< Back to Current Version

The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

Changes from July 19, 2023 to January 9, 2026

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

The Child Support Enforcement Program:
July 19, 2023
Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950
Jessica Tollestrup
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program
Specialist in Social Policy
(Title IV-D of the Social Security Act [SSA], P.L. 93-647). This followed several precursor laws

creating federal child support requirements that had been enacted in the 1950s and 1960s. At its
inception, the primary purpose of the CSE program was to reduce public expenditures on cash

assistance (then Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], currently the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] block grant) by obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents that could be
used to reimburse the state and federal governments for part of that assistance. Cash assistance recipients were required to
cooperate with CSE activities and assign (i.e., legally turn over) collections made on their behalf to the state. These
collections were then split between the federal and state governments as reimbursement for cash assistance payments. This
purpose is often referred to as cash assistance cost-recovery. Relatedly, the program also sought to ensure financial support
for children from their noncustodial parents on a consistent and continuing basis to enable some of those families to remain
off public assistance.
Since its enactment in 1975, more than 50 laws have made changes to the CSE program. The amendments in the 1980s (in
particular, the Child Support Amendments of 1984 and the Family Support Act of 1988) broadened the mission beyond cash
assistance cost-recovery to include service delivery for both assistance and nonassistance families. Income support for
assistance families also became an increasing focus of the program, which led to changes to child support distribution and
sanctions for noncooperation. In addition, this period saw improvements in the technological capabilities of the program to
locate parents and collect support. These improvements expanded the reach of the program and were commonly regarded as
having increased its efficacy. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA;
P.L. 104-193) made numerous changes to establishment and enforcement authorities that were aimed at strengthening the
ability of the program to collect support. It also enacted the “family first” policy, which required that former assistance
families receive certain child support arrearage payments collected by the state before the state and federal governments
retain their share of collections. In the decades since, additional changes to Title IV-D have included expansions to
enforcement methods, changes to program funding, and further alterations to the rules that govern how support is distributed
to families. It is widely asserted that since the late 1990s the CSE program has been considered effective in improving the
financial well-being of custodial families by making child support a more reliable source of income.
This report summarizes the laws that have made changes to the CSE program. It begins by providing an overview of the
program and current law requirements. It then discusses the events leading to the enactment of the CSE program in 1975 and
the context for major legislation enacted since that time. The bulk of the report is devoted to describing the precursor laws to
the CSE program, the provisions that were part of the initial law, and the many subsequent provisions that amended the
program. (For a list of these laws, see Table 2). The information on individual CSE provisions generally focuses on how the
main provisions of the CSE program changed over time, and it does not provide an exhaustive summary of all provisions in
each law. (Most CSE provisions were enacted with changes to other human services and SSA programs, frequently as
provisions in omnibus budget reconciliation bills). In addition, this report generally focuses only on changes made to Title
IV-D of the SSA, which authorizes the CSE program. With a few exceptions, child support-related provisions outside Title
IV-D are beyond the scope of this report.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Key Abbreviations Used in This Report.................................................................................... 2
CSE Program Overview .................................................................................................................. 3
Program Financing .................................................................................................................... 3
Program Activities ..................................................................................................................... 4

The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

Updated January 9, 2026 (R47630) Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

  • Introduction
  • Key Abbreviations Used in This Report
  • CSE Program Overview
  • Program Financing
  • Program Activities
    •  Context for Federal CSE (IV-D) Program Establishment and Major Legislative Changes ............ 6
    Child Support Enforcement Prior to the Enactment of the CSE Program ................................ 6
    Establishment of the CSE Program ........................................................................................... 7
    The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 and the Family Support Act of
    1988 ........................................................................................................................................ 8
  • Establishment of the CSE Program
  • The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 and the Family Support Act of 1988
    •  The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
    (PRWORA) and Related Legislative Changes ..................................................................... 10
    Most Recent Legislative Changes ........................................................................................... 12
    Child Support Enforcement Laws ................................................................................................. 13
    1950 ......................................................................................................................................... 15
    Social Security Amendments of 1950 ............................................................................... 15
    Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) ............................................ 15
    1965 ......................................................................................................................................... 16
    Social Security Amendments of 1965 ............................................................................... 16
    1967 ......................................................................................................................................... 16
    Social Security Amendments of 1967 ............................................................................... 16
    1975 ......................................................................................................................................... 16
    Social Services Amendments of 1974 ............................................................................... 16
    P.L. 94-46 .......................................................................................................................... 19
    P.L. 94-88 .......................................................................................................................... 19
    1976 ......................................................................................................................................... 19
    P.L. 94-365 ........................................................................................................................ 19
    Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976 ...................................................... 19
    1977 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
    Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 ................................................................. 20
    Extension of Certain Social Welfare Programs ................................................................. 20
    Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments ................................................. 20
    P.L. 95-171 ........................................................................................................................ 21
    1978 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
    Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 ....................................................................................... 21
    1980 ......................................................................................................................................... 21
    P.L. 96-178 ........................................................................................................................ 21
    Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 .............................................................. 21
    Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 ........................................................ 22
    P.L. 96-611 ........................................................................................................................ 22
    1981 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 ................................................................... 22
    1982 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
    Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 ............................................................ 22
    Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act ....................................................... 23
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982 ................................................................... 23
    Congressional Research Service

    link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 46 link to page 46 link to page 47 link to page 47 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    1983 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
    Social Security Amendments of 1983 ............................................................................... 23
    1984 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
    Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1983 ......................................... 23
    Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 .......................................................................................... 24
    Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 ........................................................... 24
    1986 ......................................................................................................................................... 26
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 ................................................................... 26
    1987 ......................................................................................................................................... 26
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 ................................................................... 26
    1988 ......................................................................................................................................... 27
    International Child Abduction Remedies Act ................................................................... 27
    Family Support Act of 1988 .............................................................................................. 27
    1989 ......................................................................................................................................... 30
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 ................................................................... 30
    1990 ......................................................................................................................................... 30
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 ................................................................... 30
    1992 ......................................................................................................................................... 30
    Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 ................................................................................ 30
    Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992 ......................................................... 31
    1993 ......................................................................................................................................... 31
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ................................................................... 31
    1994 ......................................................................................................................................... 32
    Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act .......................................................... 32
    Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 ....................................................................................... 32
    Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994 ...................................................... 32
    Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 ........................................................................ 32
    1995 ......................................................................................................................................... 33
    P.L. 104-35 ........................................................................................................................ 33
    1996 ......................................................................................................................................... 33
    (PRWORA) and Related Legislative Changes
  • Most Recent Legislative Changes
  • Child Support Enforcement Laws
  • 1950
  • Social Security Amendments of 1950
  • Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
  • 1965
  • Social Security Amendments of 1965
  • 1967
  • Social Security Amendments of 1967
  • 1975
  • Social Services Amendments of 1974
  • P.L. 94-46
  • P.L. 94-88
  • 1976
  • P.L. 94-365
  • Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976
  • 1977
  • Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
  • Extension of Certain Social Welfare Programs
  • Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments
  • P.L. 95-171
  • 1978
  • Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978
  • 1980
  • P.L. 96-178
  • Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
  • Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
  • P.L. 96-611
  • 1981
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
  • 1982
  • Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
  • Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
  • 1983
  • Social Security Amendments of 1983
  • 1984
  • Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1983
  • Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
  • Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984
  • 1986
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
  • 1987
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
  • 1988
  • International Child Abduction Remedies Act
  • Family Support Act of 1988
  • 1989
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
  • 1990
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
  • 1992
  • Child Support Recovery Act of 1992
  • Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992
  • 1993
  • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
  • 1994
  • Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act
  • Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994
  • Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994
  • Social Security Act Amendments of 1994
  • 1995
  • P.L. 104-35
  • 1996
  • Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Omnibus Consolidated Recessions and Appropriations Act of 1996)
  • Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
  • 1997
  • Balanced Budget Act of 1997
  • Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
  • Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
  • 1998
  • Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998
  • Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998
  • Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998
  • 1999
  • Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000
  • Foster Care Independence Act of 1999
  • 2004
  • Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
  • SUTA Dumping Prevention Act of 2004
  • Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
  • 2006
  • Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
  • Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006
  • 2007
  • Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007
  • 2008
  • Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
  • 2009
  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
  • 2010
  • Claims Resolution Act of 2010
  • 2011
  • Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011
  • 2013
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013
  • 2014
  • Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act
  • 2018
  • Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
  • 2021
    •  Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Omnibus Consolidated Recessions
    and Appropriations Act of 1996) ................................................................................... 33
    Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 .................... 33
    1997 ......................................................................................................................................... 41
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ........................................................................................... 41
    Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 ............................................................................................. 42
    Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 .......................................................................... 42
    1998 ......................................................................................................................................... 43
    Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 ....................................................................... 43
    Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 .................................................... 43
    Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998 ............ 45
    1999 ......................................................................................................................................... 45
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 ............................................................................ 45
    Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 ............................................................................. 45
    2004 ......................................................................................................................................... 46
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 ............................................................................ 46
    SUTA Dumping Prevention Act of 2004 .......................................................................... 46
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 ............................................................................ 46
    2006 ......................................................................................................................................... 46
    Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 .......................................................................................... 46
    Congressional Research Service
    link to page 53 link to page 53 link to page 53 link to page 53 link to page 53 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 54 link to page 55 link to page 55 link to page 55 link to page 55 link to page 55 link to page 7 link to page 18 link to page 56 The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006 ..................................................................... 48
    2007 ......................................................................................................................................... 48
    Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007 ......................................................... 48
    2008 ......................................................................................................................................... 48
    Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 ....................... 48
    2009 ......................................................................................................................................... 49
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ......................................................... 49
    2010 ......................................................................................................................................... 49
    Claims Resolution Act of 2010 ......................................................................................... 49
    2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 49
    Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 ....................................................... 49
    2013 ......................................................................................................................................... 49
    Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013 ................................... 49
    2014 ......................................................................................................................................... 49
    Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act ............................................ 49
    2018 ......................................................................................................................................... 50
    Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 .......................................................................................... 50
    2021 ......................................................................................................................................... 50
    Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits
    Improvement Act of 2020 .............................................................................................. 50

    Tables
    Table 1. Key Acronyms for CSE Systems, Related Federal Entities, and Laws ............................. 2
    Table 2. Child Support Enforcement Laws Since 1950 ................................................................. 13

    Contacts
    Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 51


    Congressional Research Service
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Introduction
  • Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020
  • 2025
  • Supporting America's Children and Families Act

    • Summary

    The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program
    ((established in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act [SSA]Title IV-D of the Social Security Act [SSA]; by P.L. 93-647P.L. 93-647).).1 This followed several precursor laws This followed several precursor laws
    creating federal child support requirements that had been enacted in the 1950s and 1960s. At its creating federal child support requirements that had been enacted in the 1950s and 1960s. At its
    inception, the primary purpose of the CSE program was to reduce public expenditures on cash inception, the primary purpose of the CSE program was to reduce public expenditures on cash
    assistance (then Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], currently the Temporary assistance (then Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], currently the Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] block grant) by obtaining ongoing support from Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] block grant) by obtaining ongoing support from
    noncustodial parents that could be used to reimburse the state and federal governments for part of noncustodial parents that could be used to reimburse the state and federal governments for part of
    that assistance. Cash assistance recipients were required to cooperate with CSE activities and that assistance. Cash assistance recipients were required to cooperate with CSE activities and
    assign (i.e., legally turn over) collections made on their behalf to the state. These collections were assign (i.e., legally turn over) collections made on their behalf to the state. These collections were
    then split between the federal and state governments as reimbursement for cash assistance then split between the federal and state governments as reimbursement for cash assistance
    payments. This purpose is often referred to as payments. This purpose is often referred to as cash assistance cost-recovery. Relatedly, the . Relatedly, the
    program also sought to ensure financial support for children from their noncustodial parents on a program also sought to ensure financial support for children from their noncustodial parents on a
    consistent and continuing basis to enable some of those families to remain off public assistance.consistent and continuing basis to enable some of those families to remain off public assistance.
    Since its enactment in 1975, more than 50 laws have made changes to the CSE program. The Since its enactment in 1975, more than 50 laws have made changes to the CSE program. The
    amendments in the 1980s (in particular, the Child Support Amendments of 1984 and the Family amendments in the 1980s (in particular, the Child Support Amendments of 1984 and the Family
    Support Act of 1988) broadened the mission beyond cash assistance cost-recovery to include Support Act of 1988) broadened the mission beyond cash assistance cost-recovery to include
    service delivery for both service delivery for both assistance and families that receive cash assistance and those that do not receive cash assistance (i.e., assistance families and nonassistance families)nonassistance families. Income support for assistance . Income support for assistance
    families also became an increasing focus of the program, which led to changes to child support families also became an increasing focus of the program, which led to changes to child support
    distribution and sanctions for noncooperation. In addition, this period saw improvements in the distribution and sanctions for noncooperation. In addition, this period saw improvements in the
    technological capabilities of the program to locate parents and collect support. These technological capabilities of the program to locate parents and collect support. These
    improvements expanded the reach of the program improvements expanded the reach of the program while increasingand were commonly regarded as having increased its efficacy. The Personal its efficacy. The Personal
    Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-193Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-193),
    ) made numerous changes to establishment and enforcement authorities that were aimed at made numerous changes to establishment and enforcement authorities that were aimed at
    strengthening the ability of the program to collect support.strengthening the ability of the program to collect support.2 It also enacted the It also enacted the “"family firstfamily first”
    " policy, which required that former assistance families receive certain child support arrearage policy, which required that former assistance families receive certain child support arrearage
    payments collected by the state before the state and federal governments retain their share of payments collected by the state before the state and federal governments retain their share of
    collections. In the decades since, additional changes to Title IV-D have included expansions to collections. In the decades since, additional changes to Title IV-D have included expansions to
    enforcement methods, changes to program funding, and further alterations to the rules that govern enforcement methods, changes to program funding, and further alterations to the rules that govern
    how support is distributed to families. It is widely asserted that since the late 1990s the CSE how support is distributed to families. It is widely asserted that since the late 1990s the CSE
    program has been considered effective in improving the financial well-being of custodial families program has been considered effective in improving the financial well-being of custodial families
    by making child support a more reliable source of income.by making child support a more reliable source of income.3

    1 See Sections 451-469B of the SSA (42 U.S.C. §§651-669b). The federal regulations can be found at 45 C.F.R. Parts
    301.0-310.40. Note that Title IV-D and the regulations in 45 C.F.R. refer to the “Office of Child Support Enforcement”
    and the “Child Support Enforcement Program.” However, on June 5, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services (HHS) published a notice in the Federal Register changing the name of the program and administering entity
    within HHS to the “Office of Child Support Services” in Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and
    Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
    (ACF) (Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 107, June 5, 2023, p. 36587). As no conforming changes have been made to
    Title IV-D or 45 C.F.R, this report continues to refer to the program as “Child Support Enforcement.”
    2 HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), “ This report summarizes the laws that have made changes to the CSE program. It begins by providing an overview of the program and current law requirements. It then discusses the events leading to the enactment of the CSE program in 1975 and the context for major legislation enacted since that time. The bulk of the report is devoted to describing the precursor laws to the CSE program, the provisions that were part of the initial law, and the many subsequent provisions that amended the program. (For a list of these laws, see Table 2). The information on individual CSE provisions generally focuses on how the main provisions of the CSE program changed over time, and it does not provide an exhaustive summary of all provisions in each law. (Most CSE provisions were enacted with changes to other human services and SSA programs, frequently as provisions in omnibus budget reconciliation bills). In addition, this report generally focuses only on changes made to Title IV-D of the SSA, which authorizes the CSE program. With a few exceptions, child support-related provisions outside Title IV-D are beyond the scope of this report.

    Introduction

    The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (established in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act [SSA] by P.L. 93-647).1 This followed several precursor laws creating federal child support requirements that had been enacted in the 1950s and 1960s. At its inception, the primary purpose of the CSE program was to reduce public expenditures on cash assistance (then Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], currently the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] block grant) by obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents that could be used to reimburse the state and federal governments for part of that assistance. Cash assistance recipients were required to cooperate with CSE activities and assign (i.e., legally turn over) collections made on their behalf to the state. These collections were then split between the federal and state governments as reimbursement for cash assistance payments. This purpose is often referred to as cash assistance cost-recovery. Relatedly, the program also sought to ensure financial support for children from their noncustodial parents on a consistent and continuing basis to enable some of those families to remain off public assistance.

    Since its enactment in 1975, more than 50 laws have made changes to the CSE program. The amendments in the 1980s (in particular, the Child Support Amendments of 1984 and the Family Support Act of 1988) broadened the mission beyond cash assistance cost-recovery to include service delivery for both families that receive cash assistance and those that do not receive such assistance (i.e., assistance families and nonassistance families). Income support for assistance families also became an increasing focus of the program, which led to changes to child support distribution and sanctions for noncooperation. In addition, this period saw improvements in the technological capabilities of the program to locate parents and collect support. These improvements expanded the reach of the program while increasing its efficacy.     The Personal Responsibility and Work The Personal Responsibility and Work
    Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,” August 31, 1996, https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/personal-responsibility-work-
    opportunity-reconciliation-act-1996.
    3 See, for example, Center for Law and Social Policy, “Child Support is an Effective and Important Program for
    Families,” August 31, 2016, https://www.clasp.org/blog/child-support-effective-and-important-program-families; and
    Daniel Schroeder, The Limited Reach of the Child Support Enforcement System, American Enterprise Institute,
    December 2016, https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-limited-reach-of-the-child-support-enforcement-
    system/.
    Congressional Research Service

    1
    link to page 18 The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-193), made numerous changes to establishment and enforcement authorities that were aimed at strengthening the ability of the program to collect support.2 It also enacted the "family first" policy, which required that former assistance families receive certain child support arrearage payments collected by the state before the state and federal governments retain their share of collections. In the decades since, additional changes to Title IV-D have included expansions to enforcement methods, changes to program funding, and further alterations to the rules that govern how support is distributed to families. It is widely asserted that since the late 1990s the CSE program has been considered effective in improving the financial well-being of custodial families by making child support a more reliable source of income.3 This report summarizes the laws that have made changes to the CSE program. It begins by This report summarizes the laws that have made changes to the CSE program. It begins by
    providing an overview of the program and current law requirements. It then discusses the events providing an overview of the program and current law requirements. It then discusses the events
    leading to the enactment of the CSE program in 1975 and the context for major legislation leading to the enactment of the CSE program in 1975 and the context for major legislation
    enacted since that time. The bulk of the report is devoted to describing the precursor laws to the enacted since that time. The bulk of the report is devoted to describing the precursor laws to the
    CSE program, the provisions that were part of the initial law, and the many subsequent provisions CSE program, the provisions that were part of the initial law, and the many subsequent provisions
    that amended the program. (For a list of these laws, seethat amended the program. (For a list of these laws, see Table 2). The information on individual . The information on individual
    CSE provisions generally focuses on how the main provisions of the CSE program changed over CSE provisions generally focuses on how the main provisions of the CSE program changed over
    time, and it does not provide an exhaustive summary of all provisions in each law. (Most CSE time, and it does not provide an exhaustive summary of all provisions in each law. (Most CSE
    provisions were enacted with changes to other human services and SSA programs, frequently as provisions were enacted with changes to other human services and SSA programs, frequently as
    provisions in omnibus budget reconciliation bills.) In addition, this report generally focuses only provisions in omnibus budget reconciliation bills.) In addition, this report generally focuses only
    on changes made to Title IV-D of the SSA, which authorizes the CSE program. With a few noted on changes made to Title IV-D of the SSA, which authorizes the CSE program. With a few noted
    exceptions, child support-related provisions outside Title IV-D are beyond the scope of this exceptions, child support-related provisions outside Title IV-D are beyond the scope of this
    report.report.44
    Key Abbreviations Used in This Report
    This report uses abbreviations for several CSE systems, related federal entities, and laws.This report uses abbreviations for several CSE systems, related federal entities, and laws.
    Table 1. Key Acronyms for CSE Systems, Related Federal Entities, and Laws
    Acronym
    Definition
    IV-D
    Title IV-D of the Social Security Act
    ACF

    Acronym

    Definition

    IV-D

    Title IV-D of the Social Security Act

    ACF

    Administration for Children and Families (HHS)Administration for Children and Families (HHS)
    AFDC

    AFDC

    Aid to Families with Dependent Children ProgramAid to Families with Dependent Children Program
    CSE

    CSE

    Child Support EnforcementChild Support Enforcement
    DRA

    DRA

    Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171)
    FCR
    )

    FCR

    Federal Case RegistryFederal Case Registry
    FPLS

    FPLS

    Federal Parent Locator ServiceFederal Parent Locator Service
    HHS

    HHS

    U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    IRS

    IRS

    Internal Revenue ServiceInternal Revenue Service
    NDNH

    NDNH

    National Directory of New HiresNational Directory of New Hires
    OCSE
    Office of Child Support Enforcement (HHS-ACF)
    OCSS

    OCSE

    Office of Child Support Enforcement (HHS-ACF)

    OCSS

    Office of Child Support Services (HHS-ACF)Office of Child Support Services (HHS-ACF)
    PRWORA

    PRWORA

    Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)

    SDNH

    State Directory of New Hires

    SCR

    P.L. 104-193)
    SDNH
    State Directory of New Hires
    SCR
    State Case RegistryState Case Registry
    SDU

    SDU

    State Disbursement UnitState Disbursement Unit
    SPLS

    SPLS

    State Parent Locator ServiceState Parent Locator Service
    SSA
    Social Security Act
    SSN

    SSA

    Social Security Act

    SSN

    Social Security Number

    TANF

    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant

    UIFSA

    Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

    URESA

    Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act

    CSE Program Overview     Social Security Number

    4 This report also generally excludes laws that only made technical corrections to Title IV-D of the SSA. (Those laws
    that were excluded include P.L. 99-514, P.L. 100-647, P.L. 104-208, P.L. 105-220, P.L. 109-241, P.L. 109-435, P.L.
    110-234, P.L. 110-246, and P.L. 113-79.)
    Congressional Research Service

    2
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Acronym
    Definition
    TANF
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
    UIFSA
    Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
    URESA
    Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act
    CSE Program Overview
    The CSE program is considered a federal-state program because it is financed in part by the The CSE program is considered a federal-state program because it is financed in part by the
    federal government and is subject to federal rules and regulations, but it is operated (and partially federal government and is subject to federal rules and regulations, but it is operated (and partially
    financed) by the states.financed) by the states.55 All 50 states and four jurisdictions (the District of Columbia, Guam, All 50 states and four jurisdictions (the District of Columbia, Guam,
    Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) operate CSE programs, generally at the county level of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) operate CSE programs, generally at the county level of
    government. In addition, about 60 tribal nations operate CSE programs.government. In addition, about 60 tribal nations operate CSE programs.66 At the federal level, the At the federal level, the
    CSE program is administered by the Office of Child Support CSE program is administered by the Office of Child Support Services (OCSSEnforcement (OCSE), which is in the ), which is in the
    U.S. Department of Health and Human U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’Services's (HHSs (HHS’'s) Administration for Children and s) Administration for Children and
    Families (ACF). (Prior to June 5, 2023, this office was named the “Office of Child Support
    Enforcement” [OCSE].7)
    Families (ACF).7 The program provides services to families who receive cash and other kinds of public assistance, The program provides services to families who receive cash and other kinds of public assistance,
    and it may also serve families not receiving any public assistance. (Nonassistance families must and it may also serve families not receiving any public assistance. (Nonassistance families must
    pay certain fees, including an annual user fee.pay certain fees, including an annual user fee.88) These programs must operate in accordance with ) These programs must operate in accordance with
    state plans that are approved by HHS.state plans that are approved by HHS.
    Program Financing
    The primary funding stream for CSE program costs is a federal reimbursement to each state The primary funding stream for CSE program costs is a federal reimbursement to each state
    program (including the District of Columbia and territorial programs) of 66% of all allowable program (including the District of Columbia and territorial programs) of 66% of all allowable
    expenditures.expenditures.99 The federal government The federal government’'s funding is open-ended, in that it pays its percentage of s funding is open-ended, in that it pays its percentage of
    expenditures with no upper limit or ceiling by matching the amounts spent by state and local expenditures with no upper limit or ceiling by matching the amounts spent by state and local
    governments.governments.
    In addition to state and federal cost sharing, the federal government also provides CSE incentive In addition to state and federal cost sharing, the federal government also provides CSE incentive
    payments to states to encourage them to operate effective CSE programs. Federal law requires payments to states to encourage them to operate effective CSE programs. Federal law requires
    states to reinvest CSE incentive payments back into the CSE program or approved related states to reinvest CSE incentive payments back into the CSE program or approved related
    activities. CSE programs may charge fees (e.g., application fees, annual user fees for providing activities. CSE programs may charge fees (e.g., application fees, annual user fees for providing
    CSE services, fees for genetic testing), as well as recover administrative costs in excess of those

    5 For the purposes of the IV-D program, Section 301(a)(1) of the SSA defines state as including the District of
    Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
    6 States were historically required to provide CSE services to Indian tribes and tribal organizations as part of their CSE
    caseloads. Although tribes were not specifically included in the CSE statute until the enactment of PRWORA in 1996,
    several tribes had negotiated agreements (e.g., informal, cooperative, intergovernmental, joint powers) with some states
    in a mutual effort to serve Native American children. PRWORA allowed direct federal funding of approved tribal CSE
    programs. In general, Native American children living on Indian reservations that have a tribal CSE program are
    covered by that specific tribal CSE program; Native American children who do not live on Indian reservations are
    covered by the state’s CSE program. However, there are many establishment and enforcement scenarios that might
    follow differing conventions. For further information, see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/child-support-professionals/
    tribal-agencies.
    7 See footnote 1. For citations, this report uses the name of the entity and program listed on the cited publication.
    8 For more information, see CRS Report RS22753, Child Support Enforcement Annual User Fee: In Brief.
    9 In contrast, pursuant to amendments to IV-D made by PRWORA, the CSE program provides tribes and tribal
    organizations direct federal funding.
    Congressional Research Service

    3
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    CSE services, fees for genetic testing), as well as recover administrative costs in excess of those fees, to help finance their program costs. Federal law also sets aside $10 million each fiscal year fees, to help finance their program costs. Federal law also sets aside $10 million each fiscal year
    for state access and visitation programs.for state access and visitation programs.
    Another funding stream associated with the CSE program is the child support collected by the Another funding stream associated with the CSE program is the child support collected by the
    states on behalf of families receiving TANF cash assistance, which is retained to reimburse the states on behalf of families receiving TANF cash assistance, which is retained to reimburse the
    cost of that assistance.cost of that assistance.1010 Federal law requires families who receive TANF cash assistance to Federal law requires families who receive TANF cash assistance to
    assign their child support rights to the state in order to receive TANF. In other words, child assign their child support rights to the state in order to receive TANF. In other words, child
    support payments go to the state and federal governments instead of the family, except for support payments go to the state and federal governments instead of the family, except for
    amounts that states choose to amounts that states choose to “"pass throughpass through”" to the family as additional income. (These pass- to the family as additional income. (These pass-
    through amounts do not affect TANF eligibility or benefit amounts.) In addition, such families through amounts do not affect TANF eligibility or benefit amounts.) In addition, such families
    must cooperate with the state if necessary to establish paternity and secure child support.must cooperate with the state if necessary to establish paternity and secure child support.
    Program Activities
    The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children:The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children:
    1. locating absent/noncustodial parents,locating absent/noncustodial parents,
    2. establishing paternity,establishing paternity,
    3. establishing child support orders,establishing child support orders,
    4. reviewing and modifying child support orders,reviewing and modifying child support orders,
    5. collecting child support payments,collecting child support payments,
    6. distributing child support payments, anddistributing child support payments, and
    7. establishing and enforcing support for childrenestablishing and enforcing support for children’'s medical needs.s medical needs.11
    11 If a stateIf a state’'s CSE program cannot locate the noncustodial parent with the information provided by s CSE program cannot locate the noncustodial parent with the information provided by
    the custodial parent, it must try to locate the noncustodial parent through the State Parent Locator the custodial parent, it must try to locate the noncustodial parent through the State Parent Locator
    Service (SPLS), which is an assembly of systems that includes the State Case Registry (SCR) and Service (SPLS), which is an assembly of systems that includes the State Case Registry (SCR) and
    the State Directory of New Hires (SDNH). The SCR contains records of each case in which CSE the State Directory of New Hires (SDNH). The SCR contains records of each case in which CSE
    services are being provided and all new or modified child support orders. The registry includes services are being provided and all new or modified child support orders. The registry includes
    information on the case, the child or children in the case, and both parents. In addition to the information on the case, the child or children in the case, and both parents. In addition to the
    resources discussed above, a state can request the assistance of the Federal Parent Locator Service resources discussed above, a state can request the assistance of the Federal Parent Locator Service
    (FPLS), which is (FPLS), which is an assembly of systems (including the state systems discussed above) operated by assembly of systems (including the state systems discussed above) operated by
    OCSSOCSE; this includes the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH); this includes the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH)1212 and the Federal Case and the Federal Case
    Registry (FCR).

