137 26 34 34 171 28 Out of state 132 26 15 15 147 24 Unknown 49 9 4 5 53 8 Total 525 100 99 100 624 100 3. Present age of absent father Under 20 27 5 9 9 36 6 20 - 29 227 44 30 30 257 42 30 - 39 136 27 30 30 166 26 40 - 49 88 17 18 19 106 17 50 and over 19 3 11 11 30 5 Unknown 26 4 1 1 27 4 Total 523 100 99 100 622 100 4. Age of absent father at time of marriage (or association) to complaining witness Under 20 137 26 14 14 151 24 20 - 29 244 55 69 70 363 59 30 - 39 41 8 5 5 46 7 40 - 49 16 3 3 3 19 3 50 and over 3 1 -- -- 3 1 Unknown 35 7 8 8 43 6 Total 526 100 99 100 625 100 5. Last known marital status of absent father Still married to complaining witness (c/w) 54 10 1 1 55 9 Separated from c/w 140 28 29 29 169 27 Divorced from c/w 127 26 39 41 166 27 Never married to c/w and single 71 12 4 4 75 12 Married to another 67 11 21 21 88 13 Separated from another 4 1 -- : 4 1 Divorced from another 7 1 : -- 7 1 Widowed 2 1 -- : 2 1 Unknown 55 10 4 4 59 9 Total 527 100 98 100 625 100 Appendix 3b SUMMARY Absent Father Characteristic Study (Continued) Welfare Nonwelfare Total Item Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 6. How many children in this case 1 275 53 40 41 315 51 2 134 26 34 35 168 27 3 70 13 16 16 86 14 4 23 4 3 3 26 4 5 11 2 3 3 14 2 6 6 1 1 1 7 1 7 5 1 1 1 6 1 Total 524 100 98 100 622 100 7. Absent father's dependent children other than those in this case None 228 43 52 53 280 45 1 49 9 9 9 58 9 2 23 4 3 3 26 4 3 14 3 4 4 18 3 4 2 1 1 1 3 1 5 5 1 1 1 6 1 6 1 1 : -- 1 1 More than 6 4 1 -- -- 4 1 Unknown 199 37 29 292 228 35 Total 525 100 99 100 624 100 8. Last known occupation of absent father Professional or semiprofessional 24 5 9 9 33 5 Proprietor, manager, official 24 5 7 7 31 5 Clerical, sales 32 6 7 7 39 6 Craftsman, foreman 42 8 9 9 51 8 Armed forces 25 5 3 3 28 4 Operatives, skilled, semi 118 21 36 37 154 25 Farm laborer 14 3 1 1 15 2 Service worker 21 4 4 4 25 4 Unskilled laborer 90 17 8 8 98 16 Retired 2 1 -- : 2 1 Student 5 1 : : 5 1 Disabled 2 1 -- -- 2 1 Unemployed 57 10 1 1 58 9 Unknown 70 13 14 14 84 13 Total 526 100 99 100 625 100 Appendix 3c SUMMARY Absent Father Characteristic Study (Continued) Welfare Nonwelfare Total Item Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 9. Approximate monthly income of absent father None 72 13 2 2 74 11 Under $200 11 2 1 1 12 2 200 - 399 32 6 4 4 36 5 400 - 599 58 11 9 9 67 11 600 - 799 52 10 14 14 66 11 800 - 999 13 3 12 12 25 4 1000 - 1199 9 1 7 7 16 3 1200 - 1399 -- -- -- -- : -- 1400 - 1599 1 1 2 2 3 1 1600 and over 1 1 : -- 1 1 Unknown 278 52 48 49 326 51 Total 527 100 99 100 626 100 10. Approximate time absent father has held present job Less than 1 year 3 1 3 3 6 1 1 to 2 years 57 15 16 18 73 16 3 to 5 years 34 9 5 5 39 7 More than 5 years 44 11 22 24 66 14 Unknown 247 64 45 50 292 62 Total 385 100 91 100 476 100 11. Amount of court ordered child support in this case None 333 63 15 15 348 56 $20 or less 7 1 1 1 8 1 21 - 50. 76 14 25 26 101 16 51 - 75 45 9 28 29 73 12 76 - 100 40 7 20 21 60 10 101 - 125 10 2 3 3 13 2 126 - 150 14 3 3 3 17 2 Over 150 1 1 2 2 3 1 Total 526 100 97 100 623 100 12. How long since last payment of child support 0 - 30 days 128 24 19 21 147 24 31 - 60 days 32 6 17 19 49 8 61 - 90 days 19 4 10 11 29 5 91 - 180 days 21 4 12 14 33 5 Longer 66 12 18 20 84 14 Never 260 50 13 15 273 44 Total 526 100 89 100 615 100 Appendix 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE 744 P STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 We have been requested by the State Social Welfare Board to provide them with additional information on absent parent contributions which is not available in State Department of Social Welfare records. Please complete the information listed below and return to the State Department of Social Welfare within 15 days. APRIL 1970 MAY 1970 JUNE 1970 1. Total number of AFDC cases in which the basis of deprivation was the continued absence of a parent. 2. Total number of AFDC cases in which the basis of deprivation was the continued absence of a parent and for which you actually received an absent parent child support payment. 