Commone sense in child support enforcement.

• Author: McCabe, John M.

In 1993, eight state legislatures enacted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), a major overhaul of interstate child support enforcement rules. Completed by the Uniform Law Conference in 1992, UIFSA has been introduced in an additional 13 state legislatures, and even more states are expected to consider it in 1994.

UIFSA replaces the earlier Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which has been the primary connection between states for enforcing child support orders since the 1950s. It is the law in every state in the United States, except in those eight that replaced it with UIFSA.

URESA has served its purpose well over its 30-year history, but child support enforcement has changed dramatically in that time. The United States has grown in population, and there are more divorces and more single parents. Today, one in four children in the United States - more than 10 million - grows up in a single-parent household.

Child support enforcement today is a cooperative effort between state and federal governments with increased services available to custodial parents and children, larger bureaucracies devoted to delivering those services, and improved collection techniques. The effort has simply grown beyond the original URESA. The new UIFSA meets the larger demands of enforcement that exist today and means more money for those children deprived of support.

Interstate child support enforcement cases - about 30 percent of cases nationally - are the most difficult to resolve. They consistently have the poorest collection record. Part of the problem is their complexity.

Consider the following case. A couple married, had a child and divorced in New York. The mother was awarded custody of the child, and the father was ordered to pay child support. The mother and child moved to Florida, and the father to Delaware. In the meantime, he fell behind in his child support payments. He was employed in Delaware by a company incorporated and headquartered in Minnesota.

All four states are involved in the enforcement dispute, and communications and evidence must move between courts in all four jurisdictions to resolve it. There is nothing in current law to prevent courts in any of these states from hearing and deciding elements of the dispute independently of and simultaneously with the other states. So the Delaware court, which responded under URESA to a petition from Florida, must go forward in an uncertain position, dependent upon...