    10 Similarly, Section 1912 of the SSA requires that as a condition of receiving Medicaid assistance, those families must
    also cooperate with CSE programs and assign their rights to medical support. In addition, Section 471(a)(17) of the
    SSA requires the child welfare agency “where appropriate” to secure assignment of child support rights on behalf of
    any child receiving foster care support pursuant to Title IV-E of the SSA. However, the establishment of a child
    support order is not a condition of Title IV-E foster care support. Finally, 7 U.S.C. §2015(l) provides a state option to
    require that families receiving assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cooperate with
    CSE programs as a condition of that assistance.
    11 For a summary of each of these services, see CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics.
    12 The NDNH is a database of personal, wage, and employment information on American workers. Employers are
    required by P.L. 104-193 to send new hire reports to the State Directory of New Hires, which then sends the required
    information to the NDNH. Contrary to its name, the NDNH includes more than just information on new employees. It
    includes information on (1) all newly hired employees, compiled from state reports (and reports from federal
    employers), (2) the quarterly wage reports of existing employees (in Unemployment Compensation [UC]-covered
    employment), and (3) unemployment compensation claims. The NDNH was originally established to help states locate
    noncustodial parents living in a different state so that child support payments could be withheld from that parent’s
    paycheck. Since its enactment in 1996, the NDNH has been extended to several additional programs and agencies to
    (continued...)
    Congressional Research Service

    4
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Registry (FCR). States must have procedures that permit the establishment of paternity for all children under age States must have procedures that permit the establishment of paternity for all children under age
    18. For any children born into a marriage, the husband is generally deemed to be the father; 18. For any children born into a marriage, the husband is generally deemed to be the father;
    therefore, in divorce cases paternity generally does not need to be affirmatively established. In therefore, in divorce cases paternity generally does not need to be affirmatively established. In
    nonmarital birth cases, however, paternity must be established prior to when a child support order nonmarital birth cases, however, paternity must be established prior to when a child support order
    is obtained. For contested paternity cases, all parties must submit to genetic testing.is obtained. For contested paternity cases, all parties must submit to genetic testing.
    The child support order is established administratively by a state/county CSE agency or through The child support order is established administratively by a state/county CSE agency or through
    the state courts. Federal law requires states to use their state-established guidelines in establishing the state courts. Federal law requires states to use their state-established guidelines in establishing
    child support orders. These guidelines are a set of rules and tables that are used to determine the child support orders. These guidelines are a set of rules and tables that are used to determine the
    amount of the child support order. They are intended to make the calculation of child support fair, amount of the child support order. They are intended to make the calculation of child support fair,
    objective, consistent, and predictable. States must review and, if appropriate, adjust child support objective, consistent, and predictable. States must review and, if appropriate, adjust child support
    orders for TANF family cases at least once every three years. For non-TANF family cases, such a orders for TANF family cases at least once every three years. For non-TANF family cases, such a
    review is not automatic, but either one of the parents can request it every three years. If a request review is not automatic, but either one of the parents can request it every three years. If a request
    for review and modification is made prior to when that three-year cycle has ended, the requesting for review and modification is made prior to when that three-year cycle has ended, the requesting
    party must demonstrate that there was a substantial change in circumstances. Child support party must demonstrate that there was a substantial change in circumstances. Child support
    adjustments and modifications must be in accordance with a stateadjustments and modifications must be in accordance with a state’'s child support guidelines.s child support guidelines.
    Child support collection and enforcement methods used by state CSE agencies includeChild support collection and enforcement methods used by state CSE agencies include
    • income withholding;
    •
  • income withholding;
    • intercept of federal and state income tax refunds;intercept of federal and state income tax refunds;
    • intercept of unemployment compensation;intercept of unemployment compensation;
    • liens against property;liens against property;
    • reporting child support obligations to credit bureaus;reporting child support obligations to credit bureaus;
    • intercept of lottery winnings;intercept of lottery winnings;
    • intercept of insurance settlements;intercept of insurance settlements;
    • withholding or suspending driverwithholding or suspending driver’'s licenses, professional licenses, and s licenses, professional licenses, and
    recreational and sporting licenses of child support debtors;recreational and sporting licenses of child support debtors;
    • the seizure of assets of child support debtors held by public or private retirement the seizure of assets of child support debtors held by public or private retirement
    funds and financial institutions; andfunds and financial institutions; and
    • the denial, revocation, or restriction of passports of child support debtors.the denial, revocation, or restriction of passports of child support debtors.
    Other program requirements include that jurisdictions All CSE jurisdictions are required to have civil or criminal contempt-of-court have civil or criminal contempt-of-court
    procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. (Federal criminal penalties may be imposed in certain procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. (Federal criminal penalties may be imposed in certain
    cases.cases.1313) Federal law also requires states to enact and implement the Uniform Interstate Family ) Federal law also requires states to enact and implement the Uniform Interstate Family
    Support Act (UIFSA) and expand full faith and credit procedures, and it provides for international Support Act (UIFSA) and expand full faith and credit procedures, and it provides for international
    enforcement of child support.enforcement of child support.
    Each Each Title IV-D child support order must include a provision for health care coverage. Medical support IV-D child support order must include a provision for health care coverage. Medical support
    for a child must be provided by either or both parents, and this form of support must also be

    verify program eligibility, prevent or end fraud, collect overpayments, or ensure that program benefits are correct. The
    NDNH is a component of the FPLS, which is maintained by OCSS and housed at the Social Security Administration.
    For further information, see CRS Report RS22889, The National Directory of New Hires: In Brief.
    13 According to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), “Federal, State, and local entities work together to
    identify, investigate, and prosecute egregious cases of noncustodial parents who knowingly fail to pay support
    obligations and whose cases meet the criteria for Federal prosecution under the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act.
    These entities include the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Office of Child Support Enforcement
    (OCSE), State child support enforcement offices, the Department of Justice, and OIG.... The ultimate decision on
    whether to prosecute a child support case at the Federal level lies with the Department of Justice.” For further
    information, see https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/child-support-enforcement/about/.
    Congressional Research Service

    5
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    for a child must be provided by either or both parents, and this form of support must also be enforced. The child support order authorizes the state CSE agency to enforce medical support enforced. The child support order authorizes the state CSE agency to enforce medical support
    against a custodial or noncustodial parent whenever health care coverage is available to that against a custodial or noncustodial parent whenever health care coverage is available to that
    parent at reasonable cost. Moreover, it stipulates that medical support may include health care parent at reasonable cost. Moreover, it stipulates that medical support may include health care
    coverage (including payment of costs of premiums, co-payments, and deductibles) and payment coverage (including payment of costs of premiums, co-payments, and deductibles) and payment
    of medical expenses for a child.of medical expenses for a child.14 14
    Child support payments distributed by CSE agencies increased from $1 billion in FY1978 to Child support payments distributed by CSE agencies increased from $1 billion in FY1978 to
    $27.4 billion in FY2022 (nominal dollars).$27.4 billion in FY2022 (nominal dollars).1515 (The CSE program also distributed an additional (The CSE program also distributed an additional
    $3.1 billion in child support for non-Title IV-D cases.) Over the same period, the number of $3.1 billion in child support for non-Title IV-D cases.) Over the same period, the number of
    children whose paternity was established or acknowledged each year increased from 111,000 to children whose paternity was established or acknowledged each year increased from 111,000 to
    1.276 million. The program collects 19.5% of child support obligations for which it has 1.276 million. The program collects 19.5% of child support obligations for which it has
    responsibility if payments on past-due child support (i.e., responsibility if payments on past-due child support (i.e., arrearages) are taken into account ) are taken into account
    (otherwise, 64.6%)(otherwise, 64.6%)1616 and collects payments for 62.3% of its caseload. In FY2022, total CSE and collects payments for 62.3% of its caseload. In FY2022, total CSE
    expenditures (federal and state) amounted to $6.1 billion. On average, in FY2022 the CSE expenditures (federal and state) amounted to $6.1 billion. On average, in FY2022 the CSE
    program collected $4.73 in child support payments for each $1 spent on the program.program collected $4.73 in child support payments for each $1 spent on the program.
    The CSE program is estimated to handle the majority of all child support The CSE program is estimated to handle the majority of all child support cases17cases17; the remaining ; the remaining
    cases are handled by private attorneys, by collection agencies, or through mutual agreements cases are handled by private attorneys, by collection agencies, or through mutual agreements
    between the parents. The Census Bureau provides estimates of child support received by all between the parents. The Census Bureau provides estimates of child support received by all
    custodial families (both families in the CSE program and non-CSE families). According to custodial families (both families in the CSE program and non-CSE families). According to
    Census Bureau data, 24% of custodial families have income below the federal poverty level. Census Bureau data, 24% of custodial families have income below the federal poverty level.
    Child support represented 57% of family income for poor custodial families that received full Child support represented 57% of family income for poor custodial families that received full
    payments.payments.18
    18 Context for Federal CSE (IV-D) Program
    Establishment and Major Legislative Changes
    Child Support Enforcement Prior to the Enactment of the CSE
    Program
    Program Since the late 1800s, state courts have allowed some newly divorced women to recover child Since the late 1800s, state courts have allowed some newly divorced women to recover child
    support directly from their ex-spouses. Before 1950, however, many noncustodial parents were support directly from their ex-spouses. Before 1950, however, many noncustodial parents were
    able to avoid paying child support by leaving their state of residence. Because each state had its able to avoid paying child support by leaving their state of residence. Because each state had its
    own laws that differed as to the circumstances under which support would be owed, it was own laws that differed as to the circumstances under which support would be owed, it was
    relatively easy to avoid prosecution for nonpayment. A custodial parent trying to obtain child relatively easy to avoid prosecution for nonpayment. A custodial parent trying to obtain child
    support from the noncustodial parent who was residing in another state would have to file with

    14 For further information, see CRS Report R43020, Medical Child Support: Background and Current Policy.
    15 Unless otherwise noted, all FY2022 data in this report are from HHS, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE),
    FY2022 Preliminary Data Report and Tables, Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/
    css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables.
    16 In FY2022, $145.5 billion in child support obligations ($31.3 billion in current support and $114.1 billion in past-due
    support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but $28.3 billion was paid ($20.2 billion current, $8.1 billion
    past-due; numbers do not sum to total due to rounding).
    17 Elaine Sorensen, Arthur Pashi, and Melody Morales, Characteristics of Families Served by the Child Support (IV-D)
    Program: 2016 Census Survey Results    , HHS, OCSE, November 2018, p. 3, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
    programs/css/iv_d_characteristics_2016_census_results.pdf.
    18 The most recent estimate is Timothy Grall, “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2017,” Current
    Population Reports    , P60-269, U.S. Census Bureau, May 2020, pp. 5, 11. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/
    library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    6
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    support from the noncustodial parent who was residing in another state would have to file with the court in that state. This usually was an expensive and time-consuming process. If such an the court in that state. This usually was an expensive and time-consuming process. If such an
    order was obtained, there was additional confusion about the circumstances under which the court order was obtained, there was additional confusion about the circumstances under which the court
    of one state could modify an order that originated in another state. Experts reported that most of one state could modify an order that originated in another state. Experts reported that most
    parents gave up navigating this system without collecting the child support owed to them.parents gave up navigating this system without collecting the child support owed to them.19
    19 In 1950, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the In 1950, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the
    American Bar Association developed and approved the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of American Bar Association developed and approved the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of
    Support Act (URESA). URESA, a state-level model law, was ultimately enacted by all 50 states, Support Act (URESA). URESA, a state-level model law, was ultimately enacted by all 50 states,
    the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The act was amended the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The act was amended
    in 1952, 1958, and 1968.in 1952, 1958, and 1968.2020 Its purpose was to provide a system for the interstate enforcement of Its purpose was to provide a system for the interstate enforcement of
    child support orders without requiring the person seeking child support or their legal child support orders without requiring the person seeking child support or their legal
    representative to go to the state in which the noncustodial parent resided. representative to go to the state in which the noncustodial parent resided. After passage of
    URESA,Passage of URESA gave the court system of one state the court system of one state had the authority to enforce the child support orders of the authority to enforce the child support orders of
    another state, and noncustodial parents who moved to another state could not as easily avoid another state, and noncustodial parents who moved to another state could not as easily avoid
    paying child support.paying child support.21 21
    The first federal law in the child support arena was also enacted in 1950 (P.L. 81-734), and The first federal law in the child support arena was also enacted in 1950 (P.L. 81-734), and
    additional laws were enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-97) and 1967 (P.L. 90-248). These laws were additional laws were enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-97) and 1967 (P.L. 90-248). These laws were
    primarily concerned with child support owed to families receiving cash assistance (i.e., AFDC). primarily concerned with child support owed to families receiving cash assistance (i.e., AFDC).
    Over those decades, the AFDC population had experienced a slow but steady increase, which Over those decades, the AFDC population had experienced a slow but steady increase, which
    accelerated in the late 1960s.accelerated in the late 1960s.2222 The composition of the AFDC caseload had also changed over the The composition of the AFDC caseload had also changed over the
    period. In earlier years, the majority of children needed financial assistance because their fathers period. In earlier years, the majority of children needed financial assistance because their fathers
    had died; by the 1970s, the families receiving AFDC increasingly were families where the father had died; by the 1970s, the families receiving AFDC increasingly were families where the father
    was alive but absent.was alive but absent.2323 According to the According to the History and Fundamentals of Child Support Enforcement
    Handbook    , some observers had concluded that the cumulative federal child support policy , some observers had concluded that the cumulative federal child support policy
    changes that had occurred up until that point were inadequate changes that had occurred up until that point were inadequate “"because they did not, for example, because they did not, for example,
    (1) require AFDC parents to file a child support petition, (2) provide enough incentives for states (1) require AFDC parents to file a child support petition, (2) provide enough incentives for states
    to initiate actions on behalf of AFDC recipients in their jurisdictions, and (3) impose sanctions on to initiate actions on behalf of AFDC recipients in their jurisdictions, and (3) impose sanctions on
    states that failed to help families obtain child support.states that failed to help families obtain child support.”24
    "24 Establishment of the CSE Program
    Until the mid-1970s, there was a dispute between the federal government and the states over Until the mid-1970s, there was a dispute between the federal government and the states over
    control of the child support issue. States maintained that child support was a family issue and it control of the child support issue. States maintained that child support was a family issue and it
    should be dealt with in the privacy of the family court system at the local level of government. In should be dealt with in the privacy of the family court system at the local level of government. In
    contrast, the federal government maintained that the high cost of supporting cash assistance contrast, the federal government maintained that the high cost of supporting cash assistance
    families who had been abandoned by a parent, usually because fathers were not meeting their

    19 William J. Brockelbank and Felix Infausto, Interstate Enforcement of Family Support, 2nd Ed., 1971.
    20 In 1989, the NCCUSL reviewed the revised version of URESA and determined the need for major revisions. The
    result was the development of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), a new interstate act that superseded
    URESA and the revised version of URESA. The NCCUSL amended UIFSA in 1996, 2001, and 2008.
    21 William F. Fox, “The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act,” Family Law Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 2,
    (Summer 1978), pp. 113-145; and Linda Henry Elrod, “The Federalization of Child Support Guidelines,” Journal of the
    American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers    , vol. 6, 1990, pp. 106, 107.
    22 See the discussion of the early history of the AFDC program in CRS Report R44668, The Temporary Assistance for
    Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History    .
    23 For more information, see CRS Report R44668, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant:
    A Legislative History    .
    24 HHS, OCSE, National Institute for Child Support Enforcement, History and Fundamentals of Child Support
    Enforcement Handbook    , July 1980, pp. 1-4.
    Congressional Research Service

    7
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    families who had been abandoned by a parent, usually because fathers were not meeting their financial responsibility to support their children, made it a federal issue.financial responsibility to support their children, made it a federal issue.2525 In addition, some In addition, some
    observers contended that states were not pursuing child support as observers contended that states were not pursuing child support as “vigorously”"vigorously" as they should as they should
    under their URESA authorities.under their URESA authorities.26
    26 In effect, the federal government won the debate. The CSE program was signed into law by In effect, the federal government won the debate. The CSE program was signed into law by
    President Ford in January 1975 as part of the Social Services Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-647). President Ford in January 1975 as part of the Social Services Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-647).
    The program was intended to reduce public expenditures on cash assistance by obtaining child The program was intended to reduce public expenditures on cash assistance by obtaining child
    support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis and by helping poor families get support support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis and by helping poor families get support
    so they could stay off cash assistance. Those families were required to assign their rights to child so they could stay off cash assistance. Those families were required to assign their rights to child
    support to the government as a condition of receiving cash assistance to reimburse the support to the government as a condition of receiving cash assistance to reimburse the
    government for the cost of that assistance. Another goal of the program was to establish paternity government for the cost of that assistance. Another goal of the program was to establish paternity
    for children born outside of marriage so that child support could be obtained for them.for children born outside of marriage so that child support could be obtained for them.
    The chief sponsor of the 1975 CSE legislation was Senator Russell Long, the Senate Finance The chief sponsor of the 1975 CSE legislation was Senator Russell Long, the Senate Finance
    Committee Chair. During the debate on the CSE legislation, Senator Long stated:Committee Chair. During the debate on the CSE legislation, Senator Long stated:
    Should our welfare system be made to support the children whose father Should our welfare system be made to support the children whose father cavalierly cavalierly
    abandons them—or chooses not to marry the mother in the first place? Is it fair to ask the abandons them—or chooses not to marry the mother in the first place? Is it fair to ask the
    American taxpayer—who works hard to support his own family and, to carry his own
    American taxpayer—who works hard to support his own family and, to carry his own burden—to carry the burden of the deserting father as well? Perhaps we cannot stop the burden—to carry the burden of the deserting father as well? Perhaps we cannot stop the
    father from abandoning his children, but we can certainly improve the system by obtaining father from abandoning his children, but we can certainly improve the system by obtaining
    child support from him and thereby place the burden of caring for his children on his own child support from him and thereby place the burden of caring for his children on his own
    shoulders where it belongs. We can—and we must—take the financial reward out of
    shoulders where it belongs. We can—and we must—take the financial reward out of desertions.desertions.27 27
    President Ford expressed President Ford expressed “reservations”"reservations" when he signed the legislation into law. While he was when he signed the legislation into law. While he was
    “"strongly agreeing with the objectives of this legislation,strongly agreeing with the objectives of this legislation,”" he contended that certain provisions he contended that certain provisions
    “"go too far by injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations.go too far by injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations.”" He expressed He expressed
    reservations regarding reservations regarding “"serious privacy and administrative issues,serious privacy and administrative issues,”" and promised to propose and promised to propose
    legislation to correct defects.legislation to correct defects.2828 However, several years after President Ford expressed his However, several years after President Ford expressed his
    reservations, such concerns on the part of federal policymakers had largely abated.reservations, such concerns on the part of federal policymakers had largely abated.
    The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 and the
    Family Support Act of 1988
    In subsequent years, as Congress and the President enacted laws to expand the CSE program, In subsequent years, as Congress and the President enacted laws to expand the CSE program,
    there was wide support for federal laws that would help hold parents accountable for financially there was wide support for federal laws that would help hold parents accountable for financially
    taking care of their children. Such changes included increasing the enforcement tools available to taking care of their children. Such changes included increasing the enforcement tools available to
    the program, which at first were primarily contempt of court proceedings and the offset of federal the program, which at first were primarily contempt of court proceedings and the offset of federal
    tax returns (tax returns (federal tax offset), and transitioning toward greater automation. The Child Support ), and transitioning toward greater automation. The Child Support
    Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-378) were passed by the House and Senate Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-378) were passed by the House and Senate
    unanimously at all stages of floor consideration. The 1984 amendments had a wide range of unanimously at all stages of floor consideration. The 1984 amendments had a wide range of
    support from such groups as the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Public support from such groups as the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Public
    Welfare Association, National Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators, Welfare Association, National Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators,

    25 S. Rept. 93-1356, pp. 42-55.
    26 HHS, OCSE, “Kids, They’re Worth Every Penny,” 9th Annual Child Support Enforcement Report to Congress,
    December 1984, p. 111.
    27 Remarks of Senator Russell B. Long, Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 7 (March 14, 1972), p. 8291.
    28 President Gerald R. Ford, “Statement on Signing the Social Services Amendments of 1974,” January 4, 1975,
    available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project,
    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-social-services-amendments-1974.
    Congressional Research Service

    8
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    National Governors Association, and National Women’s Law Center.29National Governors Association, and National Women's Law Center.29 Representative Barbara Representative Barbara
    Kennelly, the sponsor of the bill, remarked during the House debate on the amendments that the Kennelly, the sponsor of the bill, remarked during the House debate on the amendments that the
    reason traditionalists and feminists could support the bill was because both groups agreed that reason traditionalists and feminists could support the bill was because both groups agreed that
    parents should take responsibility for their children seriously.parents should take responsibility for their children seriously.3030 When President Reagan signed When President Reagan signed
    the amendments into law on August 16, 1984, he hailed them as the amendments into law on August 16, 1984, he hailed them as “"legislation that will give legislation that will give
    children the helping hand they need.children the helping hand they need.”" He also stated: He also stated:
    The goal of our efforts is not just the transfer of funds. We also hope to The goal of our efforts is not just the transfer of funds. We also hope to discourage discourage
    abandonment and, if families do split up, to encourage the absent parents to invest time and abandonment and, if families do split up, to encourage the absent parents to invest time and
    love in their children. Permitting individuals to ignore parental obligations and giving the love in their children. Permitting individuals to ignore parental obligations and giving the
    bill to the taxpayers in the form of higher welfare costs have been tantamount to a stamp bill to the taxpayers in the form of higher welfare costs have been tantamount to a stamp
    of approval. And this is not the kind of message public policy should be sending out.of approval. And this is not the kind of message public policy should be sending out.31 31
    Four years later, when President Reagan signed the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485), Four years later, when President Reagan signed the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485),
    into law, he said:into law, he said:
    These reforms are designed to ensure that parents who do not live with their These reforms are designed to ensure that parents who do not live with their children children
    nevertheless meet their responsibilities to them. To improve the adequacy of child-support nevertheless meet their responsibilities to them. To improve the adequacy of child-support
    awards, judges and other officials will be required to apply support guidelines developed awards, judges and other officials will be required to apply support guidelines developed
    by their States for setting award amounts. And to help ensure that the child support awarded by their States for setting award amounts. And to help ensure that the child support awarded
    actually is paid, child-support payments will be automatically withheld from the
    responsible parent’actually is paid, child-support payments will be automatically withheld from the responsible parent's paycheck.s paycheck.32 32
    This act made several other changes to the child support program, including requiring procedures This act made several other changes to the child support program, including requiring procedures
    for review and modification of orders, statewide automation, and creating the U.S. Commission for review and modification of orders, statewide automation, and creating the U.S. Commission
    on Interstate Child Support. The commission was to on Interstate Child Support. The commission was to “"submit a report to Congress that contains submit a report to Congress that contains
    recommendations for (A) improving the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support recommendations for (A) improving the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support
    awards; and (B) revising the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.awards; and (B) revising the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.”" The commission' The
    commission’s report to Congress was issued in 1992, and some of its major recommendations s report to Congress was issued in 1992, and some of its major recommendations
    focused on further improvements to child support data and systems. For instance, it recommended focused on further improvements to child support data and systems. For instance, it recommended
    implementing a national system to link state employment data, and a national system to link state implementing a national system to link state employment data, and a national system to link state
    child support case registries. Such systems were to enable the electronic transmission of data child support case registries. Such systems were to enable the electronic transmission of data
    between the states, and between the states and federal government. It also proposed a national between the states, and between the states and federal government. It also proposed a national
    network for the location of parents and expansions of existing locate systems. Other proposed network for the location of parents and expansions of existing locate systems. Other proposed
    expansions included criminalizing nonsupport at the federal level, and changes to paternity expansions included criminalizing nonsupport at the federal level, and changes to paternity
    establishment that would allow for voluntary acknowledgement at birth and for paternity to be establishment that would allow for voluntary acknowledgement at birth and for paternity to be
    determined as a civil proceeding.determined as a civil proceeding.3333 Many of the recommendations of the commission were Many of the recommendations of the commission were
    implemented in the laws enacted over the next several years.implemented in the laws enacted over the next several years.3434

