46^th Annual WCSEA Fall Conference

Intergovernmental Roundtable

October 11, 2023

Presenters

• Katie Marek – BCS/CS Policy Section/Information Systems Business Analyst – Advanced
• Melissa St. Croix – BCS/Intergovernmental Services & Operations Section/Central Registry
• Kendra Detert – BCS/Intergovernmental Services & Operations Section/Central Registry
• Rebecca Brueggeman – BCS/Intergovernmental Services & Operations Section/Manager

International Forms (iForms)

• iForms is now available in the Child Support Portal (CSP)
• CSL 23-08 describes iForms and how to get access
• iForms is to complete documents for Hague Convention Countries.
• Queues the Hague Convention forms to be completed and translates them to other languages
• Has Resource page with links to helpful sites
• Send KIDPOL with User Name, KIDS & WIEXT User IDs, and if they fluent in any language other than English
• Also need to be current user of CSP
• CS Systems Resource Guide and the CSP Fact Sheet have been updated with iForms info

​

Electronic Signatures

• We are curious in BCS – Do you and/or your courts accept electronic signatures? Does it depend on the document?

Intergovernmental Resources Pages

Changes made to Intergovernmental Enforcement Resource Page

​

1. Addition of Intergovernmental Q & A Scenario Documents Section

​

Changes made to Intergovernmental Enforcement – Other Countries

​

1. Cleaner and Leaner Page with Removal of Broken Links; Foreign Reciprocal Countries no longer listed individually

​

Intergovernmental Resources Pages

Intergovernmental Enforcement – Other States Resource Page

​

​

Intergovernmental Resources Pages

​

​

Multiple Orders

An Indiana court enters a child support order in 2015 for Adam to pay Eve $500/month for their two sons. In 2016 Adam moves to Illinois. In 2020 Eve also moves to IL where she applies for child support services. IL enters an administrative child support order in 2021 without knowing about the IN order.

​

1. Is IL’s order a modification of the IN order? A de novo (new) order?

​

​

Answer:

It is not a modification but a new order.

​

2. Is the IL order valid and does it matter that it was administrative?

​

​

Answer:

It is a valid order. Whether it is administrative or judicial does not matter due to Full Faith and Credit. There are circumstances where a second current support order exists because the second tribunal was unaware of a prior order.

​

3. What should happen to determine which is the enforceable order? Where?

Answer:

In cases where multiple orders exist, a tribunal (either a court, or a court and the child support agency) determines which order is the only one to be enforced and modified.

The tribunal with personal jurisdiction over the parties would rule on the validity of the second order so in this scenario it would be IL. State law and procedures will determine how the issue is brought before the tribunal. (For how we conduct this in WI, see our Intergovernmental Policy Manual Pages 9 & 10).

​

If we look at the Determination of Controlling Order Decision tree we will see that when there are 2 more orders we next look to the question “Can any issuing state claim CEJ?”

​

​

A tribunal has CEJ over a support order it has issued for as long as the payer, the payee, or child for whose benefit the support order was issued still resides in the state. CEJ is not lost if the NCP leaves the issuing state.

​

But CEJ was lost to IN when the CP and child left IN in 2020 since the NCP had already left prior. The IL tribunal will likely rule that the IL order is the controlling order as all parties are in IL and they can claim CEJ. Therefore the IL order would likely become the Controlling Order.

The important points are that only a tribunal can rule on the validity of an order, and the tribunal must have personal jurisdiction over both parties and subject matter jurisdiction.

Modifications Gone Awry

There is a 2013 child support order issued by Washington for Betty to pay Barney $900/month for their three children (unallocated). In 2015 Barney and the children move to Wisconsin and apply for child support services, so payments are forwarded. Both in 2016 and then again in 2019 the order receives a COLA in WA, so that the amount due is now $1000/month. In 2018, Betty moved to California, before the second COLA was completed. In 2022 the oldest child emancipates. Betty wants to pay less in support due to the emancipation of the one child.

​

1. What court should hear the modification?

​

​

Answer:

Unless both parties were to consent in the order issuing state’s tribunal for them to retain CEJ, Wisconsin should hear the modification as CEJ is floating with no parties continuing to reside in Washington. UIFSA’s play away rule presides with the state opposite the party requesting modification being the one to conduct the modification.

​

2. Betty’s income has increased, it turns out that the modifying state’s guidelines will result in an increase in support even for two children instead of three. Can Betty withdraw her modification petition when she hears about the increase?

​

​

Answer:

No. Once the ball is rolling there is no stopping it unless both parties were to stipulate otherwise (provided that CP father is not on aid in WI).

​

​

Financials – Other State Controlling Order

Use QUICK as a reference only

All states with open IV-D cases must maintain IV-D payment records in accordance with sections 454(10) and 454A(e)(4) of the Act.