3. Total amount of absent parent child support payments received. If you have any questions, please contact Larry Harrison, 916/445-0290. When completed, mail to State Department of Social Welfare, Attention: Fiscal Field Support Bureau, 744 P Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Sincerely yours, R. E. Bishop, Acting Chief Field Services Division Appendix 5 ABSENT PARENT CHILD SUPPORT IN AFDC MONTHLY AVERAGE - FOURTH QUARTER 1969-70 Total number Total number AFDC cases In AFDC cases in which basis of Amount received Percent absent Average payment which basis of deprivation was Average payment County in absent parent parent's per contributing deprivation is continued absence per absent parent child support contributing parent continued absence of parent and of parent child support payment received All counties 236,911 41,718 $3,126,643 17.6 $74.95 $13.20 Alameda 19,113 1,563 105,514 8.2 67.50 5.52 Alpine 5 1 246 20.0 246.00 49.20 Amador 52 19 1,578 36.5 83.05 30.35 Butte 1,195 241 12,384 20.2 51.38 10.36 Calaveras 125* 33* 1,027 26.4 31.12 8.21 Colusa 116 21 1,406 18.1 66.95 12.12 Contra Costa 8,824* 2,606 111,727 25.0 50.65 12.66 Del Norte 186 54 3,456 29.0 64.00 18.58 El Dorado 420 123 9,903 29.3 80.51 23.57 Fresno 8,682* 2,639 138,342 30.4 52.42 15.93 Glenn 126 20 989 15.9 49.45 7.84 Humboldt 1,246 674 39,785 54.1 59.02 31.93 Imperial 1,460 108 7,620 7.4 70.55 5.21 Inyo 122 30 2,332 24.6 77.73 19.11 Kern 4,823 693 36,560 14.4 52.75 7.58 Kings 974 146 8,648 14.9 59.23 8.87 Lake 185 64 4,836 34.6 75.56 26.14 Lassen 149 24 1,195 16.1 49.79 8.02 Los Angeles 84,027 11,527 1,441,974 13.7 125.09 17.16 Madera 516 183 11,469 35.5 62.67 22.22 Marin 1,444 151 8,512 10.4 56.37 5.89 Mariposa 22 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Mendocino 682 175 11,937 25.6 68.21 17.50 Merced 1,529 226 10,933 14.9 48.37 7.15 Modoc 65 18 1,349 27.7 74.94 20.75 Mono 20 -0- 50 -0- -0- -0- Monterey 2,768* 240 24,673 8.7 102.80 8.91 Napa 538 168 11,424 31.2 68.00 21.23 Nevada 312 63 5,346 20.2 84.85 17.13 Orange 5,109* 1,330 119,135 26.0 89.57 23.31 Placer 1,175* 253 20,934 21.5 82.74 17.81 Plumas 79 16 1,927 20.2 120.43 24.39 Riverside 5,109* 1,174 74,124 22.9 63.13 14.50 Sacramento 12,035 2,496 138,494 20.7 55.48 11.50 San Benito 197* 50 2,475 25.4 49.50 12.56 San Bernardino 7,646 1,647 102,199 21.5 62.05 13.36 San Diego 12,289* 2,018 143,505 16.4 71.11 11.67 San Francisco 13,214 3,600* 43,436 27.2 12.06 3.28 San Joaquin 4,228 585 27,187 13.8 46.47 6.43 San Luis Obispo 1,175* 270 19,542 22.9 72.37 16.63 San Mateo 3,231* 993 63,951 30.7 64.40 19.79 Santa Barbara 2,257* 348 24,883 15.4 71.50 11.02 Santa Clara 10,567* 1,390 88,333 13.2 63.54 8.35 Santa Cruz 1,358 179 11,116 13.2 62.80 8.18 Shasta 804 481 25,973 59.8 53.99 32.30 Sierra 7 1 103 14.3 103.00 14.71 Siskiyou 249 26 2,430 10.4 93.46 9.75 Solano 1,388 577 47,614 41.6 82.51 34.30 Sonoma 2,403 368 25,989 15.3 70.62 10.81 Stanislaus 3,152 969 62,392 30.7 64.38 19.79 Sutter 419 107 5,360 25.5 50.09 12.79 Tehama 310 32 3,006 10.3 93.93 9.69 Trinity 49 10 638 20.4 63.80 13.02 Tulare 3,039 280 16,468 9.2 58.81 5.41 Tuolumne 215 36 2,835 16.7 78.75 13.18 Ventura 3,261 358 15,594 10.9 43.55 4.78 Yolo 1,393 262 17,971 18.8 68.59 12.88 Yuba 827 52 3,814 6.3 73.34 4.61 * Estimates Appendix 6 PERCENTAGE OF AFDC CASES IN WHICH CHILD SUPPORT CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE Monthly Average - 4th Quarter 1969-70 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% TOTALS State Average Appendix 7 Proposed Outline Training Program for Welfare Employees on Absent Parent Child Support 1. Child Support Collection Program a. Legal Base b. What is the program and its philosophy? (1) Implementation of the program in the specific welfare department. (a) Why does it exist (b) How does it operate (c) How is it used (d) When is it used and by whom (e) What is the relationship with the District Attorney office function. 2. Worker Role and Responsibility a. To understand legal expectations in the child support function (i.e., 1967 social security amendments; state and county regulations) b. To obtain information from the client C. To understand the importance of this information and how it is used by the different units d. To understand what the agency expects of the worker e. To learn how a referral is implemented and completed to the collection unit f. To understand his ongoing responsibility after the referral is made: (1) To the child(ren) (2) To the parents (3) To the court (4) To the agency. 3. Appropriate Approach - Manner and Attitude a. To understand the effect of the child support function on the parent-child relationship (1) Making parents aware of their responsibility (2) Helping parents assume their responsibility b. To learn methods and approaches in working with hostile or reticent parents C. To help workers recognize when to withdraw and return cases to the District Attorney for action.