    29 U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Child Support Enforcement Program Reform Proposals, hearing, 98th Congress, 2nd
    session, January 24 and 26, 1984.
    30 Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 23 (November 16, 1983), p. H33043.
    31 President Ronald Reagan, “Remarks on Signing the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984,” August 16,
    1984, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project,
    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-child-support-enforcement-amendments-1984.
    32 President Ronald Reagan, “Remarks on Signing the Family Support Act of 1988,” October 13, 1988, available online
    from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
    documents/remarks-signing-the-family-support-act-1988.
    33 “Official Recommendations of the United States Commission on Interstate Child Support,” Family Law Quarterly,
    vol. 27, no. 1 (Spring 1993), pp. 31-84.
    34 Jeff Ball, “How a ‘Blueprint for Reform’ Led to 20 Years of Program Improvement.” National Child Support
    Enforcement Association, https://www.ncsea.org/documents/
    The_Interstate_Commission_20_Years_Later_FINAL1.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    9
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
    Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and Related Legislative Changes
    In 1994, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) In 1994, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office)
    issued a report examining the CSE program. GAOissued a report examining the CSE program. GAO’'s report stated:s report stated:
    While the federal role is substantial—most program funding is federal—child While the federal role is substantial—most program funding is federal—child support enforcement is very much a state activity. Today, states face common barriers such as increasing workloads that outpace resources, inadequate computer systems, and fragmented authority and unstandardized procedures among others. In response, states support
    enforcement is very much a state activity. Today, states face common barriers such as
    increasing workloads that outpace resources, inadequate computer systems, and
    fragmented authority and unstandardized procedures among others. In response, states
    have developed a number of strategies, including augmenting their staffs with volunteers have developed a number of strategies, including augmenting their staffs with volunteers
    and contracting with private collection agencies, improving automation to help staff be
    more productive, and using innovative enforcement techniques. Some of the and contracting with private collection agencies, improving automation to help staff be more productive, and using innovative enforcement techniques. Some of the techniques techniques
    various states have adopted are (1) requiring employers to report newly hired employees various states have adopted are (1) requiring employers to report newly hired employees
    so parents who owe child support can be located, (2) using central lien indexes and tax so parents who owe child support can be located, (2) using central lien indexes and tax
    record matching so parents’ assets can be located, and (3) revoking driver’s and
    professional licenses to encourage parents to pay what they owe. Many welfare record matching so parents' assets can be located, and (3) revoking driver's and professional licenses to encourage parents to pay what they owe. Many welfare reform reform
    proposals would further expand child support enforcement. Unless OCSE takesproposals would further expand child support enforcement. Unless OCSE takes steps to strengthen its leadership and management of its current program, it may steps to
    strengthen its leadership and management of its current program, it may have difficulty have difficulty
    implementing any new responsibilities.implementing any new responsibilities.35 35
    The following year, the twentieth OCSE report to Congress provided several highlights of the The following year, the twentieth OCSE report to Congress provided several highlights of the
    program’program's accomplishments during FY1995:s accomplishments during FY1995:
    State CSE agencies were able toState CSE agencies were able to:
    • Establish paternity for 903,000 children, an increase of 77 percent since fiscal year 1992;• Establish paternity for 903,000 children, an increase of 77 percent since fiscal year 1992;
    • Establish 1,051,336 support orders;• Establish 1,051,336 support orders;
    • Locate 4,950,112 parents, their employers, income or assets; and• Locate 4,950,112 parents, their employers, income or assets; and
    • Collect a record $10.8 billion on behalf of children, a 36 percent increase from fiscal year • Collect a record $10.8 billion on behalf of children, a 36 percent increase from fiscal year
    1992 child support collections.1992 child support collections.36 36
    The report also stated that a 1992 Census Bureau and OCSE study had found that:The report also stated that a 1992 Census Bureau and OCSE study had found that:
    only half of all families with one custodial parent with a child support award received the only half of all families with one custodial parent with a child support award received the
    full amount of child support due to them. “Can we say that we are doing enough for
    full amount of child support due to them. "Can we say that we are doing enough for children, when millions of parents donchildren, when millions of parents don’'t know if they can put food on their childt know if they can put food on their child’'s table s table
    while absent parents evade their responsibility?while absent parents evade their responsibility?”" said [HHS] Secretary Shalala. said [HHS] Secretary Shalala. “Today’s
    "Today's report clearly demonstrates that we need tough child support enforcement to insure children report clearly demonstrates that we need tough child support enforcement to insure children
    get the help they deserve. The Clinton Administration has a plan that would increase child get the help they deserve. The Clinton Administration has a plan that would increase child
    support collections by $24 billion over 10 years resulting in $4.2 billion in support collections by $24 billion over 10 years resulting in $4.2 billion in welfare welfare
    savings,savings,”" added Secretary Shalala. added Secretary Shalala.37
    37 Three major pieces of legislation were signed into law in the latter part of the 1990s that Three major pieces of legislation were signed into law in the latter part of the 1990s that
    expanded or restructured almost all aspects of the CSE program. The first of these was PRWORA expanded or restructured almost all aspects of the CSE program. The first of these was PRWORA
    ((P.L. 104-193), which contained nearly 50 changes, many of them major, to child support law. P.L. 104-193), which contained nearly 50 changes, many of them major, to child support law.
    These included new requirements for the distribution of support to cash assistance families, These included new requirements for the distribution of support to cash assistance families,
    parent location and case tracking, state enactment of UIFSA by the start of 1998, genetic testing parent location and case tracking, state enactment of UIFSA by the start of 1998, genetic testing

    35 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Child Support Enforcement: Families Could Benefit From Stronger Enforcement
    Program,” GAO/HEHS-95-24, December 1994, pp. 3-4, https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-95-24.
    36 HHS, OCSE, 20th Annual Child Support Enforcement Report to Congress, for the period ending September 30, 1995,
    p. 6.
    37 Ibid., p. 2.
    Congressional Research Service

    10
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    when paternity was disputed, several new enforcement tools (e.g., for federal employee and when paternity was disputed, several new enforcement tools (e.g., for federal employee and
    military nonresident parents, credit bureau reporting, drivermilitary nonresident parents, credit bureau reporting, driver’'s license suspension), and medical s license suspension), and medical
    support orders. Many of these new requirements were modeled on state policies that were support orders. Many of these new requirements were modeled on state policies that were
    regarded as successful.regarded as successful.3838 PRWORA also enhanced funding streams for the state programs, created PRWORA also enhanced funding streams for the state programs, created
    the Access and Visitation grants to states, and allowed tribes to establish their own IV-D programs the Access and Visitation grants to states, and allowed tribes to establish their own IV-D programs
    subject to certain requirements. These changes to the CSE program occurred in the context of subject to certain requirements. These changes to the CSE program occurred in the context of
    other alterations that PRWORA made to cash assistance, by replacing AFDC with a restructured other alterations that PRWORA made to cash assistance, by replacing AFDC with a restructured
    program—TANF—with the goal of reducing the number of families receiving such assistance.program—TANF—with the goal of reducing the number of families receiving such assistance.39
    39 When President Clinton signed PRWORA into law. He stated:When President Clinton signed PRWORA into law. He stated:
    [PRWORA] includes the tough child support enforcement measures that, as far as I know, [PRWORA] includes the tough child support enforcement measures that, as far as I know,
    every Member of Congress and everybody in the administration and every thinking person every Member of Congress and everybody in the administration and every thinking person
    in the country has supported for more than 2 years now. Itin the country has supported for more than 2 years now. It’'s the most sweeping crackdown s the most sweeping crackdown
    on deadbeat parents in history. We have succeeded in increasing child support collection on deadbeat parents in history. We have succeeded in increasing child support collection
    40 percent, but over a third of the cases where there40 percent, but over a third of the cases where there’'s delinquencies involve people who s delinquencies involve people who
    cross State lines. For a lot of women and children, the only reason they're on cross State lines. For a lot of women and children, the only reason they're on welfare welfare
    today—the only reason—is that the father up and walked away when he could have made today—the only reason—is that the father up and walked away when he could have made
    a contribution to the welfare of the children. That is wrong. If every parent paid the child a contribution to the welfare of the children. That is wrong. If every parent paid the child
    support that he or she owes legally today, we could move 800,000 women and children off support that he or she owes legally today, we could move 800,000 women and children off
    welfare immediately. With this bill we say, if you don't pay the child support you owe, welfare immediately. With this bill we say, if you don't pay the child support you owe,
    we'll garnish your wages, take away your driverwe'll garnish your wages, take away your driver’'s license, track you across State lines, if s license, track you across State lines, if
    necessary, make you work off what you pay—what you owe. It is a good thing, and it will necessary, make you work off what you pay—what you owe. It is a good thing, and it will
    help dramatically to reduce welfare, increase independence, and reinforce help dramatically to reduce welfare, increase independence, and reinforce parental parental
    responsibility.responsibility.40 40
    In 1998, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-187) was enacted, creating two In 1998, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-187) was enacted, creating two
    new categories of child support felony offenses. At the lawnew categories of child support felony offenses. At the law’'s signing, President Clinton stated:s signing, President Clinton stated:
    This bill today is a gift to our children and the future. The quiet crisis of unpaid child
    support is something that our country and our families shouldn't tolerate. Our first
    This bill today is a gift to our children and the future. The quiet crisis of unpaid child support is something that our country and our families shouldn't tolerate. Our first responsibility, all of us, is to our children. And today we all know that too many parents responsibility, all of us, is to our children. And today we all know that too many parents
    still walk away from that obligation. That threatens the education, the health of our
    still walk away from that obligation. That threatens the education, the health of our children, and the future of our country.... The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 children, and the future of our country.... The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998
    deals with child support evaders in the most serious cases. From now on if you flee across deals with child support evaders in the most serious cases. From now on if you flee across
    State lines and refuse to pay child support you may be charged with a Federal offense, a State lines and refuse to pay child support you may be charged with a Federal offense, a
    felony offense, and may land in jail for up to 2 years. One way or the other people who felony offense, and may land in jail for up to 2 years. One way or the other people who
    don't support their children will pay what they must.don't support their children will pay what they must.41 41
    Less than one month later, President Clinton also signed the Child Support Performance and Less than one month later, President Clinton also signed the Child Support Performance and
    Incentive Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-200) into law, which revised the prior incentive payment system Incentive Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-200) into law, which revised the prior incentive payment system
    to the states into its current form. He stated:

    38 HHS, OCSE, 21st Annual Child Support Enforcement Report to Congress, for the Period Ending September 30,
    1996,     p. 7
    39 For further background on AFDC and TANF, see CRS Report R44668, The Temporary Assistance for Needy
    Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History    .
    40 President William J. Clinton, “Remarks on Signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
    Reconciliation Act of 1996 and an Exchange With Reporters,” August 22, 1996, available online from Gerhard Peters
    and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-
    the-personal-responsibility-and-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-1996.
    41 President William J. Clinton, “Remarks on Signing the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 and an Exchange
    With Reporters,” June 24, 1998, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency
    Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-deadbeat-parents-punishment-act-1998-and-
    exchange-with-reporters.
    Congressional Research Service

    11
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    to the states into its current form. He stated: H.R. 3130 will build on this progress and help ensure that parents give their children all H.R. 3130 will build on this progress and help ensure that parents give their children all
    the support they need and deserve. First, the new law puts in place additional tough
    penalties for States that fail to automate their child support computer systems on time.
    the support they need and deserve. First, the new law puts in place additional tough penalties for States that fail to automate their child support computer systems on time. Under this new law, States that fail to establish these State-wide systems face automatic Under this new law, States that fail to establish these State-wide systems face automatic
    and escalating penalties, ranging from 4 percent of Federal child support enforcement funds and escalating penalties, ranging from 4 percent of Federal child support enforcement funds
    for the first year to 30 percent for the fifth year in which a State fails to meet for the first year to 30 percent for the fifth year in which a State fails to meet national national
    certification standards. Second, H.R. 3130 incorporates a proposal that my Administration certification standards. Second, H.R. 3130 incorporates a proposal that my Administration
    sent to the Congress last year to reward States for their performance on a wide range of key sent to the Congress last year to reward States for their performance on a wide range of key
    child support goals, such as the number of paternity establishments and child child support goals, such as the number of paternity establishments and child support support
    orders, rather than only on cost-effectiveness, as current law provides. Third, the law will orders, rather than only on cost-effectiveness, as current law provides. Third, the law will
    make it easier for States to secure medical support for children in cases in which the non-make it easier for States to secure medical support for children in cases in which the non-
    custodial parent has private health coverage, by facilitating the creation of a custodial parent has private health coverage, by facilitating the creation of a medical medical
    support notice that all health plans will recognize.support notice that all health plans will recognize.4242
    Most Recent Legislative Changes
    Since the enactment of the program changes in the latter half of the 1990s, additional Since the enactment of the program changes in the latter half of the 1990s, additional
    amendments to Title IV-D have included expansions to enforcement methods, changes to program amendments to Title IV-D have included expansions to enforcement methods, changes to program
    funding, and further alterations to the rules that govern how support is distributed to cash funding, and further alterations to the rules that govern how support is distributed to cash
    assistance families. Almost all of these laws have been focused on adjusting existing program assistance families. Almost all of these laws have been focused on adjusting existing program
    components.components.
    The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA; P.L. 109-171) made several amendments to the CSE The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA; P.L. 109-171) made several amendments to the CSE
    program as part of a reconciliation act that, on net, reduced funding for the CSE program.program as part of a reconciliation act that, on net, reduced funding for the CSE program.43 43 The The
    act altered existing program funding streams, distribution requirements for current and former act altered existing program funding streams, distribution requirements for current and former
    TANF families, and enforcement methods such as passport denial, federal tax offset, and TANF families, and enforcement methods such as passport denial, federal tax offset, and
    insurance matching. It also changed aspects of program operations related to review and insurance matching. It also changed aspects of program operations related to review and
    modification, medical support orders, and interstate cases. When President George W. Bush modification, medical support orders, and interstate cases. When President George W. Bush
    signed the DRA into law, he emphasized the budgetary motivation for some of the policies that signed the DRA into law, he emphasized the budgetary motivation for some of the policies that
    were ultimately being enacted:were ultimately being enacted:
    The message of the bill I sign today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making The message of the bill I sign today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making
    sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and responsible at the
    sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and responsible at the same time. Spending restraint demands difficult choices, yet making those choices is what same time. Spending restraint demands difficult choices, yet making those choices is what
    the American people sent us to Washington to do.the American people sent us to Washington to do.44 44
    The most recent significant additions to the CSE program were made by the Preventing Sex The most recent significant additions to the CSE program were made by the Preventing Sex
    Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183), which implemented the Hague Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183), which implemented the Hague
    Convention on Recovery of International Child Support.Convention on Recovery of International Child Support.4545 Upon its enactment in 2014, Secretary Upon its enactment in 2014, Secretary
    of State John Kerry noted that:of State John Kerry noted that:
    Back when I was a prosecutor, I saw how hard too many families had to scrape and claw Back when I was a prosecutor, I saw how hard too many families had to scrape and claw
    just to receive their just support, and I saw how far the United States came in the last
    just to receive their just support, and I saw how far the United States came in the last decades of righting that wrong. It was the right thing to do to help families in the United decades of righting that wrong. It was the right thing to do to help families in the United

    42 President William J. Clinton, “Statement on Signing the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998,” July
    16, 1998, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project,
    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-child-support-performance-and-incentive-act-1998.
    43 See Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Conference Agreement, as
    amended and passed by the Senate on December 21, 2005    , January 27, 2006, p. 6, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/
    files/109th-congress-2005-2006/costestimate/s1932conf0.pdf.
    44 President George W. Bush, “Remarks on Signing the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,” February 8, 2006,
    https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-8.html,
    45 For further information, see CRS Report R43779, Child Support Enforcement and the Hague Convention on
    Recovery of International Child Support    .
    Congressional Research Service

    12
    link to page 18 link to page 18 The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    States and other countries get what is rightfully theirs. I am grateful to Congress for passing
    this important implementing legislation. It’s a reminder of how the Administration and
    States and other countries get what is rightfully theirs. I am grateful to Congress for passing this important implementing legislation. It's a reminder of how the Administration and Congress can work together across party lines to help lead the international community on Congress can work together across party lines to help lead the international community on
    issues that really matter in peoplesissues that really matter in peoples’' lives. lives.46
    46 Child Support Enforcement Laws
    It is difficult to document congressional votes on specific CSE-related issues because most CSE It is difficult to document congressional votes on specific CSE-related issues because most CSE
    legislation has not been in the form of stand-alone bills. For most of its history, changes to the legislation has not been in the form of stand-alone bills. For most of its history, changes to the
    CSE program have been achieved in tandem with changes to other human services programs. As CSE program have been achieved in tandem with changes to other human services programs. As
    seen seen inin Table 2, manymany CSE provisions were incorporated in omnibus budget reconciliation acts CSE provisions were incorporated in omnibus budget reconciliation acts
    and legislation amending SSA programs. Thus, this report only documents enacted laws, and and legislation amending SSA programs. Thus, this report only documents enacted laws, and
    generally does not summarize prior congressional action pertaining to these laws.generally does not summarize prior congressional action pertaining to these laws.
    Table 2 lists the federal laws that include CSE provisions. It is followed by a description of the lists the federal laws that include CSE provisions. It is followed by a description of the
    primary CSE provisions in the listed CSE laws. In the summaries of each of these laws, selected primary CSE provisions in the listed CSE laws. In the summaries of each of these laws, selected
    provisions that are outside Title IV of the SSA are also provided with parenthetical U.S. Code provisions that are outside Title IV of the SSA are also provided with parenthetical U.S. Code
    references. Title IV of the SSA is codified as Chapter 42 of the U.S. Code, Subchapter IV. Part D references. Title IV of the SSA is codified as Chapter 42 of the U.S. Code, Subchapter IV. Part D
    is codified at Sections 661-669b.is codified at Sections 661-669b.
    Table 2. Child Support Enforcement Laws Since 1950
    Year
    Public Law
    Title

    Short Title

     Enactment Date
    1950

    1950

    P.L. 81-734P.L. 81-734
    Social Security Amendments of 1950Social Security Amendments of 1950
    August 28, 1950
    1950
    —

    August 28, 1950

    1950

    —

    Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
    See Note (below)See Note (below)
    1965

    1965

    P.L. 89-97P.L. 89-97
    Social Security Amendments of 1965Social Security Amendments of 1965
    July 30, 1965July 30, 1965
    1967

    1967

    P.L. 90-248P.L. 90-248
    Social Security Amendments of 1967Social Security Amendments of 1967
    January 2, 1968
    1975
    P.L. 93-647

    January 2, 1968

    1975

    P.L. 93-647

    Social Services Amendments of 1974Social Services Amendments of 1974
    January 4, 1975January 4, 1975
    1975

    1975

    P.L. 94-46P.L. 94-46
    N.A.

    N.A.

    June 30, 1975June 30, 1975
    1975

    1975

    P.L. 94-88P.L. 94-88
    N.A.

    N.A.

    August 9, 1975August 9, 1975
    1976

    1976

    P.L. 94-365P.L. 94-365
    N.A.

    N.A.

    July 14, 1976July 14, 1976
    1976

    1976

    P.L. 94-566P.L. 94-566
    Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976
    October 20, 1976October 20, 1976
    1977

    1977

    P.L. 95-30P.L. 95-30
    Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
    May 23, 1977May 23, 1977
    1977

    1977

    P.L. 95-59P.L. 95-59
    Extension of Certain Social Welfare ProgramsExtension of Certain Social Welfare Programs
    June 30, 1977June 30, 1977
    1977

    1977

    P.L. 95-142P.L. 95-142
    Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse AmendmentsMedicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments
    October 25, 1977October 25, 1977
    1977

    1977

    P.L. 95-171P.L. 95-171
    N.A.
    November 12, 1977
    1978
    P.L. 95-598

    N.A.

    November 12, 1977

    1978

    P.L. 95-598

    Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978
    November 6, 1978November 6, 1978
    1980

    1980

    P.L. 96-178P.L. 96-178
    N.A.

    N.A.

    January 2, 1980January 2, 1980
    1980

    1980

    P.L. 96-265P.L. 96-265
    Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
    June 9, 1980
    1980
    P.L. 96-272

    June 9, 1980

    1980

    P.L. 96-272

    Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
    June 17, 1980June 17, 1980
    1980

    1980

    P.L. 96-611P.L. 96-611
    N.A.
    December 28, 1980

    46 John Kerry, Secretary of State, September 30, 2014, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/09/
    232337.htm.
    Congressional Research Service

    13
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Year
    Public Law
    Title
    Enactment Date
    1981
    P.L. 97-35

    N.A.

    December 28, 1980

    1981

    P.L. 97-35

    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
    August 13, 1981August 13, 1981
    1982

    1982

    P.L. 97-248P.L. 97-248
    Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
    September 3, 1982September 3, 1982
    1982

    1982

    P.L. 97-252P.L. 97-252
    Uniformed Services Former SpousesUniformed Services Former Spouses’' Protection Act Protection Act
    September 8, 1982September 8, 1982
    1982

    1982

    P.L. 97-253P.L. 97-253
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
    September 8, 1982September 8, 1982
    1983

    1983

    P.L. 98-21P.L. 98-21
    Social Security Amendments of 1983Social Security Amendments of 1983
    April 20, 1983April 20, 1983
    1984

    1984

    P.L. 98-353P.L. 98-353
    Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1983Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1983
    July 10, 1984
    1984
    P.L. 98-369

    July 10, 1984

    1984

    P.L. 98-369

    Deficit Reduction Act of 1984Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
    July 18, 1984July 18, 1984
    1984

    1984

    P.L. 98-378P.L. 98-378
    Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984
    August 16, 1984
    1986
    P.L. 99-509

    August 16, 1984

    1986

    P.L. 99-509

    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
    October 21, 1986October 21, 1986
    1987

    1987

    P.L. 100-203P.L. 100-203
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
    December 22, 1987December 22, 1987
    1988

    1988

    P.L. 100-300P.L. 100-300
    International Child Abduction Remedies ActInternational Child Abduction Remedies Act
    April 29, 1988April 29, 1988
    1988

    1988

    P.L. 100-485P.L. 100-485
    Family Support Act of 1988Family Support Act of 1988
    October 13, 1988October 13, 1988
    1989

    1989

    P.L. 101-239P.L. 101-239
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
    December 19, 1989December 19, 1989
    1990

    1990

    P.L. 101-508P.L. 101-508
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
    November 5, 1990November 5, 1990
    1992

    1992

    P.L. 102-521P.L. 102-521
    Child Support Recovery Act of 1992Child Support Recovery Act of 1992
    October 25, 1992October 25, 1992
    1992

    1992

    P.L. 102-537P.L. 102-537
    Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992
    October 27, 1992October 27, 1992
    1993

    1993

    P.L. 103-66P.L. 103-66
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
    August 10, 1993August 10, 1993
    1994

    1994

    P.L. 103-383P.L. 103-383
    Ful Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders ActFaith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act
    October 20, 1994October 20, 1994
    1994

    1994

    P.L. 103-394P.L. 103-394
    Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994
    October 22, 1994October 22, 1994
    1994

    1994

    P.L. 103-403P.L. 103-403
    Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994
    October 22, 1994October 22, 1994
    1994

    1994

    P.L. 103-432P.L. 103-432
    Social Security Act Amendments of 1994Social Security Act Amendments of 1994
    October 31, 1994October 31, 1994
    1995

    1995

    P.L. 104-35P.L. 104-35
    N.A.

    N.A.

    October 12, 1995October 12, 1995
    1996

    1996

    P.L. 104-134P.L. 104-134
    Debt Col ection Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 Improvement Act of 1996
    April 26, 1996April 26, 1996
    1996

    1996

    P.L. 104-193P.L. 104-193
    Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
    Reconciliation Act of 1996 August 22, 1996August 22, 1996
    Reconciliation Act of 1996
    1997

    1997

    P.L. 105-33P.L. 105-33
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997Balanced Budget Act of 1997
    August 5, 1997August 5, 1997
    1997

    1997

    P.L. 105-34P.L. 105-34
    Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
    August 5, 1997August 5, 1997
    1997

    1997

    P.L. 105-89P.L. 105-89
    Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
    November 19, 1997
    1998
    P.L. 105-187

    November 19, 1997

    1998

    P.L. 105-187

    Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998
    June 24, 1998June 24, 1998
    1998

    1998

    P.L. 105-200P.L. 105-200
    Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998
    July 16, 1998July 16, 1998
    1998

    1998

    P.L. 105-306P.L. 105-306
    Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical
    October 28, 1998
    Amendments Act of 1998
    1999
    P.L. 106-113
    Amendments Act of 1998

    October 28, 1998

    1999

    P.L. 106-113

    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000
    November 29, 1999November 29, 1999
    1999

    1999

    P.L. 106-169P.L. 106-169
    Foster Care Independence Act of 1999Foster Care Independence Act of 1999
    December 14, 1999December 14, 1999
    2004

    2004

    P.L. 108-199P.L. 108-199
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
    January 23, 2004January 23, 2004
    2004

    2004

    P.L. 108-295P.L. 108-295
    SUTA Dumping Prevention Act of 2004SUTA Dumping Prevention Act of 2004
    August 9, 2004August 9, 2004
    2004

    2004

    P.L. 108-447P.L. 108-447
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
    December 8, 2004December 8, 2004
    Congressional Research Service

    14
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Year
    Public Law
    Title
    Enactment Date
    2006

    2006

    P.L. 109-171P.L. 109-171
    Deficit Reduction Act of 2005Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
    February 8, 2006February 8, 2006
    2006

    2006

    P.L. 109-250P.L. 109-250
    Returned Americans Protection ActReturned Americans Protection Act
    July 27, 2006July 27, 2006
    2007

    2007

    P.L. 110-157P.L. 110-157
    Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007
    December 26, 2007December 26, 2007
    2008

    2008

    P.L. 110-351P.L. 110-351
    Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
    Act of 2008 October 7, 2008October 7, 2008
    Act of 2008
    2009

    2009

    P.L. 111-5P.L. 111-5
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    February 17, 2009
    2010
    P.L. 111-291

    February 17, 2009

    2010

    P.L. 111-291

    Claims Resolution Act of 2010Claims Resolution Act of 2010
    December 8, 2010December 8, 2010
    2011

    2011

    P.L. 112-40P.L. 112-40
    Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011
    October 21, 2011October 21, 2011
    2013

    2013

    P.L. 113-37P.L. 113-37
    Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of
    2013 September 30, 2013September 30, 2013
    2013
    2014

    2014

    P.L. 113-183P.L. 113-183
    Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families ActPreventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act
    September 29, 2014September 29, 2014
    2018

    2018

    P.L. 115-123P.L. 115-123
    Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
    February 9, 2018February 9, 2018
    2021

    2021

    P.L. 116-315P.L. 116-315
    Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health
    January 5, 2021
    Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020
    Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020

    January 5, 2021

    2025

    P.L. 118-258

    Supporting America's Children and Families Act

    January 4, 2025

     Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a review of applicable laws. Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a review of applicable laws.
    Notes Notes: By 1957, all states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. By 1957, all states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
    Virgin Islands had adopted URESA. Virgin Islands had adopted URESA. Note that thisThis table and report table and report generally, with a few exceptions, , with a few exceptions, doesdo not not
    address laws containing child support provisions outside the scope of Title IV-D of the SSA. address laws containing child support provisions outside the scope of Title IV-D of the SSA. ItThe table and report also generally also generally
    excludesexclude laws that only made technical corrections to Title IV-D. (Those that were excluded include P.L. 99-514, laws that only made technical corrections to Title IV-D. (Those that were excluded include P.L. 99-514,
    P.L. 100-647P.L. 100-647, , P.L. 104-208P.L. 104-208, , P.L. 105-220P.L. 105-220, , P.L. 109-241P.L. 109-241, , P.L. 109-435P.L. 109-435, , P.L. 110-234P.L. 110-234, , P.L. 110-246, and P.L. 113-79P.L. 110-246, and P.L. 113-79.) .)
    N.A. = not available, meaning no official or unofficial title.N.A. = not available, meaning no official or unofficial title.
    1950
    Social Security Amendments of 1950
    The first federal child support enforcement law was P.L. 81-734, the Social Security Act The first federal child support enforcement law was P.L. 81-734, the Social Security Act
    Amendments of 1950.Amendments of 1950.4747 The law required state welfare agencies to notify appropriate law The law required state welfare agencies to notify appropriate law
    enforcement officials upon providing AFDC to a child who was abandoned or deserted by a enforcement officials upon providing AFDC to a child who was abandoned or deserted by a
    parent. The intent of the provision was to enable law enforcement officials to locate absent parent. The intent of the provision was to enable law enforcement officials to locate absent
    parents and to prosecute them, if warranted, under the various state laws. In effect, this provision parents and to prosecute them, if warranted, under the various state laws. In effect, this provision
    made it the job of the prosecutor rather than the AFDC agency to file a complaint or press a made it the job of the prosecutor rather than the AFDC agency to file a complaint or press a
    lawsuit against noncustodial parents who had deserted their families. The AFDC agency was only lawsuit against noncustodial parents who had deserted their families. The AFDC agency was only
    responsible for providing eligible children with public assistance; it was not responsible for responsible for providing eligible children with public assistance; it was not responsible for
    enforcing child support.enforcing child support.4848
    Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
    Also in 1950, the NCCUSL and the American Bar Association developed and approved URESA, Also in 1950, the NCCUSL and the American Bar Association developed and approved URESA,
    a state-level model law that was enacted in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto a state-level model law that was enacted in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto

    47 This law added Section 402(a)(10) to the SSA. All changes to Title IV-A of the SSA prior to 1996 were to the law
    governing the AFDC program. The AFDC program was repealed by PRWORA.
    48 HHS, OCSE, National Institute for Child Support Enforcement, History and Fundamentals of Child Support
    Enforcement Handbook    , July 1980, p. 90.
    Congressional Research Service

    15
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The actRico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The model law was amended in 1952 and 1958 and revised in 1968. was amended in 1952 and 1958 and revised in 1968.49
    49 In its early years URESA was often called the In its early years URESA was often called the “"Runaway Pappy Act.Runaway Pappy Act.”" Its purpose was to put the Its purpose was to put the
    responsibility for pursuing and enforcing child support cases on prosecutors in the states. It also responsibility for pursuing and enforcing child support cases on prosecutors in the states. It also
    provided a system for the interstate enforcement of child support orders without requiring the provided a system for the interstate enforcement of child support orders without requiring the
    person seeking child support or their legal representative to go to the state in which the person seeking child support or their legal representative to go to the state in which the
    noncustodial parent resided. After passage of URESA, the court system of one state had the noncustodial parent resided. After passage of URESA, the court system of one state had the
    authority to enforce the child support orders of another state, and noncustodial parents who authority to enforce the child support orders of another state, and noncustodial parents who
    moved across state lines could not as easily avoid paying child support.moved across state lines could not as easily avoid paying child support.
    1965
    Social Security Amendments of 1965
    P.L. 89-97, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, allowed a state or local welfare agency to P.L. 89-97, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, allowed a state or local welfare agency to
    obtain from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (now HHS) the address and obtain from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (now HHS) the address and
    place of employment of certain absent parents who owed child support. Specifically, this place of employment of certain absent parents who owed child support. Specifically, this
    authority applied when an absent parent owed child support under a court order for a child authority applied when an absent parent owed child support under a court order for a child
    applying for or receiving assistance under AFDC, or under other specified programs. (The HEW applying for or receiving assistance under AFDC, or under other specified programs. (The HEW
    Secretary was permitted to require payment for the cost of information provided.)Secretary was permitted to require payment for the cost of information provided.)
    1967
    Social Security Amendments of 1967
    P.L. 90-248, the Social Security Amendments of 1967, allowed states to obtain from the Internal P.L. 90-248, the Social Security Amendments of 1967, allowed states to obtain from the Internal
    Revenue Service (IRS) the address of nonresident parents who owed child support under a court Revenue Service (IRS) the address of nonresident parents who owed child support under a court
    order for support.order for support.5050 In addition, as part of its AFDC program, each state was required to establish In addition, as part of its AFDC program, each state was required to establish
    a single organizational unit to establish paternity and collect child support for deserted children a single organizational unit to establish paternity and collect child support for deserted children
    receiving AFDC. States were also required to work cooperatively with each other under child receiving AFDC. States were also required to work cooperatively with each other under child
    support reciprocity agreements, and with courts and law enforcement officials. Recognizing that support reciprocity agreements, and with courts and law enforcement officials. Recognizing that
    law enforcement officials were overwhelmed with an assortment of cases and that most of them law enforcement officials were overwhelmed with an assortment of cases and that most of them
    gave finding absent/noncustodial parents low priority, the 1967 provisions gave the newly gave finding absent/noncustodial parents low priority, the 1967 provisions gave the newly
    established organizational unit the responsibility of establishing paternity and collecting child established organizational unit the responsibility of establishing paternity and collecting child
    support.support.5151 The 1967 amendments also provided for federal financial participation for (i.e., The 1967 amendments also provided for federal financial participation for (i.e.,
    reimbursement of) costs related to paternity and child support activities at a 50% rate.reimbursement of) costs related to paternity and child support activities at a 50% rate.
    1975
    Social Services Amendments of 1974
    P.L. 93-647, the Social Services Amendments of 1974, created part D of Title IV of the SSA P.L. 93-647, the Social Services Amendments of 1974, created part D of Title IV of the SSA
    (§451, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §651, et seq.). The law contained key CSE provisions that included the (§451, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §651, et seq.). The law contained key CSE provisions that included the

    49 In 1989, the NCCUSL reviewed the revised version of URESA and determined the need for major revisions. The
    result was the development of UIFSA, a new interstate act that superseded URESA and the revised version of URESA.
    The NCCUSL amended UIFSA in 1996, 2001, and 2008.
    50 Such sums were authorized to be appropriated to carry out this activity. The HEW Secretary was directed to transfer
    to the Secretary of the Treasury sufficient amounts of funding appropriated pursuant to this authorization to enable the
    performance of this activity.
    51 HHS, OCSE, National Institute for Child Support Enforcement, History and Fundamentals of Child Support
    Enforcement Handbook    , July 1980, p. 90.
    Congressional Research Service

    16
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    establishment of the federal CSE program in HEW. The main CSE provisions are summarized establishment of the federal CSE program in HEW. The main CSE provisions are summarized
    below.below.
    Federal Requirements
    The HEW Secretary was given primary responsibility for the CSE program and was required to The HEW Secretary was given primary responsibility for the CSE program and was required to
    establish a separate organizational unit to operate it. Operational responsibilities included (1) establish a separate organizational unit to operate it. Operational responsibilities included (1)
    establishing and conducting the establishing and conducting the FPLS;52Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS);52 (2) establishing standards for state program organization, (2) establishing standards for state program organization,
    staffing, and operation; (3) reviewing and approving state plans for the program; (4) evaluating staffing, and operation; (3) reviewing and approving state plans for the program; (4) evaluating
    state program operations by conducting audits of each statestate program operations by conducting audits of each state’'s program; (5) certifying cases for s program; (5) certifying cases for
    referral to the federal courts to enforce support obligations; (6) certifying cases for referral to the referral to the federal courts to enforce support obligations; (6) certifying cases for referral to the
    IRS for support collections under Section 6305 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §6305); IRS for support collections under Section 6305 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §6305);
    (7) subjecting moneys due and payable to federal employees to garnishment for the collection of (7) subjecting moneys due and payable to federal employees to garnishment for the collection of
    child support; (8) providing technical assistance to states and assisting them with reporting child support; (8) providing technical assistance to states and assisting them with reporting
    procedures; (9) maintaining records of program operations, expenditures, and collections; and procedures; (9) maintaining records of program operations, expenditures, and collections; and
    (10) submitting an annual report to Congress.(10) submitting an annual report to Congress.
    State Plan Requirements
    Primary responsibility for operating the CSE program was placed on the states pursuant to the Primary responsibility for operating the CSE program was placed on the states pursuant to the
    state plan. The major requirements of a state plan were that (1) the state designate a single and state plan. The major requirements of a state plan were that (1) the state designate a single and
    separate organizational unit to administer the program; (2) the state undertake to establish separate organizational unit to administer the program; (2) the state undertake to establish
    paternity and secure support for individuals receiving AFDC and others who apply directly for paternity and secure support for individuals receiving AFDC and others who apply directly for
    CSE services;CSE services;5353 (3) child support payments be made to the state for distribution; (4) the state enter (3) child support payments be made to the state for distribution; (4) the state enter
    into cooperative agreements with appropriate courts and law enforcement officials; (5) the state into cooperative agreements with appropriate courts and law enforcement officials; (5) the state
    establish a State Parent Locator Service (SPLS) that uses state and local parent location resources establish a State Parent Locator Service (SPLS) that uses state and local parent location resources
    and the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS)and the FPLS; (6) the state cooperate with any other state in ; (6) the state cooperate with any other state in
    locating an absent parent, establishing paternity, and securing support; and (7) the state maintain a locating an absent parent, establishing paternity, and securing support; and (7) the state maintain a
    full record of collections and disbursements made under the plan.full record of collections and disbursements made under the plan.
    In addition, new eligibility requirements were added to the AFDC program requiring applicants In addition, new eligibility requirements were added to the AFDC program requiring applicants
    for, or recipients of, AFDC to cooperate with the state in establishing paternity and securing for, or recipients of, AFDC to cooperate with the state in establishing paternity and securing
    support, and to furnish their Social Security numbers to the state.support, and to furnish their Social Security numbers to the state.5454 Along with these cooperation Along with these cooperation
    requirements, those cooperating AFDC families were then required to make an assignment of requirements, those cooperating AFDC families were then required to make an assignment of
    support rights to the state. (support rights to the state. (Note that althoughAlthough these provisions are requirements for Title IV-A of these provisions are requirements for Title IV-A of
    the SSA, they are a cornerstone of the Title IV-D program.) The law stipulated as well that if a the SSA, they are a cornerstone of the Title IV-D program.) The law stipulated as well that if a
    state is found via the annual audit not to be in compliance with the CSE state plan, the statestate is found via the annual audit not to be in compliance with the CSE state plan, the state’s
    's AFDC reimbursement (i.e., the federal share of a stateAFDC reimbursement (i.e., the federal share of a state’'s AFDC expenditures) would be reduced s AFDC expenditures) would be reduced
    by 5%.by 5%.
    Each state/jurisdiction was also required to make its CSE program available to individuals who Each state/jurisdiction was also required to make its CSE program available to individuals who
    were not recipients of AFDC if such individuals applied for CSE services. The state/jurisdiction were not recipients of AFDC if such individuals applied for CSE services. The state/jurisdiction
    was allowed to charge an application fee and could also recover costs that were in excess of the was allowed to charge an application fee and could also recover costs that were in excess of the
    application fee from the amount of child support collected.

    52 The FPLS is an assembly of systems operated by OCSS in HHS, to assist states in locating noncustodial parents,
    putative fathers, and custodial parents for the establishment of paternity and child support obligations, as well as the
    enforcement and modification of orders for child support, custody, and visitation. The FPLS assists federal and state
    agencies in identifying overpayments and fraud, and assists with assessing benefits.
    53 P.L. 93-647 allowed a “reasonable” application fee to be imposed on non-AFDC families for CSE services.
    54 P.L. 93-647 provided that the AFDC payment to an otherwise eligible child would not be sanctioned if their parent
    (or other relevant individual) fails to cooperate with this requirement.
    Congressional Research Service

    17
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    application fee from the amount of child support collected. Distribution of Child Support
    The 1975 law required that child support payments made on behalf of children receiving AFDC The 1975 law required that child support payments made on behalf of children receiving AFDC
    benefits must be paid to the state rather than directly to the family. It also established procedures benefits must be paid to the state rather than directly to the family. It also established procedures
    for the distribution of child support collections received on behalf of families on AFDC. These for the distribution of child support collections received on behalf of families on AFDC. These
    provisions, together with the assignment of child support rights provision, enabled states and the provisions, together with the assignment of child support rights provision, enabled states and the
    federal government to federal government to regainobtain reimbursement for a portion of their AFDC expenditures. This meant that in cases a portion of their AFDC expenditures. This meant that in cases
    where child support was collected on behalf of a child receiving AFDC and the amount of the where child support was collected on behalf of a child receiving AFDC and the amount of the
    child support was not enough to make the family ineligible for AFDC, the family continued to child support was not enough to make the family ineligible for AFDC, the family continued to
    receive its full AFDC payment and the child support collection was used to reimburse the state receive its full AFDC payment and the child support collection was used to reimburse the state
    and federal government to the extent of their participation in the financing of past and current and federal government to the extent of their participation in the financing of past and current
    AFDC payments. Child support collected in excess of state and federal financing of those AFDC AFDC payments. Child support collected in excess of state and federal financing of those AFDC
    payments, up to the amount ordered for that period (e.g., month), was to be paid to the family. payments, up to the amount ordered for that period (e.g., month), was to be paid to the family.
    Also, for a 15-month period beginning July 1, 1975, a temporary exception was made to this Also, for a 15-month period beginning July 1, 1975, a temporary exception was made to this
    general distribution rule provided in the law. During this period, 40% of the first $50 collected on general distribution rule provided in the law. During this period, 40% of the first $50 collected on
    behalf of an AFDC family would be distributed (i.e., behalf of an AFDC family would be distributed (i.e., passed through) to them without any ) to them without any
    decrease in the amount of AFDC benefits paid to that family during that month.decrease in the amount of AFDC benefits paid to that family during that month.
    Child support collected on behalf of families who had never received AFDC assistance was to be Child support collected on behalf of families who had never received AFDC assistance was to be
    distributed to those families, except that states had the authority to deduct any costs for furnishing distributed to those families, except that states had the authority to deduct any costs for furnishing
    CSE services from the child support collected.CSE services from the child support collected.
    Once an AFDC family ceased to receive assistance, the state was permitted to distribute the full Once an AFDC family ceased to receive assistance, the state was permitted to distribute the full
    amount of child support collected to that family for a period of up to three months (starting the amount of child support collected to that family for a period of up to three months (starting the
    month after the family ceased to receive assistance). At the end of this period, if authorized by the month after the family ceased to receive assistance). At the end of this period, if authorized by the
    family, the state was to distribute the net amount of child support collected after deducting any family, the state was to distribute the net amount of child support collected after deducting any
    costs for those CSE services (if opting to do so).costs for those CSE services (if opting to do so).
    Financing the CSE Program
    In addition to the AFDC collections discussed above, the law created an incentive system to In addition to the AFDC collections discussed above, the law created an incentive system to
    encourage states to collect payments from parents of children on AFDC. Under this system, encourage states to collect payments from parents of children on AFDC. Under this system,
    financial incentive payments were provided to localities of the state (i.e., political subdivisions of financial incentive payments were provided to localities of the state (i.e., political subdivisions of
    the state) that had collected child support payments on behalf of state CSE agencies. When more the state) that had collected child support payments on behalf of state CSE agencies. When more
    than one jurisdiction was involved, the incentive payment was allocated among the jurisdictions. than one jurisdiction was involved, the incentive payment was allocated among the jurisdictions.
    The incentive payment also applied to states enforcing and collecting child support payments on The incentive payment also applied to states enforcing and collecting child support payments on
    behalf of other states. The incentive amount was dependent on when the child support collection behalf of other states. The incentive amount was dependent on when the child support collection
    was made. For the first 12 months of collections for a particular case, the incentive was 25% of was made. For the first 12 months of collections for a particular case, the incentive was 25% of
    the amount that was used to reimburse AFDC payments. After 12 months of collections in a the amount that was used to reimburse AFDC payments. After 12 months of collections in a
    particular case, the incentive payment dropped to 10%.particular case, the incentive payment dropped to 10%.5555 Incentive payments came out of the Incentive payments came out of the
    portion of child support collections sent to the federal government (hence, with zero cost to the portion of child support collections sent to the federal government (hence, with zero cost to the
    states).states).
    The law established federal financial participation for state costs in carrying out their CSE The law established federal financial participation for state costs in carrying out their CSE
    programs. The law required the HEW Secretary to pay each state, on a quarterly basis, an amount programs. The law required the HEW Secretary to pay each state, on a quarterly basis, an amount
    equal to 75% of the total amount expended by the state on CSE expenditures, except that equal to 75% of the total amount expended by the state on CSE expenditures, except that
    reimbursement of state expenditures on behalf of non-AFDC families (i.e., families that were not reimbursement of state expenditures on behalf of non-AFDC families (i.e., families that were not

    55 The 25%/10% rate ended on September 30, 1977. Pursuant to P.L. 95-30 the rate became 15% of such child support
    collected by localities or by one state for another state.
    Congressional Research Service

    18
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    required to assign their child support rights to the state) were to be eliminated after June 30, required to assign their child support rights to the state) were to be eliminated after June 30,
    1976.1976.5656 The law generally authorized appropriations to carry out the purposes of Title IV-D. The law generally authorized appropriations to carry out the purposes of Title IV-D.
    P.L. 94-46
    States encountered several challenges in complying with the federal CSE program requirements States encountered several challenges in complying with the federal CSE program requirements
    prior to July 1, 1975 (the effective date of P.L. 93-647). In response, legislation was enacted as prior to July 1, 1975 (the effective date of P.L. 93-647). In response, legislation was enacted as
    P.L. 94-46 to delay the effective date of the CSE program to August 1, 1975.P.L. 94-46 to delay the effective date of the CSE program to August 1, 1975.
    P.L. 94-88
    To resolve some of the challenges associated with the Social Services Amendments of 1974 (P.L. To resolve some of the challenges associated with the Social Services Amendments of 1974 (P.L.
    93-647), P.L. 94-88 was enacted in August 1975 to allow states to obtain waivers from certain 93-647), P.L. 94-88 was enacted in August 1975 to allow states to obtain waivers from certain
    program requirements under certain conditions until June 30, 1976. States granted those waivers program requirements under certain conditions until June 30, 1976. States granted those waivers
    would receive federal reimbursement at a reduced rate (50% rather than 75%). The law also eased would receive federal reimbursement at a reduced rate (50% rather than 75%). The law also eased
    the requirement for AFDC recipients to cooperate with state CSE agencies when the requirement for AFDC recipients to cooperate with state CSE agencies when “"good causegood cause”" for for
    refusing to cooperate existed, such as when cooperation would not be in the best interests of the refusing to cooperate existed, such as when cooperation would not be in the best interests of the
    child. It also provided for supplemental payments to AFDC recipients whose grants would be child. It also provided for supplemental payments to AFDC recipients whose grants would be
    reduced due to the implementation of the CSE program. In addition, the law provided for reduced due to the implementation of the CSE program. In addition, the law provided for
    quarterly advances to the states for CSE programs, and authorized the payment of funds to cover quarterly advances to the states for CSE programs, and authorized the payment of funds to cover
    specified costs incurred by the states during July 1975, in a good faith effort to implement specified costs incurred by the states during July 1975, in a good faith effort to implement
    specified CSE programs.specified CSE programs.
    1976
    P.L. 94-365
    P.L. 94-365 provided a one-year extension on funding of CSE services for non-AFDC families. P.L. 94-365 provided a one-year extension on funding of CSE services for non-AFDC families.
    The federal 75% matching rate (federal financial participation) was extended for CSE funding for The federal 75% matching rate (federal financial participation) was extended for CSE funding for
    non-AFDC families from June 30, 1976, through June 30, 1977.non-AFDC families from June 30, 1976, through June 30, 1977.
    Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976
    P.L. 94-566, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976, required state employment P.L. 94-566, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976, required state employment
    agencies to provide certain information on individuals upon request by state CSE agencies to aid agencies to provide certain information on individuals upon request by state CSE agencies to aid
    in the administration of the CSE program. The types of requested data that were to be shared in the administration of the CSE program. The types of requested data that were to be shared
    included information on the specified individualsincluded information on the specified individuals’' unemployment compensation, such as the unemployment compensation, such as the
    amount of such compensation being received; the current (or most recent) home address; and amount of such compensation being received; the current (or most recent) home address; and
    information related to refusals of employment offers.

    56 Although non-AFDC families have had the option to sign up for CSE services since the start of the CSE program in
    1975, federal funding of CSE services on behalf of non-AFDC families was not made permanent until 1980. P.L. 93-
    647 extended CSE funding for non-AFDC families through June 30, 1976; P.L. 94-365 extended it through June 30,
    1977; P.L. 95-59 extended it through September 30, 1978; P.L. 96-178 extended it through March 31, 1980; and P.L.
    96-272 made it permanent.
    Congressional Research Service

    19
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    1977
    information related to refusals of employment offers. 1977 Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
    P.L. 95-30, the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977, made several amendments to Title P.L. 95-30, the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977, made several amendments to Title
    IV-D of the SSA. Provisions relating to the garnishment of a federal employeeIV-D of the SSA. Provisions relating to the garnishment of a federal employee’'s wages for child s wages for child
    support were amended to (1) include employees of the District of Columbia; (2) specify the support were amended to (1) include employees of the District of Columbia; (2) specify the
    conditions and procedures to be followed to serve garnishments on federal agencies; (3) authorize conditions and procedures to be followed to serve garnishments on federal agencies; (3) authorize
    the issuance of garnishment regulations by the three branches of the federal government and by the issuance of garnishment regulations by the three branches of the federal government and by
    the District of Columbia; (4) clarify several terms used in the statute, and (5) impose additional the District of Columbia; (4) clarify several terms used in the statute, and (5) impose additional
    annual reporting requirements to Congress. The law also required that the CSE state plan provide annual reporting requirements to Congress. The law also required that the CSE state plan provide
    bonding for employees who receive, handle, or disburse cash and to ensure that the accounting bonding for employees who receive, handle, or disburse cash and to ensure that the accounting
    and collection functions are performed by different individuals.and collection functions are performed by different individuals.5757 In addition, the incentive In addition, the incentive
    payment provision was amended to change the rate to 15% of AFDC collections (from 25% for payment provision was amended to change the rate to 15% of AFDC collections (from 25% for
    the first 12 months and 10% thereafter).the first 12 months and 10% thereafter).58 58
    In addition, the law amended the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §1673(b)) to In addition, the law amended the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §1673(b)) to
    provide limits on garnishment that apply to the aggregate disposable provide limits on garnishment that apply to the aggregate disposable earnings59earnings59 of any workweek, of any workweek,
    not to exceed 50% for individuals supporting a spouse or dependent child (other than those on the not to exceed 50% for individuals supporting a spouse or dependent child (other than those on the
    support order) and 60% for individuals not supporting a spouse or dependent child. Those limits support order) and 60% for individuals not supporting a spouse or dependent child. Those limits
    are 55% and 65%, respectively, for support payments that are more than 12 weeks late.are 55% and 65%, respectively, for support payments that are more than 12 weeks late.
    Extension of Certain Social Welfare Programs
    P.L. 95-59, the Extension of Certain Social Welfare Programs, extended federal financial P.L. 95-59, the Extension of Certain Social Welfare Programs, extended federal financial
    participation for non-AFDC families from June 30, 1977, to September 30, 1978.participation for non-AFDC families from June 30, 1977, to September 30, 1978.
    Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments
    P.L. 95-142, the Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments, created a Medicaid state P.L. 95-142, the Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments, created a Medicaid state
    plan requirement for a medical support enforcement program to establish and collect medical plan requirement for a medical support enforcement program to establish and collect medical
    support obligations that are owed to Medicaid child enrollees.support obligations that are owed to Medicaid child enrollees.6060 The Medicaid provision The Medicaid provision
    permitted states to condition Medicaid eligibility on requiring Medicaid applicants and enrollees permitted states to condition Medicaid eligibility on requiring Medicaid applicants and enrollees
    to (1) assign their rights to medical support and payment to the state, (2) cooperate with the state to (1) assign their rights to medical support and payment to the state, (2) cooperate with the state
    in establishing paternity (with good cause exceptions), and (3) provide information about third in establishing paternity (with good cause exceptions), and (3) provide information about third
    parties who may be liable to pay for all or part of services provided under Medicaid.parties who may be liable to pay for all or part of services provided under Medicaid.6161 State State
    Medicaid agencies were allowed to enter into cooperative agreements with any appropriate Medicaid agencies were allowed to enter into cooperative agreements with any appropriate
    agency of any state, including the CSE agency, for assistance with the enforcement and collection agency of any state, including the CSE agency, for assistance with the enforcement and collection
    of medical support obligations. Funds collected under this provision were to be retained by the of medical support obligations. Funds collected under this provision were to be retained by the
    state for the reimbursement of Medicaid payments made on behalf of the enrollee, with the

    57 §454 of the SSA.
    58 §458(a) of the SSA.
    59 Disposable earnings is the amount of earnings left after legally required deductions (e.g., federal, state, and local
    taxes; Social Security; unemployment compensation; state employee retirement systems) have been made. Deductions
    not required by law (e.g., union dues, health and life insurance, charitable contributions) are not subtracted from gross
    earnings when the amount of disposable earnings for garnishment purposes is calculated.
    60 See §11 of P.L. 95-142.
    61 P.L. 95-142 amended SSA Section 1912, which was later amended by Section 2367(b) of the Medicare and Medicaid
    Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-369) to require Medicaid state programs to condition Medicaid eligibility on an
    applicant’s or enrollee’s compliance with these requirements (with good cause exceptions in establishing paternity).
    Congressional Research Service

    20
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    state for the reimbursement of Medicaid payments made on behalf of the enrollee, with the remainder to be paid to the Medicaid enrollee. Incentives were also made available to localities remainder to be paid to the Medicaid enrollee. Incentives were also made available to localities
    making medical child support collections for states and for states securing collections on behalf of making medical child support collections for states and for states securing collections on behalf of
    other states.other states.6262
    P.L. 95-171
    P.L. 95-171 made changes to provisions governing the distribution of child support for former P.L. 95-171 made changes to provisions governing the distribution of child support for former
    AFDC families. These changes allowed the state to retain any additional amount of support AFDC families. These changes allowed the state to retain any additional amount of support
    collected beyond the monthly support due to the family to cover any past assistance payments collected beyond the monthly support due to the family to cover any past assistance payments
    made to the family for which the state and federal government had not been reimbursed. Once all made to the family for which the state and federal government had not been reimbursed. Once all
    assistance payments had been reimbursed, any additional support beyond the monthly support assistance payments had been reimbursed, any additional support beyond the monthly support
    payment was also to be paid to the family.payment was also to be paid to the family.
    1978
    Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978
    P.L. 95-598, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, repealed Section 456(b) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. P.L. 95-598, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, repealed Section 456(b) of the SSA (42 U.S.C.
    656(b)), which had barred the discharge in bankruptcy of assigned child support debts. Pursuant 656(b)), which had barred the discharge in bankruptcy of assigned child support debts. Pursuant
    to P.L. 95-598, a child support obligation assigned to a state by an AFDC applicant or recipient to P.L. 95-598, a child support obligation assigned to a state by an AFDC applicant or recipient
    could be released/discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. (Section 456(b) of the SSA was could be released/discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. (Section 456(b) of the SSA was
    restored in 1981 by P.L. 97-35restored in 1981 by P.L. 97-35.).)
    1980
    P.L. 96-178
    P.L. 96-178 extended federal financial participation (i.e., the federal matching rate) for CSE P.L. 96-178 extended federal financial participation (i.e., the federal matching rate) for CSE
    services on behalf of families not on AFDC to March 31, 1980, retroactive to October 1, 1978.services on behalf of families not on AFDC to March 31, 1980, retroactive to October 1, 1978.
    Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
    P.L. 96-265, the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, made several changes to the P.L. 96-265, the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, made several changes to the
    CSE program. With regard to federal financial support for state programs, it increased federal CSE program. With regard to federal financial support for state programs, it increased federal
    financial participation to 90%, effective July 1, 1981, for the costs of developing, implementing, financial participation to 90%, effective July 1, 1981, for the costs of developing, implementing,
    and enhancing approved automatic data processing and information retrieval systems. It also and enhancing approved automatic data processing and information retrieval systems. It also
    specified the required components and capabilities of those systems, along with federal oversight specified the required components and capabilities of those systems, along with federal oversight
    and technical assistance duties. Federal financial participation was also made available for child and technical assistance duties. Federal financial participation was also made available for child
    support enforcement duties performed by certain court personnel. State programs were required support enforcement duties performed by certain court personnel. State programs were required
    to submit quarterly reports of the amount of child support collected and disbursed, as well as to submit quarterly reports of the amount of child support collected and disbursed, as well as
    expenditures eligible for federal financial participation.expenditures eligible for federal financial participation.
    Another provision authorized the IRS to collect child support arrearages on behalf of non-AFDC Another provision authorized the IRS to collect child support arrearages on behalf of non-AFDC
    families. Finally, the law provided state and local CSE agencies access to wage information held families. Finally, the law provided state and local CSE agencies access to wage information held
    by the Social Security Administration and state employment security agencies for use in by the Social Security Administration and state employment security agencies for use in
    establishing and enforcing child support obligations.establishing and enforcing child support obligations.