The order-issuing state, in turn, must decide whether, how often, and by what means it would like to be notified of payments received by the initiating state. The intergovernmental Transmittal 3, Request for Assistance/Discovery, may be used for both notification of payments and payment record requests.

The initiating state then must provide the order-issuing state the requested payment information in accordance with UIFSA section 319(a).

Further, under UIFSA, the tribunal in State A that issued the controlling support order has the ultimate responsibility for determining amounts paid and amounts still owed under its order.

If no response to payment information requests consider arrears in dispute and not certify for tax intercept (WI is initiating state.)

IWO Issued by Non-Order State

• There is an 2020 Wisconsin order for Alice to pay Ralph $300/month in child support. In 2021 Alice moves to Nebraska and applies for services, so payments are now being forwarded from the WI SDU to the NE SDU. In 2022 Ralph also moves to NE. NE requests that WI close their two-state child support case with NE as there are no TANF arrears. NE registers the WI order for enforcement only. • Can NE now issue an IWO payable to their own SDU on this case? If so, where should the payments be sent? • If not, what should IN do to receive payments directly to its SDU?

Answer:

After registration NE can issue an IWO payable to the NE SDU.

WI still is the controlling order state until there is a modification.

WI needs to contact CP regarding services if it wants to make case NIVD.

WI can request payment information and NE must provide it under 769.319(a)

​

​

Support Establishment�No JX Custody and Placement

• What do you do when another state asks you to establish Paternity and a Support Order, but they don't give you a custody/placement order? And, they specifically inform you that your state does not have authority to determine custody/placement because the mother and child are in their state. In this case, we determined paternity only and then closed our case without a support order. How do you determine support without first knowing what the custody/placement is? And, does there need to be an order from the other state regarding custody/placement then? We are a border community and if this case was initiated in our state, we would have just used long arm jurisdiction and not asked Michigan to establish. Just wondering how we can determine support without knowing placement first. Thank you

​

Answer:

Accept and process an intergovernmental request for services regardless of whether the initiating agency elected not to use one-state remedies (e.g., long-arm processing, direct income withholding) that may be available under the law of that jurisdiction. Duties of Responding State 45 CFR 303.7 (d)(1)

Establish under Wis. Ch. 769 not Wis. Ch. 767.

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) Wis. Ch. 822 governs JX for custody and placement orders.

Can ask parties/other state for placement time percentage.

Exception to treating interstate cases same as in-state due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction of custody and placement.

​

Emancipation

Canada order states child support should be paid until child is out of college. Graduation date entered on demographics is 12/31/2025, 12/31/2099 on the court order screen and 12/31/2020 on child support debt.

• Why did the system put this case in PNDC and generate a Trans to Canada?
• Do we need to keep enforcing the order based on Canada’s order that child support continues until child graduates from college?
• Are parties allowed to come to an agreement on a specific emancipation date regardless of what the legal date of emancipation is for the enforcing state?

Answer:

• The KIDS system is only programmed to account for WI’s age of emancipation, which is 19. Any emancipation age past 19, you have to keep manually re-opening the case.
• We can only enforce another jurisdiction’s order up until their legal date of emancipation. If Ontario’s emancipation age is 21, but the child will be in college until they’re 25 and the order states to enforce until out of college, we can still only enforce up to 21. Any enforcement of current support past the order issuing states emancipation age would be a NIVD service, like spousal support. Always double-check with the other state worker on what the emancipation age is if an order is stating different.
• Yes, parties can come to an agreement of any age of emancipation.

​

You can reference the IRG for additional information on emancipation.

Interest

FL has a $700/month order for Jim to pay Kayla child support for their two children. Jim moves to GA, and the FL order is registered there for enforcement. FL charges 10% interest on arrears, which results in higher arrears amounts each month. GA tells FL that since they cannot calculate a 10% interest rate on child support arrears, they are unable to enforce the interest on arrears. FL wants their interest arrears enforced.

• What should happen on this case?

​

Answer:

​

• States will enforce orders using the same policies as they do for their in-state cases. So, Florida will need to keep their interest balance and Georgia does not have to collect interest. In, Wisconsin, we charge interest for in-state cases so we would enforce interest from other state orders.
• 3.10 Interest on Other-State’s Orders

For orders from another state, change the interest rate on the eligible financial obligations to match the rate charged by the other state; or suppress interest charging, adding “0” as the interest rate. If you cannot locate the other state’s interest rate, check the IRG on the Child Support Portal.

​

Resources

• Intergovernmental Resource Guide on the Child Support Portal
• https://share.dcf.wisconsin.gov/cs/factsheets/courtorder_entry.pdf
• Section 3.10- Interest on Other-State’s Orders

Questions????