    62 §1903 of the SSA.
    Congressional Research Service

    21
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
    P.L. 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, contained four amendments P.L. 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, contained four amendments
    to Title IV-D of the SSA related to program financing. First, the law repealed the expiration date to Title IV-D of the SSA related to program financing. First, the law repealed the expiration date
    for federal financial participation for non-AFDC services (retroactive to October 1, 1978). for federal financial participation for non-AFDC services (retroactive to October 1, 1978).
    Second, it allowed states to receive incentive payments on all AFDC collections, not just Second, it allowed states to receive incentive payments on all AFDC collections, not just
    interstate collections. Third, as of October 1, 1979, states were required to claim reimbursement interstate collections. Third, as of October 1, 1979, states were required to claim reimbursement
    for expenditures within two years, with some exceptions. Fourth, the imposition of the 5% for expenditures within two years, with some exceptions. Fourth, the imposition of the 5%
    penalty on AFDC reimbursement for states not having effective CSE programs was postponed penalty on AFDC reimbursement for states not having effective CSE programs was postponed
    until October 1, 1980.until October 1, 1980.
    In addition, the law imposed new requirements for the OCSE annual report to Congress related to In addition, the law imposed new requirements for the OCSE annual report to Congress related to
    non-AFDC child support cases.non-AFDC child support cases.
    P.L. 96-611
    P.L. 96-611 directed the HHS Secretary to enter into an agreement with any able and willing state P.L. 96-611 directed the HHS Secretary to enter into an agreement with any able and willing state
    to make available FPLS data to be used in connection with child custody determination or to make available FPLS data to be used in connection with child custody determination or
    enforcement, and in cases of parental kidnaping of a child. The only information authorized to be enforcement, and in cases of parental kidnaping of a child. The only information authorized to be
    provided was the most recent address and place of employment of the absent parent or child.provided was the most recent address and place of employment of the absent parent or child.
    1981
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
    P.L. 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, amended Title IV-D of the SSA in P.L. 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, amended Title IV-D of the SSA in
    five ways. First, the IRS was authorized to withhold all or part of federal income tax refunds of five ways. First, the IRS was authorized to withhold all or part of federal income tax refunds of
    certain individuals who owed past-due child support to collect those obligations on behalf of certain individuals who owed past-due child support to collect those obligations on behalf of
    AFDC families.AFDC families.6363 (Conforming changes were made to Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code (Conforming changes were made to Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code
    (26 U.S.C. §6402).) Second, CSE agencies were permitted to collect spousal support for AFDC (26 U.S.C. §6402).) Second, CSE agencies were permitted to collect spousal support for AFDC
    families. Third, for non-AFDC cases, CSE agencies were required to collect fees from absent families. Third, for non-AFDC cases, CSE agencies were required to collect fees from absent
    parents who were delinquent in their child support payments. These fees, which were generally to parents who were delinquent in their child support payments. These fees, which were generally to
    be 10% of the amount owed, were to be credited to the CSE agency from payments in excess of be 10% of the amount owed, were to be credited to the CSE agency from payments in excess of
    the delinquent support. Fourth, child support obligations assigned to the state no longer were the delinquent support. Fourth, child support obligations assigned to the state no longer were
    dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. Fifth, with regard to unemployment dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. Fifth, with regard to unemployment compensation claimants, new claimants, new
    claimants were required to disclose whether they owed child support obligations. Further, states claimants were required to disclose whether they owed child support obligations. Further, states
    were required to notify CSE agencies if child support obligors were eligible to receive were required to notify CSE agencies if child support obligors were eligible to receive
    unemployment benefits and withhold a portion of unemployment benefits from claimants unemployment benefits and withhold a portion of unemployment benefits from claimants
    delinquent in their support payments.delinquent in their support payments.
    1982
    Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
    P.L. 97-248, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, included several provisions P.L. 97-248, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, included several provisions
    affecting the CSE program, primarily related to the financing of the program. Federal financial affecting the CSE program, primarily related to the financing of the program. Federal financial
    participation was reduced from 75% to 70%, effective October 1, 1982. Incentive payments were participation was reduced from 75% to 70%, effective October 1, 1982. Incentive payments were
    reduced from 15% to 12%, effective October 1, 1983 (such incentives were obtained from the reduced from 15% to 12%, effective October 1, 1983 (such incentives were obtained from the
    federal share of CSE collections). The provision for reimbursement of costs of certain court federal share of CSE collections). The provision for reimbursement of costs of certain court

    63 §464 of the SSA.
    Congressional Research Service

    22
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    personnel that exceed the amount of funds spent by a state on similar court expenses during personnel that exceed the amount of funds spent by a state on similar court expenses during
    calendar year 1978 was repealed. The mandatory 10% fee to recover costs associated with CSE calendar year 1978 was repealed. The mandatory 10% fee to recover costs associated with CSE
    services in non-AFDC cases imposed by P.L. 97-35 was repealed (retroactive to August 13, services in non-AFDC cases imposed by P.L. 97-35 was repealed (retroactive to August 13,
    1981), and states were given the option of establishing an application fee on custodial parents 1981), and states were given the option of establishing an application fee on custodial parents
    who were not receiving AFDC benefits and recovering costs in excess of the fee from either the who were not receiving AFDC benefits and recovering costs in excess of the fee from either the
    custodial or noncustodial (non-AFDC) parent. Finally, states were newly allowed to retain child custodial or noncustodial (non-AFDC) parent. Finally, states were newly allowed to retain child
    support to reimburse themselves for AFDC grants paid to families for the first month in which the support to reimburse themselves for AFDC grants paid to families for the first month in which the
    collection of child support was sufficient to make a family ineligible for AFDC.collection of child support was sufficient to make a family ineligible for AFDC.
    The law also allowed states to collect spousal support in certain non-AFDC cases. Moreover, The law also allowed states to collect spousal support in certain non-AFDC cases. Moreover,
    members of the uniformed services on active duty were required to make allotments from their members of the uniformed services on active duty were required to make allotments from their
    pay when support arrearages reached the equivalent of a two-month delinquency.pay when support arrearages reached the equivalent of a two-month delinquency.
    Uniformed Services Former Spouses’' Protection Act
    P.L. 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former SpousesP.L. 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’' Protection Act, authorized treatment of Protection Act, authorized treatment of
    military retirement or retainer pay as property to be divided by state courts in connection with military retirement or retainer pay as property to be divided by state courts in connection with
    divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation proceedings. It also allowed for the payment divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation proceedings. It also allowed for the payment
    of child and/or spousal support (as specified in the court order) from the military retirement or of child and/or spousal support (as specified in the court order) from the military retirement or
    retainer pay.retainer pay.
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
    P.L. 97-253, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, provided for the disclosure of P.L. 97-253, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, provided for the disclosure of
    information obtained under authority of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to various programs, information obtained under authority of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to various programs,
    including state CSE agencies.including state CSE agencies.
    1983
    Social Security Amendments of 1983
    P.L. 98-21, the Social Security Amendments of 1983, created an explicit exception for child P.L. 98-21, the Social Security Amendments of 1983, created an explicit exception for child
    support and alimony to Section 207 of the SSA. (Section 207 prohibits the federal government support and alimony to Section 207 of the SSA. (Section 207 prohibits the federal government
    from garnishing, levying, or withholding Social Security benefits.)from garnishing, levying, or withholding Social Security benefits.)
    1984
    Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1983
    P.L. 98-353, the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1983, made P.L. 98-353, the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1983, made
    nondischargeable in bankruptcy (1) any debt for child support (i.e., support of nondischargeable in bankruptcy (1) any debt for child support (i.e., support of “"a dependent of the a dependent of the
    debtor”debtor") ordered by a court (regardless of whether the debtor parent was ever married to the ) ordered by a court (regardless of whether the debtor parent was ever married to the
    child’child's other parent); and (2) any such debt assigned to federal, state, or local government. In s other parent); and (2) any such debt assigned to federal, state, or local government. In
    effect, this provision stipulated that child support debts in the case of non-AFDC families could effect, this provision stipulated that child support debts in the case of non-AFDC families could
    not be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.not be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.64 Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 64

    64 A similar provision for AFDC families had already been enacted as part of the original CSE law (P.L. 93-647), but
    was later repealed by P.L. 95-598, and then restored by P.L. 97-35.
    Congressional Research Service

    23
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
    P.L. 98-369, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, required states to pass through to the family the P.L. 98-369, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, required states to pass through to the family the
    first $50 of current monthly child support payments collected on behalf of an AFDC family and to first $50 of current monthly child support payments collected on behalf of an AFDC family and to
    disregard it as income to the family so that it did not affect the familydisregard it as income to the family so that it did not affect the family’'s AFDC eligibility or s AFDC eligibility or
    monthly benefit amount. (This provision, referred to as a monthly benefit amount. (This provision, referred to as a disregard requirement, resulted in some requirement, resulted in some
    AFDC families having up to $50 of additional disposable income each month.) The remaining AFDC families having up to $50 of additional disposable income each month.) The remaining
    amount of child support paid would continue to be divided between the state and the federal amount of child support paid would continue to be divided between the state and the federal
    governments according to the stategovernments according to the state’'s AFDC federal financial participation.s AFDC federal financial participation.
    P.L. 98-369 also amended Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §152) to provide P.L. 98-369 also amended Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §152) to provide
    that the dependency exemption for a child of divorced or separated parents could be allocated to that the dependency exemption for a child of divorced or separated parents could be allocated to
    the noncustodial parent under certain circumstances, including if the custodial parent signed a the noncustodial parent under certain circumstances, including if the custodial parent signed a
    written declaration that they would not claim the exemption for the relevant year. For purposes of written declaration that they would not claim the exemption for the relevant year. For purposes of
    computing the medical expense deduction for years after 1984, Section 213 of the Internal computing the medical expense deduction for years after 1984, Section 213 of the Internal
    Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §213) was amended to provide that each parent was allowed to claim Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §213) was amended to provide that each parent was allowed to claim
    the medical expenses that he or she paid for the child.the medical expenses that he or she paid for the child.
    Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984
    P.L. 98-378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, featured provisions that P.L. 98-378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, featured provisions that
    required improvements in state and local CSE programs in four major areas (discussed below).required improvements in state and local CSE programs in four major areas (discussed below).
    Mandatory Enforcement Practices
    All states were required to enact statutes to improve enforcement mechanisms, including (1) All states were required to enact statutes to improve enforcement mechanisms, including (1)
    mandatory income withholding procedures; (2) expedited processes for establishing and mandatory income withholding procedures; (2) expedited processes for establishing and
    enforcing support enforcing support orders65orders65; (3) state income tax refund interceptions for past-due support; (4) ; (3) state income tax refund interceptions for past-due support; (4)
    liens against real and personal property, security, or bonds for amounts of past-due support to liens against real and personal property, security, or bonds for amounts of past-due support to
    ensure compliance with support obligations; (5) state laws allowing for the bringing of paternity ensure compliance with support obligations; (5) state laws allowing for the bringing of paternity
    actions any time prior to a childactions any time prior to a child’s 18th's 18th birthday, and (6) furnishing information to consumer birthday, and (6) furnishing information to consumer
    reporting agencies (e.g., credit bureaus) with regard to the amount of support arrears. (If the reporting agencies (e.g., credit bureaus) with regard to the amount of support arrears. (If the
    amount of the overdue support involved in any case was less than $1,000, information would be amount of the overdue support involved in any case was less than $1,000, information would be
    made available only at the option of the state.made available only at the option of the state.66)
    66) All support orders issued or modified after October 1, 1985, were required to include a provision All support orders issued or modified after October 1, 1985, were required to include a provision
    for wage withholding, and the law also included detailed procedures that employers and states for wage withholding, and the law also included detailed procedures that employers and states
    were required to follow for wage withholding.were required to follow for wage withholding.
    Federal Financial Participation and Audit Provisions
    To encourage greater reliance on performance-based incentives, federal financial participation To encourage greater reliance on performance-based incentives, federal financial participation
    was reduced by 2% in 1988 (to 68%) and another 2% in 1990 (to 66%). Federal financial was reduced by 2% in 1988 (to 68%) and another 2% in 1990 (to 66%). Federal financial
    participation at a 90% rate for automatic data processing was expanded to include computer participation at a 90% rate for automatic data processing was expanded to include computer
    hardware purchases, and at state option to facilitate income withholding and other newly required hardware purchases, and at state option to facilitate income withholding and other newly required

    65 These expedited processes had the effect of limiting the role of the courts. An expedited judicial process is a legal
    process that generally lessens the processing time of establishing and enforcing a child support order. This process
    gives a judge surrogate authority to take several actions in lieu of the judge (e.g., take testimony and establish a record,
    enter default orders if the noncustodial parent does not respond in a timely manner to “notice” or “service of process,”
    accept voluntary acknowledgments of support, and approve stipulated agreements to pay support). Judge surrogates are
    sometimes referred to as masters, referees, hearing officers, or presiding officers.
    66 All of these changes were made to Section 466 of the SSA.
    Congressional Research Service

    24
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    procedures. State incentive payments were reset at 6% for both AFDC and non-AFDC procedures. State incentive payments were reset at 6% for both AFDC and non-AFDC
    collections. These percentages could rise as high as 10% for each category for cost-effective collections. These percentages could rise as high as 10% for each category for cost-effective
    states, but a statestates, but a state’'s non-AFDC incentive payments could not exceed its AFDC incentive s non-AFDC incentive payments could not exceed its AFDC incentive
    payments. States were required to pass incentives through to local CSE agencies if these agencies payments. States were required to pass incentives through to local CSE agencies if these agencies
    had accumulated CSE costs.had accumulated CSE costs.
    Annual state audits were replaced with audits conducted at least once every three years. The focus Annual state audits were replaced with audits conducted at least once every three years. The focus
    of the audits was altered to evaluate a stateof the audits was altered to evaluate a state’'s effectiveness on the basis of program performance s effectiveness on the basis of program performance
    as well as operational compliance. Penalties for noncompliance were set at between 1% and 5% as well as operational compliance. Penalties for noncompliance were set at between 1% and 5%
    of the federal share of the stateof the federal share of the state’'s AFDC funds, depending on the number of consecutive findings s AFDC funds, depending on the number of consecutive findings
    of noncompliance. The federal government could suspend imposition of a penalty based on a of noncompliance. The federal government could suspend imposition of a penalty based on a
    state’state's filing of, and compliance with, an acceptable corrective action plan.s filing of, and compliance with, an acceptable corrective action plan.
    Improved Interstate Enforcement
    States were required to apply a host of enforcement techniques to interstate cases as well as States were required to apply a host of enforcement techniques to interstate cases as well as
    intrastate cases. Both states involved in an interstate case could take credit for the collection when intrastate cases. Both states involved in an interstate case could take credit for the collection when
    reporting total collections for the purpose of calculating incentives. Special demonstration grants reporting total collections for the purpose of calculating incentives. Special demonstration grants
    were authorized beginning in 1985 to fund innovative methods of interstate enforcement and were authorized beginning in 1985 to fund innovative methods of interstate enforcement and
    collection. Federal audits were to be focused on statescollection. Federal audits were to be focused on states’' effectiveness in establishing and enforcing effectiveness in establishing and enforcing
    obligations across state lines.obligations across state lines.
    Equal Services for Welfare and Non-AFDC Families
    Several specific requirements were directed at improving state services to non-AFDC families. Several specific requirements were directed at improving state services to non-AFDC families.
    States were required to make all of the mandatory practices available for both States were required to make all of the mandatory practices available for both AFDC and non-AFDC types of cases. The types of cases. The
    interception of federal income tax refunds was extended to non-AFDC cases. Incentive payments interception of federal income tax refunds was extended to non-AFDC cases. Incentive payments
    for non-AFDC cases were provided for the first time (to apply to refunds payable after December for non-AFDC cases were provided for the first time (to apply to refunds payable after December
    31, 1985, and before January 1, 1991; this time limit was repealed by P.L. 101-508). States were 31, 1985, and before January 1, 1991; this time limit was repealed by P.L. 101-508). States were
    required to charge an application fee not exceeding $25 for non-AFDC cases. However, states required to charge an application fee not exceeding $25 for non-AFDC cases. However, states
    were to continue to provide services to former AFDC families once they were no longer eligible were to continue to provide services to former AFDC families once they were no longer eligible
    for benefits without changing the fee. States were required to publicize the availability of CSE for benefits without changing the fee. States were required to publicize the availability of CSE
    services for non-AFDC parents.services for non-AFDC parents.
    Other Provisions
    States were required to (1) collect spousal support in addition to child support where both are due States were required to (1) collect spousal support in addition to child support where both are due
    in a case; (2) notify AFDC recipients, at least yearly, of the collections made on their behalf; (3) in a case; (2) notify AFDC recipients, at least yearly, of the collections made on their behalf; (3)
    establish state commissions to study the operation of the stateestablish state commissions to study the operation of the state’'s child support system and report s child support system and report
    findings to the statefindings to the state’'s governor; (4) formulate guidelines for determining appropriate child s governor; (4) formulate guidelines for determining appropriate child
    support obligation amounts and distribute the guidelines to judges and other individuals who support obligation amounts and distribute the guidelines to judges and other individuals who
    possess authority to establish obligation amounts; and (5) offset the costs of the program by possess authority to establish obligation amounts; and (5) offset the costs of the program by
    charging various fees to non-AFDC families and delinquent nonresident parents. The FPLS was charging various fees to non-AFDC families and delinquent nonresident parents. The FPLS was
    altered to make it more accessible and effective in locating absent parents.altered to make it more accessible and effective in locating absent parents.
    With regard to the federal administration of the CSE program, the law made additional changes to With regard to the federal administration of the CSE program, the law made additional changes to
    Title IV-D of the SSA and Sections 6103 and 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. Title IV-D of the SSA and Sections 6103 and 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.
    §§6103 and 6402) related to the collection of past-due support from federal tax refunds. As a §§6103 and 6402) related to the collection of past-due support from federal tax refunds. As a
    result of these changes, the Treasury Secretary was required to collect past-due support from result of these changes, the Treasury Secretary was required to collect past-due support from
    refunds and charge a fee, not to exceed $25, for that service. The law also allowed Social Security refunds and charge a fee, not to exceed $25, for that service. The law also allowed Social Security
    numbers to be shared for child support enforcement purposes, and for the IRS to share certain numbers to be shared for child support enforcement purposes, and for the IRS to share certain
    information with state agencies seeking an offset of past-due support under the Internal Revenue information with state agencies seeking an offset of past-due support under the Internal Revenue
    Congressional Research Service

    25
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Code Section 6402. Additionally, the law amended Section 406 of the SSA to allow families Code Section 6402. Additionally, the law amended Section 406 of the SSA to allow families
    whose AFDC eligibility was terminated as a result of the payment of child support to remain whose AFDC eligibility was terminated as a result of the payment of child support to remain
    eligible to receive Medicaid for four months (expired on October 1, 1988; this expiration date was eligible to receive Medicaid for four months (expired on October 1, 1988; this expiration date was
    repealed by P.L. 101-239repealed by P.L. 101-239). ).
    The law amended Section 452 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §562) to require the HHS The law amended Section 452 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §562) to require the HHS
    Secretary to issue regulations that required state child support enforcement agencies to Secretary to issue regulations that required state child support enforcement agencies to “"petition petition
    for the inclusion offor the inclusion of”" medical support as part of the child support order whenever health care medical support as part of the child support order whenever health care
    coverage is available to the absent parent coverage is available to the absent parent “"at reasonable cost.at reasonable cost.”" Such regulations were also to Such regulations were also to
    provide for information exchange between state agencies administering child support and the provide for information exchange between state agencies administering child support and the
    Medicaid program.Medicaid program.
    In addition to the demonstrations authorized to fund innovative methods of interstate enforcement In addition to the demonstrations authorized to fund innovative methods of interstate enforcement
    and collection (discussed above), the law provided waiver authority for the CSE program to and collection (discussed above), the law provided waiver authority for the CSE program to
    operate approved research and demonstration projects under Section 1115 of the SSA. It also operate approved research and demonstration projects under Section 1115 of the SSA. It also
    mandated that the HHS Secretary waive requirements in IV-A and IV-D of the SSA if the state of mandated that the HHS Secretary waive requirements in IV-A and IV-D of the SSA if the state of
    Wisconsin requested this for the purposes of a demonstration of its Child Support Initiative.Wisconsin requested this for the purposes of a demonstration of its Child Support Initiative.
    Where appropriate, states were required to collect support on behalf of children receiving foster Where appropriate, states were required to collect support on behalf of children receiving foster
    care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the SSA (§471). Title IV-D was amended to care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the SSA (§471). Title IV-D was amended to
    provide for the distribution of any child support collected in such cases (§457 of the SSA). These provide for the distribution of any child support collected in such cases (§457 of the SSA). These
    provisions instructed that child support collected in these cases must first be used to reimburse the provisions instructed that child support collected in these cases must first be used to reimburse the
    state and federal governments for the cost of providing Title IV-E foster care maintenance state and federal governments for the cost of providing Title IV-E foster care maintenance
    payments. If the current payments collected exceeded the amount needed to cover the payments payments. If the current payments collected exceeded the amount needed to cover the payments
    made, funds were to be paid to the state child welfare agencies and used in the best interest of the made, funds were to be paid to the state child welfare agencies and used in the best interest of the
    child, which could include reserving funds for the childchild, which could include reserving funds for the child’'s future use. Any additional remaining s future use. Any additional remaining
    collections were to be retained by the state to the extent they represented past due obligations collections were to be retained by the state to the extent they represented past due obligations
    assigned to the state and were needed to reimburse the state and federal governments for the cost assigned to the state and were needed to reimburse the state and federal governments for the cost
    of previously provided Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.of previously provided Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
    1986
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
    P.L. 99-509, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, included one child support P.L. 99-509, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, included one child support
    enforcement amendment prohibiting the retroactive modification of child support awards enforcement amendment prohibiting the retroactive modification of child support awards
    (§466(a)(9) of the SSA). Under this new requirement, state laws were required to provide for (§466(a)(9) of the SSA). Under this new requirement, state laws were required to provide for
    either parent to apply for modification of an existing order with notice provided to the other either parent to apply for modification of an existing order with notice provided to the other
    parent. No modification was permitted before the date of this notification.parent. No modification was permitted before the date of this notification.
    1987
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
    P.L. 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, amended Section 454 of the SSA P.L. 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, amended Section 454 of the SSA
    to include a provision that required states to provide CSE services to all families with an absent to include a provision that required states to provide CSE services to all families with an absent
    parent who received Medicaid and had assigned their support rights to the state,parent who received Medicaid and had assigned their support rights to the state,6767 regardless of regardless of
    whether they were receiving AFDC. The law also made a technical change to Section 457 with whether they were receiving AFDC. The law also made a technical change to Section 457 with

    67 Ten years later, in 1997, P.L. 105-33 prohibited these Medicaid families from having to pay an application fee for
    CSE services.
    Congressional Research Service

    26
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    regard to the continuation of CSE services to families no longer receiving AFDC assistance, and regard to the continuation of CSE services to families no longer receiving AFDC assistance, and
    repealed a revolving fund in Section 452 related to the Department of repealed a revolving fund in Section 452 related to the Department of Treasury’the Treasury's collection of s collection of
    child support debt.child support debt.
    1988
    International Child Abduction Remedies Act
    P.L. 100-300, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, established procedures to P.L. 100-300, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, established procedures to
    implement the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The act implement the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The act
    contained provisions directing the HHS Secretary to enter into an agreement enabling the FPLS to contained provisions directing the HHS Secretary to enter into an agreement enabling the FPLS to
    be made available for the purposes of locating any parent or child, subject to limits and conditions be made available for the purposes of locating any parent or child, subject to limits and conditions
    specified in the law. The FPLS was prohibited from charging fees in connection with this service.specified in the law. The FPLS was prohibited from charging fees in connection with this service.
    Family Support Act of 1988
    P.L. 100-485, the Family Support Act of 1988, emphasized the duties of parents to work and P.L. 100-485, the Family Support Act of 1988, emphasized the duties of parents to work and
    support their children and, in particular, emphasized CSE as the first line of defense against cash support their children and, in particular, emphasized CSE as the first line of defense against cash
    assistance dependence. Key child support provisions of the act are discussed below.assistance dependence. Key child support provisions of the act are discussed below.
    Guidelines for Child Support Awards, Review, and Modification
    Judges and other officials were required to use state guidelines for child support unless they Judges and other officials were required to use state guidelines for child support unless they
    rebutted the guidelines by a written finding that applying them would be unjust or inappropriate rebutted the guidelines by a written finding that applying them would be unjust or inappropriate
    in a particular case. States were required to review guidelines for awards every four years. The in a particular case. States were required to review guidelines for awards every four years. The
    HHS Secretary was directed to conduct a two-year demonstration for evaluating model HHS Secretary was directed to conduct a two-year demonstration for evaluating model
    procedures for reviewing child support awards.procedures for reviewing child support awards.
    States generally were required to review and, if necessary, adjust individual case awards every States generally were required to review and, if necessary, adjust individual case awards every
    three years for AFDC cases. (This requirement was to be in effect five years after the enactment three years for AFDC cases. (This requirement was to be in effect five years after the enactment
    of the act.) The same requirement applied to other CSE cases, except review and adjustment was of the act.) The same requirement applied to other CSE cases, except review and adjustment was
    at the request of a parent. The HHS Secretary was directed to complete a study within two years at the request of a parent. The HHS Secretary was directed to complete a study within two years
    after the date of enactment to determine the impact on child support awards and the courts of after the date of enactment to determine the impact on child support awards and the courts of
    requiring each state to periodically review all orders in effect in the state.requiring each state to periodically review all orders in effect in the state.
    Establishment of Paternity
    States were required to meet federal standards for the establishment of paternity. States were States were required to meet federal standards for the establishment of paternity. States were
    given two options for determining the Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP). They could use given two options for determining the Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP). They could use
    a PEP that was based on data that pertained solely to the CSE program or they could use a PEP a PEP that was based on data that pertained solely to the CSE program or they could use a PEP
    that was based on data that pertained to the state population as a whole. (In effect, the PEP that was based on data that pertained to the state population as a whole. (In effect, the PEP
    compared paternities established during the fiscal year with the number of nonmarital births compared paternities established during the fiscal year with the number of nonmarital births
    during the preceding fiscal year.) To meet federal requirements, the PEP in a state was required to during the preceding fiscal year.) To meet federal requirements, the PEP in a state was required to
    (1) be at least 50%, (2) be at least equal to the average for all states, or (3) have increased by 3% (1) be at least 50%, (2) be at least equal to the average for all states, or (3) have increased by 3%
    from FY1988 to FY1991 and by 3% each year thereafter.from FY1988 to FY1991 and by 3% each year thereafter.
    States were mandated to require all parties in a contested paternity case to take a genetic test upon States were mandated to require all parties in a contested paternity case to take a genetic test upon
    request of any party, and were authorized to charge individuals not receiving AFDC for the costs request of any party, and were authorized to charge individuals not receiving AFDC for the costs
    of those genetic tests. In addition, states were encouraged to implement a simple civil process for of those genetic tests. In addition, states were encouraged to implement a simple civil process for
    the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. Federal financial participation for laboratory testing the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. Federal financial participation for laboratory testing
    to establish paternity was increased to 90%.to establish paternity was increased to 90%.
    Congressional Research Service

    27
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Disregard of Child Support
    The $50 child support disregard for AFDC families authorized under the Deficit Reduction Act of The $50 child support disregard for AFDC families authorized under the Deficit Reduction Act of
    1984 was clarified so that it applied to a payment made by the noncustodial parent in the month it 1984 was clarified so that it applied to a payment made by the noncustodial parent in the month it
    was due even if it was received in a subsequent month. Conforming changes were made to was due even if it was received in a subsequent month. Conforming changes were made to
    Section 457 of the SSA.Section 457 of the SSA.
    Requirement for Prompt State Response
    The HHS Secretary was required to set time limits within which states must accept and respond to The HHS Secretary was required to set time limits within which states must accept and respond to
    requests for assistance in establishing and enforcing support orders. (An advisory committee requests for assistance in establishing and enforcing support orders. (An advisory committee
    convened by the Secretary was to be consulted with prior to issuing any regulations relating to convened by the Secretary was to be consulted with prior to issuing any regulations relating to
    this issue.) In addition, the HHS Secretary was to establish standard time limits within which this issue.) In addition, the HHS Secretary was to establish standard time limits within which
    child support payments collected by the state CSE agency had to be distributed to the families to child support payments collected by the state CSE agency had to be distributed to the families to
    whom they were owed.whom they were owed.
    Requirement for Automated Tracking and Monitoring System
    Every state that did not have a statewide automated tracking and monitoring system in effect had Every state that did not have a statewide automated tracking and monitoring system in effect had
    to submit an advance planning document that met federal requirements by October 1, 1991. The to submit an advance planning document that met federal requirements by October 1, 1991. The
    HHS Secretary was required to approve each document within nine months after submission. By HHS Secretary was required to approve each document within nine months after submission. By
    October 1, 1995, every state had to have an approved system in effect. States were awarded 90% October 1, 1995, every state had to have an approved system in effect. States were awarded 90%
    federal financial participation for this activity until September 30, 1995.federal financial participation for this activity until September 30, 1995.
    Interstate Enforcement
    A Commission on Interstate Child Support was created to hold national conferences on interstate A Commission on Interstate Child Support was created to hold national conferences on interstate
    child support enforcement reform and to report to Congress no later than October 1, 1990, on child support enforcement reform and to report to Congress no later than October 1, 1990, on
    recommendations for improvements in the system and revisions in the Uniform Reciprocal recommendations for improvements in the system and revisions in the Uniform Reciprocal
    Enforcement of Support Act. The act authorized to be appropriated $2 million in funding to carry Enforcement of Support Act. The act authorized to be appropriated $2 million in funding to carry
    out this activity.out this activity.
    Computing Incentive Payments
    Amounts spent by states for interstate demonstration projects were excluded from calculating the Amounts spent by states for interstate demonstration projects were excluded from calculating the
    amount of the statesamount of the states’' incentive payments. incentive payments.
    Additional Information to the FPLS
    The Secretaries of Labor and HHS were required to enter into an agreement to give the FPLS The Secretaries of Labor and HHS were required to enter into an agreement to give the FPLS
    prompt access to wage and unemployment compensation claims information useful in locating prompt access to wage and unemployment compensation claims information useful in locating
    absent parents, and states were required to enable such access.absent parents, and states were required to enable such access.
    Wage Withholding
    With respect to CSE cases, Section 466 of the SSA was amended to require that each state With respect to CSE cases, Section 466 of the SSA was amended to require that each state
    provide for immediate wage withholding in the case of orders that were issued or modified on or provide for immediate wage withholding in the case of orders that were issued or modified on or
    after the first day of the after the first day of the 25th25th month beginning after the date of enactment unless (1) one of the month beginning after the date of enactment unless (1) one of the
    parties demonstrated, and the court found, that there was good cause not to require such parties demonstrated, and the court found, that there was good cause not to require such
    withholding; or (2) there was a written agreement between both parties providing for an withholding; or (2) there was a written agreement between both parties providing for an
    alternative arrangement. Prior law requirements for mandatory wage withholding in cases where alternative arrangement. Prior law requirements for mandatory wage withholding in cases where
    payments were in arrears applied to orders that were not subject to immediate wage withholding. payments were in arrears applied to orders that were not subject to immediate wage withholding.
    Congressional Research Service

    28
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    States were required to provide for immediate wage withholding for all support orders initially States were required to provide for immediate wage withholding for all support orders initially
    issued on or after January 1, 1994, regardless of whether a parent had applied for CSE services issued on or after January 1, 1994, regardless of whether a parent had applied for CSE services
    (i.e., income withholding-only non-IV-D services). The HHS Secretary was directed to conduct a (i.e., income withholding-only non-IV-D services). The HHS Secretary was directed to conduct a
    study of the administrative feasibility, cost implications, and other effects of requiring immediate study of the administrative feasibility, cost implications, and other effects of requiring immediate
    income withholding with respect to all child support awards in a state, which was to be completed income withholding with respect to all child support awards in a state, which was to be completed
    not later than three years after the date of enactment.not later than three years after the date of enactment.
    Work and Training Demonstration Programs for Noncustodial Parents
    The HHS Secretary was required to grant waivers to up to five states to allow them to provide The HHS Secretary was required to grant waivers to up to five states to allow them to provide
    services to noncustodial parents under the AFDC Job Opportunity and Basic Skills (JOBS) services to noncustodial parents under the AFDC Job Opportunity and Basic Skills (JOBS)
    training program. No new power was granted to the states to require participation by noncustodial training program. No new power was granted to the states to require participation by noncustodial
    parents. State funding was provided via a formula based on AFDC caseloads and other factors.parents. State funding was provided via a formula based on AFDC caseloads and other factors.
    Data Collection and Reporting
    The HHS Secretary was required to collect and maintain state-by-state statistics on paternity The HHS Secretary was required to collect and maintain state-by-state statistics on paternity
    establishment, location of absent parents for the purpose of establishing a support obligation, establishment, location of absent parents for the purpose of establishing a support obligation,
    enforcement of a child support obligation, and location of absent parents for the purpose of enforcement of a child support obligation, and location of absent parents for the purpose of
    enforcing or modifying an established obligation. In addition, the HHS Secretary was directed, enforcing or modifying an established obligation. In addition, the HHS Secretary was directed,
    not later than two years after enactment, to complete a study of child-rearing costs in two-parent not later than two years after enactment, to complete a study of child-rearing costs in two-parent
    families and single-parent families. The law authorized such sums as were necessary to carry out families and single-parent families. The law authorized such sums as were necessary to carry out
    this study.this study.
    Use of Social Security Number
    Each state was mandated in the administration of any law involving the issuance of a birth Each state was mandated in the administration of any law involving the issuance of a birth
    certificate to require each parent to furnish their Social Security number (SSN), unless the state certificate to require each parent to furnish their Social Security number (SSN), unless the state
    found good cause for not requiring the parent to furnish it.found good cause for not requiring the parent to furnish it.6868 The SSN was required to be in the The SSN was required to be in the
    birth record but not on the birth certificate, and the use of the SSN obtained through the birth birth record but not on the birth certificate, and the use of the SSN obtained through the birth
    record was restricted to CSE purposes, except under certain circumstances.record was restricted to CSE purposes, except under certain circumstances.
    Notification of Support Collected
    Each state was required to inform families receiving AFDC of the amount of support collected on Each state was required to inform families receiving AFDC of the amount of support collected on
    their behalf on a monthly basis, rather than annually as provided under prior law. States had the their behalf on a monthly basis, rather than annually as provided under prior law. States had the
    option to provide quarterly notification if the HHS Secretary determined that monthly reporting option to provide quarterly notification if the HHS Secretary determined that monthly reporting
    imposed an unreasonable administrative burden. This provision was effective four years after the imposed an unreasonable administrative burden. This provision was effective four years after the
    date of enactment. The Medicaid transition benefit in child support cases was extended from date of enactment. The Medicaid transition benefit in child support cases was extended from
    October 1, 1988, to October 1, 1989.October 1, 1988, to October 1, 1989.
    Demonstration Projects to Address Child Access Problems
    States were authorized to establish and conduct one or more demonstration projects (under States were authorized to establish and conduct one or more demonstration projects (under
    parameters prescribed by the HHS Secretary) intended to develop procedures that would develop, parameters prescribed by the HHS Secretary) intended to develop procedures that would develop,
    improve, or expand activities to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders. improve, or expand activities to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.
    It authorized to be appropriated $4 million in funding in each of FY1990 and FY1991. It authorized to be appropriated $4 million in funding in each of FY1990 and FY1991.

    68 §205 of the SSA.
    Congressional Research Service

    29
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Effectiveness measures for this demonstration included improved compliance with child support Effectiveness measures for this demonstration included improved compliance with child support
    payments.payments.
    1989
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
    P.L. 101-239, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, repealed the effective expiration P.L. 101-239, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, repealed the effective expiration
    date that had applied to the requirement that Medicaid benefits continue for four months after a date that had applied to the requirement that Medicaid benefits continue for four months after a
    family loses AFDC eligibility as a result of collection of child support payments.family loses AFDC eligibility as a result of collection of child support payments.6969
    1990
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
    P.L. 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, with respect to non-AFDC cases, P.L. 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, with respect to non-AFDC cases,
    repealed the expiration of the federal provision that allowed states to ask the IRS to collect child repealed the expiration of the federal provision that allowed states to ask the IRS to collect child
    support arrearages of at least $500 out of federal income tax refunds otherwise due to support arrearages of at least $500 out of federal income tax refunds otherwise due to
    noncustodial parents. A federal income tax refund offset was not permissible if the relevant child noncustodial parents. A federal income tax refund offset was not permissible if the relevant child
    had reached the age of majority, even if the arrearages accrued while the child was still a minor, had reached the age of majority, even if the arrearages accrued while the child was still a minor,
    unless the child (now adult) had a current support order and was disabled, as defined under the unless the child (now adult) had a current support order and was disabled, as defined under the
    Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    programs. The IRS offset could be used for spousal support when spousal and child support are programs. The IRS offset could be used for spousal support when spousal and child support are
    included in the same support order.included in the same support order.
    The existence of the Interstate Child Support Commission was extended from July 1, 1991, to The existence of the Interstate Child Support Commission was extended from July 1, 1991, to
    July 1, 1992, and the commission was required to submit its report no later than May 1, 1992. The July 1, 1992, and the commission was required to submit its report no later than May 1, 1992. The
    commission was allowed to hire its own staff.commission was allowed to hire its own staff.
    The HHS Secretary was directed to enter into an agreement with the state of Texas that would The HHS Secretary was directed to enter into an agreement with the state of Texas that would
    waive for not more than two years, with respect to a demonstration project based in a specified waive for not more than two years, with respect to a demonstration project based in a specified
    Texas county, the requirements (in Section 456 of the SSA) of a written application for child Texas county, the requirements (in Section 456 of the SSA) of a written application for child
    support collection services and the payment of an application fee. As a condition of this waiver, support collection services and the payment of an application fee. As a condition of this waiver,
    the state of Texas was to conduct a study of the cost effectiveness of this policy. Federal financial the state of Texas was to conduct a study of the cost effectiveness of this policy. Federal financial
    participation for expenditures to carry out CSE activities related to the waiver was the lesser of participation for expenditures to carry out CSE activities related to the waiver was the lesser of
    66% of such expenditures or $500,000. (Expenditures for the state study on cost effectiveness 66% of such expenditures or $500,000. (Expenditures for the state study on cost effectiveness
    were to be reimbursed at a 66% rate.)were to be reimbursed at a 66% rate.)
    1992
    Child Support Recovery Act of 1992
    P.L. 102-521, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, imposed a federal criminal penalty for the P.L. 102-521, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, imposed a federal criminal penalty for the
    willful failure to pay a past-due child support obligation for a child who resided in another state willful failure to pay a past-due child support obligation for a child who resided in another state
    where the obligation had remained unpaid for longer than a year or was greater than $5,000 (18 where the obligation had remained unpaid for longer than a year or was greater than $5,000 (18
    U.S.C. §228). For the first conviction, the penalty was a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for U.S.C. §228). For the first conviction, the penalty was a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for
    not more than six months, or both; for a second conviction, the penalty was a fine of not more not more than six months, or both; for a second conviction, the penalty was a fine of not more
    than $250,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. The law also authorized the Director of than $250,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. The law also authorized the Director of

    69 This requirement was subsequently repealed by PRWORA.
    Congressional Research Service

    30
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to states to develop, implement, and enforce the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to states to develop, implement, and enforce
    criminal interstate child support legislation and coordinate criminal interstate CSE efforts (42 criminal interstate child support legislation and coordinate criminal interstate CSE efforts (42
    U.S.C. §3796cc et. seq.).U.S.C. §3796cc et. seq.).
    Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992
    P.L. 102-537, the Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992, amended the Fair Credit P.L. 102-537, the Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992, amended the Fair Credit
    Reporting Act (15 Reporting Act (15 USCU.S.C. §16818s-1) to require a consumer reporting agency (e.g., credit bureaus) §16818s-1) to require a consumer reporting agency (e.g., credit bureaus)
    to include in a consumer credit report any information on the failure of a consumer to pay to include in a consumer credit report any information on the failure of a consumer to pay
    overdue child support if that information was (1) provided by a state or local CSE agency or overdue child support if that information was (1) provided by a state or local CSE agency or
    verified by any local, state, or federal government agency; and (2) not more than seven years old.verified by any local, state, or federal government agency; and (2) not more than seven years old.
    1993
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
    P.L. 103-66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, increased the paternity P.L. 103-66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, increased the paternity
    establishment percentage from 50% to 75% (which was enforced by financial penalties linked to establishment percentage from 50% to 75% (which was enforced by financial penalties linked to
    a reduction of federal financial participation for the statea reduction of federal financial participation for the state’'s AFDC program if the state did not s AFDC program if the state did not
    meet the meet the “"paternity establishment percentagepaternity establishment percentage”" requirement). It required states to adopt laws requirement). It required states to adopt laws
    requiring civil procedures to voluntarily acknowledge paternity (including hospital-based requiring civil procedures to voluntarily acknowledge paternity (including hospital-based
    programs).programs).
    The act also amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to require The act also amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to require
    group health plans to group health plans to “"provide benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any provide benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any
    qualified medical child support order.qualified medical child support order.”70"70 It defined It defined medical child support order and other terms and other terms
    (e.g., (e.g., alternate recipient, meaning any child recognized as having a right to enrollment in the , meaning any child recognized as having a right to enrollment in the
    group health plan per the medical child support order). It also specified that a medical child group health plan per the medical child support order). It also specified that a medical child
    support order could not require a plan to provide any benefits it would not otherwise provide an support order could not require a plan to provide any benefits it would not otherwise provide an
    enrollee, except as may be required by state law regarding medical child support (described in enrollee, except as may be required by state law regarding medical child support (described in
    Section 1908 of the SSA,Section 1908 of the SSA,7171 as added by a separate provision of P.L. 103-66). It also established as added by a separate provision of P.L. 103-66). It also established
    procedural requirements for group health plans that receive medical child support orders, procedural requirements for group health plans that receive medical child support orders,
    including regarding timely notifications of the plan participant (and each alternate recipient), and including regarding timely notifications of the plan participant (and each alternate recipient), and
    regarding provision of benefits. Furthermore, it addressed certain interactions between group regarding provision of benefits. Furthermore, it addressed certain interactions between group
    health plans and Medicaid, to the extent that an individual is eligible for both, including the legal health plans and Medicaid, to the extent that an individual is eligible for both, including the legal
    obligation of third parties (e.g., certain individuals, entities, insurers, or programs) to pay part or obligation of third parties (e.g., certain individuals, entities, insurers, or programs) to pay part or
    all of the expenditures for medical assistance under the Medicaid state plan.all of the expenditures for medical assistance under the Medicaid state plan.
    Per a separate provision of P.L. 103-66 amending Title XIX of the SSA,Per a separate provision of P.L. 103-66 amending Title XIX of the SSA,7272 states were required to states were required to
    have in effect laws prohibiting health insurers from denying enrollment of a child under the have in effect laws prohibiting health insurers from denying enrollment of a child under the
    child’child's parents parent’'s health insurance on the basis of the child not living with such parent or living in s health insurance on the basis of the child not living with such parent or living in
    the insurerthe insurer’'s service area, not being claimed as a dependent on the parents service area, not being claimed as a dependent on the parent’'s federal income tax s federal income tax
    return, or being born outside of marriage.

    70 These changes amended Part 6, Subtitle B, Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to add
    Section 609 (29 U.S.C. §1169).
    71 This section was later redesignated as SSA Section 1908A under the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced
    Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (as incorporated into the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 [P.L. 106-
    113]).
    72 This amendment added Section 1908 to Title XIX. This section was later redesignated as SSA Section 1908A under
    the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (as incorporated into the Omnibus
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 [P.L. 106-113]).
    Congressional Research Service

    31
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    return, or being born outside of marriage. States were also required to have laws requiring insurers and employers to accommodate medical States were also required to have laws requiring insurers and employers to accommodate medical
    child support orders; for example, by permitting the parent subject to the order to enroll a child child support orders; for example, by permitting the parent subject to the order to enroll a child
    under that parentunder that parent’'s plan (to the extent that family coverage is available to them), including outside s plan (to the extent that family coverage is available to them), including outside
    of a standard enrollment period; by permitting the other parent or the state to enroll the child in of a standard enrollment period; by permitting the other parent or the state to enroll the child in
    the ordered parentthe ordered parent’'s coverage under specified circumstances; and by protecting the child from s coverage under specified circumstances; and by protecting the child from
    disenrollment from health coverage, with specified exceptions. Those laws also were to prohibit disenrollment from health coverage, with specified exceptions. Those laws also were to prohibit
    insurers from imposing requirements on a state agency that were different from those applicable insurers from imposing requirements on a state agency that were different from those applicable
    to the covered individual, as well as require protections for the custodial parent regarding use of to the covered individual, as well as require protections for the custodial parent regarding use of
    and reimbursement for health care provided through the noncustodial parentand reimbursement for health care provided through the noncustodial parent’'s health insurance. In s health insurance. In
    addition, those laws were to provide for wages to be withheld to pay insurance premiums to addition, those laws were to provide for wages to be withheld to pay insurance premiums to
    satisfy the child support order, and for other related enforcement mechanisms for those payments.satisfy the child support order, and for other related enforcement mechanisms for those payments.
    1994
    Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act
    P.L. 103-383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, required each state to P.L. 103-383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, required each state to
    enforce, according to such stateenforce, according to such state’'s terms, a child support order by a court (or administrative s terms, a child support order by a court (or administrative
    authority) of another state, with conditions and specifications for resolving issues of jurisdiction authority) of another state, with conditions and specifications for resolving issues of jurisdiction
    (28 U.S.C. §1738B). The law did not amend Title IV-D of the SSA and therefore did not directly (28 U.S.C. §1738B). The law did not amend Title IV-D of the SSA and therefore did not directly
    change federal CSE program requirements. Nonetheless, it effected the interstate processing of change federal CSE program requirements. Nonetheless, it effected the interstate processing of
    child support cases, including CSE cases. It required tribunals of each state to enforce, according child support cases, including CSE cases. It required tribunals of each state to enforce, according
    to such stateto such state’'s terms, a child support order issued by a court (defined to also include an s terms, a child support order issued by a court (defined to also include an
    administrative authority) of another state if (1) the issuing stateadministrative authority) of another state if (1) the issuing state’'s tribunal had subject matter s tribunal had subject matter
    jurisdiction to hear the matter and enter an order, (2) the issuing statejurisdiction to hear the matter and enter an order, (2) the issuing state’'s tribunal had personal s tribunal had personal
    jurisdiction over the parties, and (3) reasonable notice and the opportunity to be heard was given jurisdiction over the parties, and (3) reasonable notice and the opportunity to be heard was given
    to the parties. The issuing tribunal retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order as to the parties. The issuing tribunal retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order as
    long as the child or at least one of the parties resided in the issuing state, unless the tribunal of long as the child or at least one of the parties resided in the issuing state, unless the tribunal of
    another state (acting in accordance with the law) had modified the support order. However, the another state (acting in accordance with the law) had modified the support order. However, the
    power for a tribunal to modify another statepower for a tribunal to modify another state’'s support order was restricted.s support order was restricted.
    Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994
    P.L. 103-394, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, stipulated that a filing of bankruptcy does not P.L. 103-394, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, stipulated that a filing of bankruptcy does not
    stay a paternity, child support, or alimony proceeding (11 U.S.C. §362(b)(2)). In addition, child stay a paternity, child support, or alimony proceeding (11 U.S.C. §362(b)(2)). In addition, child
    support and alimony payments were made priority claims (11 U.S.C. §507(a)) and custodial support and alimony payments were made priority claims (11 U.S.C. §507(a)) and custodial
    parents were able to appear in bankruptcy court to protect their interests without paying a fee or parents were able to appear in bankruptcy court to protect their interests without paying a fee or
    meeting any local rules for attorney appearances (11 U.S.C. §501 note).meeting any local rules for attorney appearances (11 U.S.C. §501 note).
    Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994
    P.L. 103-403, the Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994, made parents who failed P.L. 103-403, the Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994, made parents who failed
    to pay child support ineligible for small business loans (15 U.S.C. §633(f)).to pay child support ineligible for small business loans (15 U.S.C. §633(f)).
    Social Security Act Amendments of 1994
    P.L. 103-432, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994, made changes to Section 466(a)(7) of P.L. 103-432, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994, made changes to Section 466(a)(7) of
    the SSA to mandate that states implement procedures requiring periodic state reporting to the SSA to mandate that states implement procedures requiring periodic state reporting to
    consumer reporting agencies (e.g., credit bureaus) of the names of debtor parents owing at least consumer reporting agencies (e.g., credit bureaus) of the names of debtor parents owing at least
    two months of overdue child support and the amount of child support overdue. (The law provided two months of overdue child support and the amount of child support overdue. (The law provided
    that state reporting to an agency should not occur if that state determines the agency does not that state reporting to an agency should not occur if that state determines the agency does not
    Congressional Research Service

    32
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    have sufficient capability to systematically and timely make accurate use of such information, or have sufficient capability to systematically and timely make accurate use of such information, or
    when the state is not satisfied that the entity is a consumer reporting agency.)when the state is not satisfied that the entity is a consumer reporting agency.)
    1995
    P.L. 104-35
    P.L. 104-35 extended for two years the deadline (imposed by P.L. 100-485) by which each state P.L. 104-35 extended for two years the deadline (imposed by P.L. 100-485) by which each state
    was required to have in effect an automated data processing and information retrieval system for was required to have in effect an automated data processing and information retrieval system for
    use in the administration of its CSE program (from October 1, 1995, to October 1, 1997). The use in the administration of its CSE program (from October 1, 1995, to October 1, 1997). The
    90% federal financial participation for this activity was not extended until a later law (P.L. 104-90% federal financial participation for this activity was not extended until a later law (P.L. 104-
    193193).).
    1996
    Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Omnibus Consolidated Recessions
    and Appropriations Act of 1996)
    P.L. 104-134, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, made minor technical changes to P.L. 104-134, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, made minor technical changes to
    Section 464 of the SSA, which governs the offset of federal tax refunds for past-due child Section 464 of the SSA, which governs the offset of federal tax refunds for past-due child
    support.support.
    Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
    Title III of PRWORA (P.L. 104-193) was devoted to major reforms of the CSE program. It Title III of PRWORA (P.L. 104-193) was devoted to major reforms of the CSE program. It
    contained nearly 50 changes to child support law. The summary below generally explains these contained nearly 50 changes to child support law. The summary below generally explains these
    changes as they were organized in Title III. (Several conforming changes related to the CSE changes as they were organized in Title III. (Several conforming changes related to the CSE
    program, such as requiring TANF recipients to cooperate with CSE and assign to the state support program, such as requiring TANF recipients to cooperate with CSE and assign to the state support
    owed to the family, were elsewhere in the law and generally are not detailed below.)owed to the family, were elsewhere in the law and generally are not detailed below.)
    Subtitle A—Eligibility for Services, Distribution of Payments
    The rules governing how child support collections are distributed among the federal government, The rules governing how child support collections are distributed among the federal government,
    state governments, and current or former cash assistance families were substantially changed. The state governments, and current or former cash assistance families were substantially changed. The
    law eliminated as a federal requirement the pass-through of the first $50 in child support law eliminated as a federal requirement the pass-through of the first $50 in child support
    collections to current assistance families. Instead, the rules for payments to former assistance collections to current assistance families. Instead, the rules for payments to former assistance
    families were altered to prioritize distributing child support to those families over reimbursing families were altered to prioritize distributing child support to those families over reimbursing
    state-owed arrearages. By October 1, 1997, states had to distribute to former assistance families state-owed arrearages. By October 1, 1997, states had to distribute to former assistance families
    both current support collected and arrearages that accrued after the family no longer received cash both current support collected and arrearages that accrued after the family no longer received cash
    assistance before distributing any collections that remained to reimburse the state-owed assistance before distributing any collections that remained to reimburse the state-owed
    arrearages that accumulated during the time the family was receiving assistance. By October 1, arrearages that accumulated during the time the family was receiving assistance. By October 1,
    2000, states also were required to distribute to the family arrearages that accrued before the 2000, states also were required to distribute to the family arrearages that accrued before the
    family began receiving cash assistance prior to reimbursement of state-owed arrearages from the family began receiving cash assistance prior to reimbursement of state-owed arrearages from the
    time that the family was receiving assistance.time that the family was receiving assistance.7373 These new rules, however, did not apply to These new rules, however, did not apply to
    collections made by intercepting tax refunds. The new law also contained a hold harmless collections made by intercepting tax refunds. The new law also contained a hold harmless
    provision, which provided that if this change in policy resulted in a state retaining fewer provision, which provided that if this change in policy resulted in a state retaining fewer

    73 For detail on how the PRWORA rules apply to various categories of arrearages, see Question 30 in HHS, OCSE,
    Instructions for the Distribution of Child Support Under Section 457 of the Social Security Act, AT-97-17, October 21,
    1997, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/instructions-distribution-child-support-under-section-457-social-
    security-act.
    Congressional Research Service

    33
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    collections than in FY1995, the federal government would reimburse that state for those losses. collections than in FY1995, the federal government would reimburse that state for those losses.
    The HHS Secretary was required to report to Congress not later than October 1, 1998, several The HHS Secretary was required to report to Congress not later than October 1, 1998, several
    findings with respect to these new distribution rules and their effectiveness in reducing the need findings with respect to these new distribution rules and their effectiveness in reducing the need
    for families to receive cash assistance.for families to receive cash assistance.
    This subtitle of the law also contained clarifications of the This subtitle of the law also contained clarifications of the fill-the-gap policy that policy that
    • allowed states the option of distributing some child support to current assistance allowed states the option of distributing some child support to current assistance
    families (pass through) so that states that operated such programs could continue families (pass through) so that states that operated such programs could continue
    to do so,to do so,
    • provided safeguards against unauthorized use of paternity or child support provided safeguards against unauthorized use of paternity or child support
    information,information,
    • required states to inform parents of proceedings in which child support might be required states to inform parents of proceedings in which child support might be
    established or modified, andestablished or modified, and
    • required states to provide parents with a copy of any changes in the child support required states to provide parents with a copy of any changes in the child support
    order within 14 days.order within 14 days.
    Subtitle B—Locate and Case Tracking
    The federal government made major new investments to help states acquire, automate, and use The federal government made major new investments to help states acquire, automate, and use
    information. First, states had to establish a state case registry (SCR) of all CSE cases and all other information. First, states had to establish a state case registry (SCR) of all CSE cases and all other
    new or modified child support cases in the state (§454A of the SSA). The SCR had to contain new or modified child support cases in the state (§454A of the SSA). The SCR had to contain
    specified minimum data elements for all cases. For cases enforced by the state CSE program, the specified minimum data elements for all cases. For cases enforced by the state CSE program, the
    SCR also had to contain a wide array of information that was to be regularly updated, including SCR also had to contain a wide array of information that was to be regularly updated, including
    the amount of each child support order and a record of payments and arrearages. In the case of the amount of each child support order and a record of payments and arrearages. In the case of
    orders that included income withholding but were not in the CSE system, the state also had to orders that included income withholding but were not in the CSE system, the state also had to
    keep records of payments. In CSE cases, this information was used both to enforce and update keep records of payments. In CSE cases, this information was used both to enforce and update
    child support orders by conducting matches with information in other state and federal data child support orders by conducting matches with information in other state and federal data
    systems and programs, including the FCR and FPLS systems, and program data for TANF, systems and programs, including the FCR and FPLS systems, and program data for TANF,
    Medicaid agencies, and other IV-D agencies.Medicaid agencies, and other IV-D agencies.
    Second, states were mandated to create a centralized automated disbursement unit to which child Second, states were mandated to create a centralized automated disbursement unit to which child
    support payments were paid and from which they were distributed, and that contained accurate support payments were paid and from which they were distributed, and that contained accurate
    records of child support payments (§454B of the SSA). This CSE State Disbursement Unit (SDU) records of child support payments (§454B of the SSA). This CSE State Disbursement Unit (SDU)
    was required to handle payments in all cases enforced by the CSE program and in all cases in the was required to handle payments in all cases enforced by the CSE program and in all cases in the
    state with income withholding orders. In CSE cases requiring income withholding, within two state with income withholding orders. In CSE cases requiring income withholding, within two
    days of receipt of information about a support order and a parentdays of receipt of information about a support order and a parent’'s source of income, the s source of income, the
    automated system at the SDU had to send an income withholding notice to employers. States also automated system at the SDU had to send an income withholding notice to employers. States also
    were to distribute all amounts to families within two business days after receipt from the were to distribute all amounts to families within two business days after receipt from the
    employer or other source of periodic payment.employer or other source of periodic payment.
    Third, states had to require employers to send information on new employees to a centralized Third, states had to require employers to send information on new employees to a centralized
    SDNH (§453A of the SSA) within 20 days of the date of hire; employers reporting electronically SDNH (§453A of the SSA) within 20 days of the date of hire; employers reporting electronically
    or by magnetic tape could file twice per month. States had to routinely match the new hire or by magnetic tape could file twice per month. States had to routinely match the new hire
    information, which had to be entered into the state database within five days, against the SCR information, which had to be entered into the state database within five days, against the SCR
    using SSNs. In the case of matches, within two days of entry of data in the SCR, employers had using SSNs. In the case of matches, within two days of entry of data in the SCR, employers had
    to be notified of the amount to be withheld and where to send the money. (States were given the to be notified of the amount to be withheld and where to send the money. (States were given the
    option of establishing state civil monetary penalties, subject to specified limits, for certain failures option of establishing state civil monetary penalties, subject to specified limits, for certain failures
    to report.) Within three days, new employee information had to be reported by states to the newly to report.) Within three days, new employee information had to be reported by states to the newly
    established NDNH (§453 of the SSA). The law authorized new hire information to be shared with established NDNH (§453 of the SSA). The law authorized new hire information to be shared with
    state agencies administering unemployment compensation, workersstate agencies administering unemployment compensation, workers’' compensation, TANF, compensation, TANF,
    Congressional Research Service

    34
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Medicaid, food stamps (now known as SNAP), and other specified programs. (Disclosure other Medicaid, food stamps (now known as SNAP), and other specified programs. (Disclosure other
    than that authorized under the law was prohibited.) States using private contractors could share than that authorized under the law was prohibited.) States using private contractors could share
    the new hire information with the contractors, subject to privacy safeguards. States were required the new hire information with the contractors, subject to privacy safeguards. States were required
    to have laws clarifying that child support orders not already subject to income withholding were to have laws clarifying that child support orders not already subject to income withholding were
    to immediately become subject to income withholding without a hearing if arrearages occurred. to immediately become subject to income withholding without a hearing if arrearages occurred.
    The law included rules that clarified how employers were to accomplish income withholding in The law included rules that clarified how employers were to accomplish income withholding in
    interstate cases and established a uniform definition of income. Employers had to remit withheld interstate cases and established a uniform definition of income. Employers had to remit withheld
    income to the SDU within seven days of the normal date of payment to the employee.income to the SDU within seven days of the normal date of payment to the employee.
    All state and federal child support agencies were to have access to the motor vehicle and law All state and federal child support agencies were to have access to the motor vehicle and law
    enforcement locator systems of all states.enforcement locator systems of all states.
    The FPLS was given several new functions. The new law clarified that the FPLS could be used The FPLS was given several new functions. The new law clarified that the FPLS could be used
    for purposes that include establishing parentage; setting, modifying, or enforcing support orders; for purposes that include establishing parentage; setting, modifying, or enforcing support orders;
    and enforcing custody or visitation orders. In addition to being the repository for information and enforcing custody or visitation orders. In addition to being the repository for information
    from every SCR and SDNH (information on new hires had to be entered into the FPLS within from every SCR and SDNH (information on new hires had to be entered into the FPLS within
    two days of receipt), the FPLS had to match information from SCRs with information from two days of receipt), the FPLS had to match information from SCRs with information from
    SDNHs at least every two days and report matches to state agencies within two days. All federal SDNHs at least every two days and report matches to state agencies within two days. All federal
    agencies also had to report information, including wages, on all employees (except those involved agencies also had to report information, including wages, on all employees (except those involved
    in security activities if they could potentially be compromised) to the FPLS for use in matching in security activities if they could potentially be compromised) to the FPLS for use in matching
    against state child support cases. State unemployment agencies had to report quarterly wage and against state child support cases. State unemployment agencies had to report quarterly wage and
    unemployment compensation information to the FPLS. The HHS Secretary had to ensure that unemployment compensation information to the FPLS. The HHS Secretary had to ensure that
    FPLS information was shared with the Social Security Administration, state CSE agencies, and FPLS information was shared with the Social Security Administration, state CSE agencies, and
    other agencies authorized by law. However, the HHS Secretary also had to ensure that fees were other agencies authorized by law. However, the HHS Secretary also had to ensure that fees were
    established for agencies that used FPLS information, and that the information was used only for established for agencies that used FPLS information, and that the information was used only for
    authorized purposes. The Secretaries of HHS and Labor were required to work together to authorized purposes. The Secretaries of HHS and Labor were required to work together to
    develop a cost-effective means of accessing information in the various directories established by develop a cost-effective means of accessing information in the various directories established by
    the law. Provisions also were added to Section 6103(l) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. the law. Provisions also were added to Section 6103(l) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.
    §6103) relating to the disclosure of certain tax return information to federal, state, and local CSE §6103) relating to the disclosure of certain tax return information to federal, state, and local CSE
    agencies for purposes of establishing and collecting child support obligations from, and locating, agencies for purposes of establishing and collecting child support obligations from, and locating,
    individuals owing such obligations. These provisions also included authorities related to individuals owing such obligations. These provisions also included authorities related to
    disclosing certain tax return information to contractors of these CSE agencies.disclosing certain tax return information to contractors of these CSE agencies.
    All states were required to have procedures for recording the SSNs of applicants on the All states were required to have procedures for recording the SSNs of applicants on the
    application for professional licenses, commercial driversapplication for professional licenses, commercial drivers’' licenses, occupational licenses, and licenses, occupational licenses, and
    marriage licenses; states had to record SSNs in the records of divorce decrees, child support marriage licenses; states had to record SSNs in the records of divorce decrees, child support
    orders, paternity orders, and death certificates.orders, paternity orders, and death certificates.
    Subtitle C—Streamlining and Uniformity of Procedures
    All states were required to enact UIFSA, including all amendments adopted by the National All states were required to enact UIFSA, including all amendments adopted by the National
    Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws before January 1, 1998. Provisions Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws before January 1, 1998. Provisions
    recommended by the commissioners on procedures in interstate cases were included in the law. recommended by the commissioners on procedures in interstate cases were included in the law.
    States were not required to use UIFSA in all cases if they determined that using other interstate States were not required to use UIFSA in all cases if they determined that using other interstate
    procedures would be more effective. The law also clarified the definition of a childprocedures would be more effective. The law also clarified the definition of a child’'s home state, s home state,
    made several revisions to 28 U.S.C. §1738B to ensure that full faith and credit laws could be made several revisions to 28 U.S.C. §1738B to ensure that full faith and credit laws could be
    applied consistently with UIFSA, and clarified the rules regarding which child support order applied consistently with UIFSA, and clarified the rules regarding which child support order
    states had to honor when there was more than one order.states had to honor when there was more than one order.
    States were required to have laws that permitted them to send orders to and receive orders from States were required to have laws that permitted them to send orders to and receive orders from
    other states. Within five days of receiving a case from another state, responding states had to other states. Within five days of receiving a case from another state, responding states had to
    match the case against its databases, take appropriate action if a match occurred, and send any match the case against its databases, take appropriate action if a match occurred, and send any
    Congressional Research Service

    35
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    collections to the initiating state. The HHS Secretary was required to issue forms that states had collections to the initiating state. The HHS Secretary was required to issue forms that states had
    to use for withholding income, imposing liens, and issuing administrative subpoenas in interstate to use for withholding income, imposing liens, and issuing administrative subpoenas in interstate
    cases.cases.
    States had to adopt laws that provided the CSE agency with the authority to initiate a series of States had to adopt laws that provided the CSE agency with the authority to initiate a series of
    expedited procedures without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other administrative or expedited procedures without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other administrative or
    judicial tribunal. These actions includedjudicial tribunal. These actions included
    • ordering genetic testing;ordering genetic testing;
    • issuing subpoenas to obtain information necessary to establish, modify, or issuing subpoenas to obtain information necessary to establish, modify, or
    enforce an order;enforce an order;
    • requiring public and private employers and other entities to provide information requiring public and private employers and other entities to provide information
    on employment, compensation, and benefits of any employee or contractor or be on employment, compensation, and benefits of any employee or contractor or be
    subject to penalties;subject to penalties;
    • obtaining access to vital statistics, state and local tax records, real and personal obtaining access to vital statistics, state and local tax records, real and personal
    property records, records of occupational and professional licenses, business property records, records of occupational and professional licenses, business
    records, employment security and public assistance records, motor vehicle records, employment security and public assistance records, motor vehicle
    records, corrections records, customer records of utilities and cable TV records, corrections records, customer records of utilities and cable TV
    companies pursuant to an administrative subpoena, and records of financial companies pursuant to an administrative subpoena, and records of financial
    institutions;institutions;
    • directing the obligor to make payments to the CSE agency in public assistance or directing the obligor to make payments to the CSE agency in public assistance or
    income withholding cases;income withholding cases;
    • ordering income withholding in CSE cases;ordering income withholding in CSE cases;
    • securing assets to satisfy arrearages, including the seizure of lump sum payments, securing assets to satisfy arrearages, including the seizure of lump sum payments,
    judgments, and settlements; andjudgments, and settlements; and
    • increasing the monthly support due to make payments on arrearages.increasing the monthly support due to make payments on arrearages.
    Automation requirements in Section 454A were expanded to include these expedited procedures.Automation requirements in Section 454A were expanded to include these expedited procedures.
    Provisions were also included that strengthened protection from liability for entities that share Provisions were also included that strengthened protection from liability for entities that share
    information with child support officials.information with child support officials.
    Each party to any paternity or child support proceeding was required to file with the tribunal and Each party to any paternity or child support proceeding was required to file with the tribunal and
    SCR upon the entry of the child support order and keep certain information on location and SCR upon the entry of the child support order and keep certain information on location and
    identity of each party up-to-date (e.g., SSN, driveridentity of each party up-to-date (e.g., SSN, driver’'s license number, personal and employer s license number, personal and employer
    contact information). Due process requirements for subsequent actions between the parties could contact information). Due process requirements for subsequent actions between the parties could
    be deemed to have been met upon delivery of written notice to the most recent residential or be deemed to have been met upon delivery of written notice to the most recent residential or
    employer address filed with the tribunal.employer address filed with the tribunal.
    Subtitle D—Paternity Establishment
    The procedures for paternity establishment in Section 466(5) of the SSA were replaced with a The procedures for paternity establishment in Section 466(5) of the SSA were replaced with a
    new set of requirements. While some of these essentially restated the procedures previously in new set of requirements. While some of these essentially restated the procedures previously in
    effect, there were significant expansions and clarifications related to voluntary paternity effect, there were significant expansions and clarifications related to voluntary paternity
    establishment (including in-hospital programs) and contested cases. States were required to have establishment (including in-hospital programs) and contested cases. States were required to have
    laws that permitted paternity establishment from birth until at least age 18, even in cases laws that permitted paternity establishment from birth until at least age 18, even in cases
    previously dismissed because a shorter statute of limitations was in effect. In contested paternity previously dismissed because a shorter statute of limitations was in effect. In contested paternity
    cases, except where barred by state laws or where there was good cause not to cooperate, all cases, except where barred by state laws or where there was good cause not to cooperate, all
    parties had to submit to genetic testing at state expense when ordered by the state agency; states parties had to submit to genetic testing at state expense when ordered by the state agency; states
    could recoup costs from the father if paternity was established. States had to take several actions could recoup costs from the father if paternity was established. States had to take several actions
    to promote paternity establishment, includingto promote paternity establishment, including
    Congressional Research Service

    36
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    • creating a simple civil process for voluntary acknowledgment of paternity,creating a simple civil process for voluntary acknowledgment of paternity,
    • maintaining a hospital-based paternity acknowledgment program as well as maintaining a hospital-based paternity acknowledgment program as well as
    programs in other state agencies (including the birth record agency), andprograms in other state agencies (including the birth record agency), and
    • issuing an affidavit of voluntary paternity acknowledgment based on a form issuing an affidavit of voluntary paternity acknowledgment based on a form
    developed by the HHS Secretary.developed by the HHS Secretary.
    States must include the name of the father in the birth certificate of a child born to unmarried States must include the name of the father in the birth certificate of a child born to unmarried
    parents only if both parents have signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity or a court or parents only if both parents have signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity or a court or
    administrative agency has issued an adjudication of paternity. Signed paternity acknowledgments administrative agency has issued an adjudication of paternity. Signed paternity acknowledgments
    had to be considered a legal finding of paternity unless rescinded within 60 days; thereafter, had to be considered a legal finding of paternity unless rescinded within 60 days; thereafter,
    acknowledgments could be challenged only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of acknowledgments could be challenged only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of
    fact, with the burden of proof on the challenger. Judicial or administrative proceedings to ratify a fact, with the burden of proof on the challenger. Judicial or administrative proceedings to ratify a
    paternity acknowledgement that was not challenged by the parents were prohibited. Results of paternity acknowledgement that was not challenged by the parents were prohibited. Results of
    genetic testing had to be admissible in court without foundation or other testimony unless genetic testing had to be admissible in court without foundation or other testimony unless
    objection was made in writing. State law had to establish either a rebuttable or conclusive objection was made in writing. State law had to establish either a rebuttable or conclusive
    presumption of paternity when genetic testing indicated a threshold probability of paternity. Once presumption of paternity when genetic testing indicated a threshold probability of paternity. Once
    paternity was indicated by genetic testing or other clear and convincing evidence, states had to paternity was indicated by genetic testing or other clear and convincing evidence, states had to
    require the issuance of temporary support orders. Bills for pregnancy, childbirth, and genetic require the issuance of temporary support orders. Bills for pregnancy, childbirth, and genetic
    testing had to be admissible in judicial proceedings without foundation testimony and were testing had to be admissible in judicial proceedings without foundation testimony and were
    required to constitute prima facie evidence of costs incurred for such services. Putative fathers required to constitute prima facie evidence of costs incurred for such services. Putative fathers
    had to be given reasonable opportunity to initiate a paternity action. Voluntary acknowledgments had to be given reasonable opportunity to initiate a paternity action. Voluntary acknowledgments
    of paternity and adjudications of paternity had to be filed with the state registry of birth records of paternity and adjudications of paternity had to be filed with the state registry of birth records
    for matches with the SCR and states had to publicize the availability and encourage the use of for matches with the SCR and states had to publicize the availability and encourage the use of
    procedures for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support.procedures for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support.74 74
    Individuals who applied for TANF or Medicaid public assistance were subject to child support Individuals who applied for TANF or Medicaid public assistance were subject to child support
    cooperation requirements that included providing specific identifying information about the cooperation requirements that included providing specific identifying information about the
    noncustodial parent and had to appear at interviews, hearings, and other legal proceedings. States noncustodial parent and had to appear at interviews, hearings, and other legal proceedings. States
    were required to have good cause and other exceptions from these requirements that took into were required to have good cause and other exceptions from these requirements that took into
    account the best interests of the child. Exceptions could be defined and applied by the state CSE, account the best interests of the child. Exceptions could be defined and applied by the state CSE,
    TANF, or Medicaid agencies. Families that refused to cooperate with these requirements had to TANF, or Medicaid agencies. Families that refused to cooperate with these requirements had to
    have their grant reduced by at least 25%.have their grant reduced by at least 25%.
    Subtitle E—Program Administration and Funding
    The HHS Secretary, in consultation with the The HHS Secretary, in consultation with the Statestate IV-D directors, was required to develop a IV-D directors, was required to develop a
    revenue-neutral proposal for a new child support incentive system and report the details to revenue-neutral proposal for a new child support incentive system and report the details to
    Congress by March 1, 1997. States were given a new option for computing the paternity Congress by March 1, 1997. States were given a new option for computing the paternity
    establishment rate. (In addition to the procedure for calculating the rate relative to the CSE establishment rate. (In addition to the procedure for calculating the rate relative to the CSE
    caseload, states could calculate the rate relative to all out-of-wedlock births in the state.) The caseload, states could calculate the rate relative to all out-of-wedlock births in the state.) The
    mandatory paternity establishment rate of prior law for the purposes of TANF penalties was mandatory paternity establishment rate of prior law for the purposes of TANF penalties was
    increased from 75% to 90%. States were allowed several years to reach the 90% standard but had increased from 75% to 90%. States were allowed several years to reach the 90% standard but had
    to increase their establishment rate by 2% a year when the state rate was between 75% and 90%. to increase their establishment rate by 2% a year when the state rate was between 75% and 90%.
    The noncompliance provisions of the child support program were modified so that the HHS The noncompliance provisions of the child support program were modified so that the HHS
    Secretary had to take overall program performance into account.Secretary had to take overall program performance into account.
    States had to establish an automated data system under amendments to Section 454(16) and under States had to establish an automated data system under amendments to Section 454(16) and under
    the new Section 454A of the SSA that (1) maintained data necessary to meet federal reporting the new Section 454A of the SSA that (1) maintained data necessary to meet federal reporting
    requirements, (2) calculated state performance for incentives and penalties, and (3) ensured the requirements, (2) calculated state performance for incentives and penalties, and (3) ensured the

    74 Some of these changes were made to Section 454(23) of the SSA.
    Congressional Research Service

    37
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    completeness, reliability, and accuracy of data. The automated data system was also required to completeness, reliability, and accuracy of data. The automated data system was also required to
    have privacy safeguards that included policies restricting access, system controls, routine have privacy safeguards that included policies restricting access, system controls, routine
    monitoring of access and use of automated systems, and training of all personnel. Amendments to monitoring of access and use of automated systems, and training of all personnel. Amendments to
    state plan requirements in Section 454(24) provided that data requirements enacted before or state plan requirements in Section 454(24) provided that data requirements enacted before or
    during 1988 had to be met by October 1, 1997; the remaining requirements had to be met by during 1988 had to be met by October 1, 1997; the remaining requirements had to be met by
    October 1, 2000. (These would be extended if the HHS Secretary failed to meet a two-year October 1, 2000. (These would be extended if the HHS Secretary failed to meet a two-year
    deadline for regulations.)deadline for regulations.)
    States were required to annually review and report to the HHS Secretary information from their States were required to annually review and report to the HHS Secretary information from their
    automated data processing system that was adequate for HHS to determine the stateautomated data processing system that was adequate for HHS to determine the state’'s compliance s compliance
    with federal requirements for expedited procedures, timely case processing, and improvement on with federal requirements for expedited procedures, timely case processing, and improvement on
    the performance indicators. The Secretary had to establish, and states had to use, uniform the performance indicators. The Secretary had to establish, and states had to use, uniform
    definitions in complying with this requirement. The Secretary had to use this information to definitions in complying with this requirement. The Secretary had to use this information to
    calculate incentive payments and penalties as well as to review compliance with federal calculate incentive payments and penalties as well as to review compliance with federal
    requirements. To determine the quality of data reported by the state for calculating performance requirements. To determine the quality of data reported by the state for calculating performance
    indicators and to assess the adequacy of financial management of the state CSE program, the indicators and to assess the adequacy of financial management of the state CSE program, the
    Secretary had to conduct an audit of every state at least once every three years, and more often if Secretary had to conduct an audit of every state at least once every three years, and more often if
    a state failed to meet federal requirements.a state failed to meet federal requirements.
    Enhanced federal funding for specified new automation requirements, as well as pre-existing state Enhanced federal funding for specified new automation requirements, as well as pre-existing state
    options under Section 454(16), was also provided. Funding at 90% federal financial participation options under Section 454(16), was also provided. Funding at 90% federal financial participation
    for states that had opted to pursue implementation of an automated system on or before for states that had opted to pursue implementation of an automated system on or before
    September 30, 1995 (pursuant to §454(16)), was extended for FY1996 and FY1997. (This September 30, 1995 (pursuant to §454(16)), was extended for FY1996 and FY1997. (This
    enhanced funding had lapsed on October 1, 1995, and the extension included retroactive funding enhanced funding had lapsed on October 1, 1995, and the extension included retroactive funding
    for amounts spent since that time). Otherwise, for FY1996 through FY2001 federal financial for amounts spent since that time). Otherwise, for FY1996 through FY2001 federal financial
    participation for meeting these requirements (both §454(16) as amended by PRWORA and participation for meeting these requirements (both §454(16) as amended by PRWORA and
    §454A) was set at 80%. The HHS Secretary was directed, however, to create procedures to cap §454A) was set at 80%. The HHS Secretary was directed, however, to create procedures to cap
    payments to meet any new PRWORA requirements to a total of $400 million. The formula, which payments to meet any new PRWORA requirements to a total of $400 million. The formula, which
    was to be set in regulations, was to take account of the relative size of state caseloads and the was to be set in regulations, was to take account of the relative size of state caseloads and the
    level of automation needed to meet applicable automatic data processing requirements.level of automation needed to meet applicable automatic data processing requirements.
    An appropriation out of general funds in the Treasury was made to the HHS Secretary in an An appropriation out of general funds in the Treasury was made to the HHS Secretary in an
    amount equal to 1% of the federal share of child support collections on behalf of AFDC and amount equal to 1% of the federal share of child support collections on behalf of AFDC and
    TANF families to provide technical assistance to the states and research, demonstration, and TANF families to provide technical assistance to the states and research, demonstration, and
    special projects of regional or national significance related to the operation of the CSE state special projects of regional or national significance related to the operation of the CSE state
    programs. An appropriation was also made in an amount up to 2% of the federal share of AFDC programs. An appropriation was also made in an amount up to 2% of the federal share of AFDC
    and TANF child support collections to cover costs to operate the FPLS, to the extent to which and TANF child support collections to cover costs to operate the FPLS, to the extent to which
    those costs were not recovered by user fees.those costs were not recovered by user fees.
    The HHS Secretary was required to provide several new pieces of information to Congress as part The HHS Secretary was required to provide several new pieces of information to Congress as part
    of the annual CSE report to Congress. This new information included the total amount of child of the annual CSE report to Congress. This new information included the total amount of child
    support collected, the costs to the federal and state governments of furnishing child support support collected, the costs to the federal and state governments of furnishing child support
    services, the number of cases involving families who became ineligible for TANF assistance services, the number of cases involving families who became ineligible for TANF assistance
    during a month in the fiscal year, and the total amounts of support due and collected as well as during a month in the fiscal year, and the total amounts of support due and collected as well as
    due and unpaid.due and unpaid.
    Subtitle F—Establishment and Modification of Support Orders
    The mandatory three-year review of child support orders was slightly modified to permit states The mandatory three-year review of child support orders was slightly modified to permit states
    some flexibility in determining which reviews of TANF cases should be pursued and in choosing some flexibility in determining which reviews of TANF cases should be pursued and in choosing
    methods of review; states had to review orders every three years (or more often at state option) if methods of review; states had to review orders every three years (or more often at state option) if
    either parent or the state agency requested a review in TANF cases or if either parent requested a either parent or the state agency requested a review in TANF cases or if either parent requested a
    Congressional Research Service

    38
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    review in non-TANF cases. For reviews outside the three-year cycle, the requesting party was review in non-TANF cases. For reviews outside the three-year cycle, the requesting party was
    required to demonstrate a required to demonstrate a “"substantial change in circumstances.substantial change in circumstances.”" States were required to provide States were required to provide
    notice to parents at least once every three years of their right to request the review. (That notice notice to parents at least once every three years of their right to request the review. (That notice
    could be included in the child support order.)could be included in the child support order.)
    Section 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §1681b) was amended to direct consumer Section 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §1681b) was amended to direct consumer
    credit agencies to release information on parents who owed child support to CSE agencies once credit agencies to release information on parents who owed child support to CSE agencies once
    specified requirements were met, such as ensuring privacy. Financial institutions were provided specified requirements were met, such as ensuring privacy. Financial institutions were provided
    immunity from prosecution for providing information to CSE agencies; individuals who immunity from prosecution for providing information to CSE agencies; individuals who
    knowingly made unauthorized disclosures of financial records were subject to civil actions and a knowingly made unauthorized disclosures of financial records were subject to civil actions and a
    maximum penalty of $1,000 for each unauthorized disclosure.maximum penalty of $1,000 for each unauthorized disclosure.
    Subtitle G—Enforcement of Support Orders
    Section 6305(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §6305) was amended so that no Section 6305(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §6305) was amended so that no
    additional fees could be assessed for adjustments to previously certified amounts for the same additional fees could be assessed for adjustments to previously certified amounts for the same
    child support obligor.child support obligor.
    CSE for federal employees, including retirees and military personnel, was substantially revamped CSE for federal employees, including retirees and military personnel, was substantially revamped
    and strengthened. Every federal agency was made responsible for responding to a state CSE and strengthened. Every federal agency was made responsible for responding to a state CSE
    agency as if the federal agency were a private business. The head of each federal agency had to agency as if the federal agency were a private business. The head of each federal agency had to
    designate an agent, whose name and address had to be published annually in the designate an agent, whose name and address had to be published annually in the Federal
    Register    , to be responsible for handling child support cases. The agent was required to respond to , to be responsible for handling child support cases. The agent was required to respond to
    withholding notices and other matters brought to their attention by CSE officials.withholding notices and other matters brought to their attention by CSE officials.
    The definition of income for federal employees was broadened to conform to the general CSE The definition of income for federal employees was broadened to conform to the general CSE
    definition (including compensation paid, several enumerated periodic benefits, and workers definition (including compensation paid, several enumerated periodic benefits, and workers
    compensation; and excluding certain amounts such as what is withheld for income tax purposes, compensation; and excluding certain amounts such as what is withheld for income tax purposes,
    or deducted health insurance premiums, normal retirement contributions, and normal life or deducted health insurance premiums, normal retirement contributions, and normal life
    insurance premiums). Child support claims were given priority in the allocation of federal insurance premiums). Child support claims were given priority in the allocation of federal
    employee income.employee income.
    Several requirements were also added related to members of the Armed Forces. The Defense Several requirements were also added related to members of the Armed Forces. The Defense
    Secretary had to establish (and update on a regular basis) a central personnel locator service that Secretary had to establish (and update on a regular basis) a central personnel locator service that
    permitted location of every member of the Armed Forces. The secretaries of the military permitted location of every member of the Armed Forces. The secretaries of the military
    departments were required to grant leave to facilitate attendance at child support hearings and departments were required to grant leave to facilitate attendance at child support hearings and
    other child support proceedings. The secretaries of the military departments were also required to other child support proceedings. The secretaries of the military departments were also required to
    withhold child support from retired pay and forward it to the SDU.withhold child support from retired pay and forward it to the SDU.
    Numerous requirements for state laws were also added to Section 466 of the SSA by Subtitle G. Numerous requirements for state laws were also added to Section 466 of the SSA by Subtitle G.
    States were required to have laws that permitted the voiding of any transfers of income or States were required to have laws that permitted the voiding of any transfers of income or
    property that were made to avoid paying child support. State laws were required to permit a court property that were made to avoid paying child support. State laws were required to permit a court
    or administrative process to issue an order requiring individuals owing past-due support to pay or administrative process to issue an order requiring individuals owing past-due support to pay
    the amount due, follow a plan for repayment, or participate in work activities (i.e., seek work). the amount due, follow a plan for repayment, or participate in work activities (i.e., seek work).
    States had to report periodically to credit bureaus, after fulfilling due process requirements, the States had to report periodically to credit bureaus, after fulfilling due process requirements, the
    names of parents owing past-due child support. States were also required to have procedures names of parents owing past-due child support. States were also required to have procedures
    under which liens took effect by operation of law against property for the amount of overdue under which liens took effect by operation of law against property for the amount of overdue
    child support; states were required to grant full faith and credit to the liens of other states. States child support; states were required to grant full faith and credit to the liens of other states. States
    were also required to have the authority to withhold, suspend, or restrict the use of driverswere also required to have the authority to withhold, suspend, or restrict the use of drivers’
    ' licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses of individuals owing licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses of individuals owing
    past-due child support. In addition, state CSE agencies had to enter into agreements with financial past-due child support. In addition, state CSE agencies had to enter into agreements with financial
    institutions doing business in the state to develop and operate a data match system in which the institutions doing business in the state to develop and operate a data match system in which the
    financial institution supplied, on a quarterly basis, the names, addresses, and SSNs of parents financial institution supplied, on a quarterly basis, the names, addresses, and SSNs of parents
    Congressional Research Service

    39
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    identified by the state as owing past-due child support. In response to a lien or levy from the state, identified by the state as owing past-due child support. In response to a lien or levy from the state,
    financial institutions were required to surrender or encumber assets of the parent owing financial institutions were required to surrender or encumber assets of the parent owing
    delinquent child support. State agencies were authorized to pay reasonable fees to the financial delinquent child support. State agencies were authorized to pay reasonable fees to the financial
    institutions for conducting the data matches. Financial institutions were released from liability for institutions for conducting the data matches. Financial institutions were released from liability for
    the disclosure of information, encumbering or surrendering the assets, or any other action taken in the disclosure of information, encumbering or surrendering the assets, or any other action taken in
    good faith. States were required to have procedures that allowed the option for any child support good faith. States were required to have procedures that allowed the option for any child support
    ordered for a child of minor parents to be enforced against the parents of the minor noncustodial ordered for a child of minor parents to be enforced against the parents of the minor noncustodial
    parent.parent.
    In the case of individuals owing child support arrearages in excess of $5,000, the HHS Secretary In the case of individuals owing child support arrearages in excess of $5,000, the HHS Secretary
    had to request that the U.S. State Department deny, revoke, restrict, or limit the individualhad to request that the U.S. State Department deny, revoke, restrict, or limit the individual’s
    's passport.passport.
    The Secretary of State, working with the HHS Secretary, was authorized to declare reciprocity The Secretary of State, working with the HHS Secretary, was authorized to declare reciprocity
    with foreign countries for the purposes of establishing and enforcing support orders. U.S. with foreign countries for the purposes of establishing and enforcing support orders. U.S.
    residents had to be able to access services, free of cost, in nations with which the United States residents had to be able to access services, free of cost, in nations with which the United States
    had reciprocal agreements; these services were expected to include establishing parentage, had reciprocal agreements; these services were expected to include establishing parentage,
    establishing and enforcing support, and disbursing payments. State plans for child support were establishing and enforcing support, and disbursing payments. State plans for child support were
    mandated to include provision for treating requests for services from other nations the same as mandated to include provision for treating requests for services from other nations the same as
    interstate cases.interstate cases.
    The U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §523(a)) was amended to ensure that any child support The U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §523(a)) was amended to ensure that any child support
    debt that was owed to a state and enforceable under Title IV-D of the SSA could not be debt that was owed to a state and enforceable under Title IV-D of the SSA could not be
    discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.
    A state with tribal land was allowed to enter into a cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe or A state with tribal land was allowed to enter into a cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe or
    tribal organization if it demonstrated it had an established court system that established paternity, tribal organization if it demonstrated it had an established court system that established paternity,
    and established, modified, and enforced child support orders in accordance with child support and established, modified, and enforced child support orders in accordance with child support
    guidelines. These agreements would provide for the cooperative delivery of CSE services in guidelines. These agreements would provide for the cooperative delivery of CSE services in
    Indian country and the forwarding and distribution of funding collected by the tribe to the state Indian country and the forwarding and distribution of funding collected by the tribe to the state
    agency (and vice versa). The HHS Secretary was also authorized to make direct payments to agency (and vice versa). The HHS Secretary was also authorized to make direct payments to
    tribes that had approved CSE plans, which in effect would allow for the establishment of tribal tribes that had approved CSE plans, which in effect would allow for the establishment of tribal
    IV-D programs.IV-D programs.
    Subtitle H—Medical Support
    The definition of The definition of medical child support order in Section 609 of the Employee Retirement Income in Section 609 of the Employee Retirement Income
    Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1169(a)(2)(B)) was expanded to include not just a judgment, decree, or Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1169(a)(2)(B)) was expanded to include not just a judgment, decree, or
    order that was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, but also one issued under a State order that was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, but also one issued under a State
    administrative process, as specified.administrative process, as specified.
    Section 466 of the SSA was amended to require states to enact laws such that all child support Section 466 of the SSA was amended to require states to enact laws such that all child support
    orders enforced by the state CSE agency must include a provision for health care coverage for the orders enforced by the state CSE agency must include a provision for health care coverage for the
    child. If the noncustodial parent provides such health coverage and changes jobs, and the new child. If the noncustodial parent provides such health coverage and changes jobs, and the new
    employer provides health coverage, the state is required to send notice of the coverage employer provides health coverage, the state is required to send notice of the coverage
    requirement in the child support order to the new employer. The notice in effect requirement in the child support order to the new employer. The notice in effect “"shall operate to shall operate to
    enroll the childenroll the child”" in the health plan of the new employer, unless the noncustodial parent contests in the health plan of the new employer, unless the noncustodial parent contests
    the notice.the notice.7575

    75 These requirements were precursors to the requirement for the National Support Notice, among other procedures,
    subsequently established in P.L. 105-200.
    Congressional Research Service

    40
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    Subtitle I—Enhancing Responsibility and Opportunity for Nonresidential
    Parents
    Parents PRWORA provided $10 million per year for funding grants to states for access and visitation PRWORA provided $10 million per year for funding grants to states for access and visitation
    programs including mediation, counseling, education, development of parenting plans, and programs including mediation, counseling, education, development of parenting plans, and
    supervised visitation (§496B of the SSA). The formula for dividing the grant money among the supervised visitation (§496B of the SSA). The formula for dividing the grant money among the
    states was equal to the lesser of either 90% of state expenditures on enumerated access and states was equal to the lesser of either 90% of state expenditures on enumerated access and
    visitation activities or a state allotment. State allotments were based on the proportion of children visitation activities or a state allotment. State allotments were based on the proportion of children
    in the state living with only one biological parent to the total number of such children in all the in the state living with only one biological parent to the total number of such children in all the
    states. (The minimum allotment was $50,000 for FY1997 and FY1998 and $100,000 for each states. (The minimum allotment was $50,000 for FY1997 and FY1998 and $100,000 for each
    succeeding fiscal year.) States were required to monitor, evaluate, and report on their programs in succeeding fiscal year.) States were required to monitor, evaluate, and report on their programs in
    accordance with regulations issued by the HHS Secretary.accordance with regulations issued by the HHS Secretary.
    1997
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997
    P.L. 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, made numerous technical changes to the 1996 P.L. 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, made numerous technical changes to the 1996
    welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) that related to the CSE program, most of which were to Title welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) that related to the CSE program, most of which were to Title
    IV-D of the SSA.IV-D of the SSA.
    The law clarified that HHS may disclose wage and unemployment compensation in the NDNH to The law clarified that HHS may disclose wage and unemployment compensation in the NDNH to
    the Department of the Treasury, SSA, and the state IV-D agencies.the Department of the Treasury, SSA, and the state IV-D agencies.
    It stipulated that in addition to TANF families, the following families were exempt from paying It stipulated that in addition to TANF families, the following families were exempt from paying
    an application fee for CSE services: families of children in foster care on whose behalf Title IV-E an application fee for CSE services: families of children in foster care on whose behalf Title IV-E
    maintenance payments are made, families receiving Medicaid benefits (Title XIX), and certain maintenance payments are made, families receiving Medicaid benefits (Title XIX), and certain
    food stamp recipients.food stamp recipients.
    Other selected changes, which were largely technical in nature, includedOther selected changes, which were largely technical in nature, included
    • clarifying distribution of state-collected support and state options for clarifying distribution of state-collected support and state options for
    applicability of certain rules, and clarifying distribution of collections with applicability of certain rules, and clarifying distribution of collections with
    respect to families receiving assistance (e.g., that support retained by the state respect to families receiving assistance (e.g., that support retained by the state
    and federal governments cannot exceed the total amount of assistance paid, and federal governments cannot exceed the total amount of assistance paid,
    correcting the amount of the territorial match to be 75%) and families under correcting the amount of the territorial match to be 75%) and families under
    certain agreements;certain agreements;
    • clarifying civil penalties for failure to report required information to a SDNH;clarifying civil penalties for failure to report required information to a SDNH;
    • clarifying uses of the FPLS,clarifying uses of the FPLS,7676 including access to its case registry data for including access to its case registry data for
    research purposes;research purposes;
    • adding recreational licenses to the list of licenses for which the collection and use adding recreational licenses to the list of licenses for which the collection and use
    of SSNs for child support enforcement purposes is allowed (joining licenses for of SSNs for child support enforcement purposes is allowed (joining licenses for
    marriage; occupational, professional, and commercial activities; and drivermarriage; occupational, professional, and commercial activities; and driver’s
    's licenses);licenses);
    • clarifying availability of the 2% funds for the expenses of the FPLS;clarifying availability of the 2% funds for the expenses of the FPLS;
    • clarifying the authority to collect child support from federal employees;clarifying the authority to collect child support from federal employees;

    76 As part of these, the law stipulated that no information from the FPLS was to be disclosed to any person if the state
    had notified the HHS Secretary that the state had evidence of domestic violence or child abuse, and that disclosure of
    such information could be harmful to the custodial parent or the child. Many other technical changes concerning the
    FPLS were also made.
    Congressional Research Service

    41
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    • clarifying that with respect to the suspension of certain licenses for failure to pay clarifying that with respect to the suspension of certain licenses for failure to pay
    child support, recreational licenses included sporting licenses;child support, recreational licenses included sporting licenses;
    • clarifying the authorities for federal grants in the form of cooperative agreements clarifying the authorities for federal grants in the form of cooperative agreements
    between Indian tribes and states for child support enforcement, as well as direct between Indian tribes and states for child support enforcement, as well as direct
    payments for tribal IV-D programs;payments for tribal IV-D programs;
    • adding to the distribution rules requirements for state retention of child support adding to the distribution rules requirements for state retention of child support
    amounts collected on behalf of a child for whom a public agency was making amounts collected on behalf of a child for whom a public agency was making
    foster care maintenance payments, to the extent necessary to reimburse it for foster care maintenance payments, to the extent necessary to reimburse it for
    such payments;such payments;
    • clarifying that the good cause exceptions for cooperation requirements in state clarifying that the good cause exceptions for cooperation requirements in state
    plans also apply to those that states opt to require cooperation with CSE as a plans also apply to those that states opt to require cooperation with CSE as a
    requirement for food stamp eligibility, as well as foster care cases;requirement for food stamp eligibility, as well as foster care cases;
    • clarifying requirements for high-volume automated administrative enforcement clarifying requirements for high-volume automated administrative enforcement
    in interstate cases; andin interstate cases; and
    • clarifying requirements for state procedures to ensure that persons with child clarifying requirements for state procedures to ensure that persons with child
    support arrearages for TANF cases have a work or payment plan (e.g., seek support arrearages for TANF cases have a work or payment plan (e.g., seek
    work).work).
    It also made changes to federal financial participation available for the automated systems It also made changes to federal financial participation available for the automated systems
    development costs, including clarifying the eligibility of systems funded pursuant to a Section development costs, including clarifying the eligibility of systems funded pursuant to a Section
    1115(a) waiver for enhanced federal financial participation.1115(a) waiver for enhanced federal financial participation.
    Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
    P.L. 105-34, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, expanded Department of the Treasury access to P.L. 105-34, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, expanded Department of the Treasury access to
    Social Security Administration records for the purposes of tax enforcement. For IV-D systems, Social Security Administration records for the purposes of tax enforcement. For IV-D systems,
    the law required the expansion of data collected in the Federal Case Registry of children of the law required the expansion of data collected in the Federal Case Registry of children of
    individuals on child support orders to include those childrenindividuals on child support orders to include those children’'s SSNs. (Conforming changes were s SSNs. (Conforming changes were
    made to the automated data processing requirements for IV-D state programs.) The law further made to the automated data processing requirements for IV-D state programs.) The law further
    authorized that data be shared with the Treasury Secretary for the purposes of enforcing those authorized that data be shared with the Treasury Secretary for the purposes of enforcing those
    sections of the Internal Revenue Code that grant tax benefits based on support or residence of sections of the Internal Revenue Code that grant tax benefits based on support or residence of
    children.children.
    Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
    P.L. 105-89, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), added state child welfare P.L. 105-89, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), added state child welfare
    agencies to the entities with authorized access to the FPLS. ASFA emphasized the need to agencies to the entities with authorized access to the FPLS. ASFA emphasized the need to
    expeditiously identify how a child can safely leave foster care to live with a permanent family. In expeditiously identify how a child can safely leave foster care to live with a permanent family. In
    this context, allowing state child welfare agencies access to the FPLS was understood as a way to this context, allowing state child welfare agencies access to the FPLS was understood as a way to
    help the child welfare agencies locate absent parents; determine paternity if necessary; and, in help the child welfare agencies locate absent parents; determine paternity if necessary; and, in
    cases where adoption was determined to be the childcases where adoption was determined to be the child’'s permanency plan, permit the state to s permanency plan, permit the state to
    quickly identify and locate individuals for whom parental rights must be terminated to allow a quickly identify and locate individuals for whom parental rights must be terminated to allow a
    child to be adopted by new parents.child to be adopted by new parents.77 1998 Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 77

    77 According to the House Committee on Ways and Means report (H.Rept. 105-77, p. 16) accompanying the bill that, as
    amended, became P.L. 105-89: “This provision assists States in making timely and informed decisions about
    permanency by allowing State child welfare agencies to access the Federal Parent Locator Service to identify and
    locate parents or other relatives who may be interested in providing a permanent home for a child in foster care. Even if
    a parent or other relative is unable to provide a home for the child, ruling out this alternative early in a child’s
    (continued...)
    Congressional Research Service

    42
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    1998
    Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998
    P.L. 105-187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, amended 18 U.S.C. §228 to P.L. 105-187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, amended 18 U.S.C. §228 to
    establish two new categories of felony offenses, subject to a two-year maximum prison term: (1) establish two new categories of felony offenses, subject to a two-year maximum prison term: (1)
    traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation if the traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation if the
    obligation had remained unpaid for more than one year or was greater than $5,000; and (2) obligation had remained unpaid for more than one year or was greater than $5,000; and (2)
    willfully failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child residing in another state if the willfully failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child residing in another state if the
    obligation had remained unpaid for more than two years or was greater than $10,000.obligation had remained unpaid for more than two years or was greater than $10,000.
    Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998
    P.L. 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a revised P.L. 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a revised
    incentive payment system to encourage states to operate efficient and effective CSE programs. incentive payment system to encourage states to operate efficient and effective CSE programs.
    These payments were based on a percentage of the stateThese payments were based on a percentage of the state’'s CSE collections and incorporated five s CSE collections and incorporated five
    performance measures:performance measures:
    1. Paternity Establishment. States were given two options:Paternity Establishment. States were given two options:

    i. (1) CSE Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP). State performance on paternity CSE Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP). State performance on paternity
    establishment was to be calculated by dividing the total number of children in the establishment was to be calculated by dividing the total number of children in the
    state’state's CSE caseload during the fiscal year (or at state option, the end of the fiscal s CSE caseload during the fiscal year (or at state option, the end of the fiscal
    year) who were born outside of marriage and for whom paternity has been year) who were born outside of marriage and for whom paternity has been
    established by the total number of children in the stateestablished by the total number of children in the state’'s CSE caseload as of the s CSE caseload as of the
    end of the preceding fiscal year who were born outside of marriage;end of the preceding fiscal year who were born outside of marriage;

    ii. (2) Statewide PEP. State performance on paternity establishment was to be Statewide PEP. State performance on paternity establishment was to be
    calculated by dividing the total number of minor children who were born outside calculated by dividing the total number of minor children who were born outside
    of marriage and for whom paternity has been established during the fiscal year by of marriage and for whom paternity has been established during the fiscal year by
    the total number of children born outside of marriage during the preceding fiscal the total number of children born outside of marriage during the preceding fiscal
    year.year.
    2. Establishment of Child Support Orders.Establishment of Child Support Orders. State performance on support orders was State performance on support orders was
    to be calculated by dividing the number of cases in the CSE caseload for which to be calculated by dividing the number of cases in the CSE caseload for which
    there is a support order during the fiscal year by the total number of cases in the there is a support order during the fiscal year by the total number of cases in the
    program.program.
    3. Current PaymentsCurrent Payments. State performance on current payments was to be calculated State performance on current payments was to be calculated
    by dividing the total dollars collected for current support in cases in the CSE by dividing the total dollars collected for current support in cases in the CSE
    caseload during the fiscal year by the total amount owed on support in these caseload during the fiscal year by the total amount owed on support in these
    cases that is not past-due during the fiscal year.cases that is not past-due during the fiscal year.
    4. Arrearage Payments. State performance on arrears (i.e., past-due payments) was Arrearage Payments. State performance on arrears (i.e., past-due payments) was
    to be calculated by dividing the number of cases in which there was some to be calculated by dividing the number of cases in which there was some
    payment on arrearages during the fiscal year by the total number of cases in payment on arrearages during the fiscal year by the total number of cases in
    which past-due support is owed.which past-due support is owed.
    5. Cost-Effectiveness. State performance on cost-effectiveness was to be calculated Cost-Effectiveness. State performance on cost-effectiveness was to be calculated
    by dividing the total amount collected through the child support program during by dividing the total amount collected through the child support program during

    placement will allow the agency and court to move expeditiously towards adoption or another permanent alternative.
    The Committee understands that under current law, the FPLS can also be used specifically to provide notice of
    termination of parental rights proceedings.”
    Congressional Research Service

    43
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    the fiscal year by the total amount spent by the program to make these collections the fiscal year by the total amount spent by the program to make these collections
    during the fiscal year.during the fiscal year.
    The law set specific annual caps on a total federal incentive payment pool and required each state The law set specific annual caps on a total federal incentive payment pool and required each state
    to expend incentive payments on approved CSE program activities under that stateto expend incentive payments on approved CSE program activities under that state’'s IV-D plan, s IV-D plan,
    or on other activities expected to improve the efficacy of the stateor on other activities expected to improve the efficacy of the state’'s CSE program (as approved by s CSE program (as approved by
    the HHS Secretary). The exact amount of a statethe HHS Secretary). The exact amount of a state’'s incentive payment depended on its level of s incentive payment depended on its level of
    performance (or the rate of improvement compared to the previous year) when compared with performance (or the rate of improvement compared to the previous year) when compared with
    other states. In addition, states were required to meet data quality standards. If states did not meet other states. In addition, states were required to meet data quality standards. If states did not meet
    specified performance measures and data quality standards, they faced federal financial penalties. specified performance measures and data quality standards, they faced federal financial penalties.
    HHS was required to conduct a general review of the new incentive payment system, and submit HHS was required to conduct a general review of the new incentive payment system, and submit
    a report to Congress by October 1, 2000, on variations in state performance attributable to a report to Congress by October 1, 2000, on variations in state performance attributable to
    demographic variables. HHS was also to collaborate with state IV-D directors to develop a demographic variables. HHS was also to collaborate with state IV-D directors to develop a
    performance measure related to medical support and report to Congress by October 1, 1999.performance measure related to medical support and report to Congress by October 1, 1999.
    The law also imposed less severe financial penalties on states that failed to meet the October 1, The law also imposed less severe financial penalties on states that failed to meet the October 1,
    1997, deadline for implementing a statewide CSE automated data processing and information 1997, deadline for implementing a statewide CSE automated data processing and information
    retrieval system. (PRWORA imposed a new IV-D state plan requirement under Section 454(24) retrieval system. (PRWORA imposed a new IV-D state plan requirement under Section 454(24)
    of the SSA, which required that these automated systems were to meet all requirements that were of the SSA, which required that these automated systems were to meet all requirements that were
    enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988 by October 1, enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988 by October 1,
    1997.) Instead of finding a state that had made a good faith effort to comply with these 1997.) Instead of finding a state that had made a good faith effort to comply with these
    requirements—but had not met them by the deadline—to be out of compliance with its IV-D state requirements—but had not met them by the deadline—to be out of compliance with its IV-D state
    plan, the law imposed escalating financial penalties on the IV-D federal financial participation to plan, the law imposed escalating financial penalties on the IV-D federal financial participation to
    which the state otherwise would have been entitled. The penalty amount was 4% for the first which the state otherwise would have been entitled. The penalty amount was 4% for the first
    fiscal year of noncompliance, 8% for the second year, 16% for the third year, 25% for the fourth fiscal year of noncompliance, 8% for the second year, 16% for the third year, 25% for the fourth
    year, and 30% for the fifth or any subsequent year. It also provided the HHS Secretary with year, and 30% for the fifth or any subsequent year. It also provided the HHS Secretary with
    authority to waive these penalties for FY1998 under specified circumstances, and stated that a authority to waive these penalties for FY1998 under specified circumstances, and stated that a
    state’state's failure to comply would not be subject to penalties under the TANF program. It expanded s failure to comply would not be subject to penalties under the TANF program. It expanded
    and clarified waiver authorities that would allow states to develop an alternative system that met and clarified waiver authorities that would allow states to develop an alternative system that met
    specified requirements. (Such systems were eligible for 66% federal financial participation.)specified requirements. (Such systems were eligible for 66% federal financial participation.)
    Medical child support requirements were addressed via amendments to Title IV-D of the SSA and Medical child support requirements were addressed via amendments to Title IV-D of the SSA and
    the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Amendments to Title IV-D . Amendments to Title IV-D
    clarified that state CSE agencies must clarified that state CSE agencies must “include”"include" medical support as part of any child support medical support as part of any child support
    order (rather than order (rather than “"petition for the inclusionpetition for the inclusion”" of such medical support), and added new language of such medical support), and added new language
    about enforcement of medical support orders. The Secretaries of HHS and Labor were required to about enforcement of medical support orders. The Secretaries of HHS and Labor were required to
    jointly establish a Medical Child Support Working Group, which was to study the effectiveness of jointly establish a Medical Child Support Working Group, which was to study the effectiveness of
    the enforcement of medical support by state agencies. The HHS and Labor Secretaries were also the enforcement of medical support by state agencies. The HHS and Labor Secretaries were also
    to jointly issue regulations to develop a National Medical Support Notice to be used by states to to jointly issue regulations to develop a National Medical Support Notice to be used by states to
    enforce health care coverage requirements in child support orders. The National Medical Support enforce health care coverage requirements in child support orders. The National Medical Support
    Notice was required to conform with applicable requirements (i.e., those in ERISA Section 609 Notice was required to conform with applicable requirements (i.e., those in ERISA Section 609
    regarding medical child support orders and those in Title IV-D).regarding medical child support orders and those in Title IV-D).
    States were required to use the National Medical Support Notice where employer-sponsored States were required to use the National Medical Support Notice where employer-sponsored
    coverage is required by the child support order.coverage is required by the child support order.7878 In such cases, the law specified state procedures In such cases, the law specified state procedures
    for providing the notice to the parentfor providing the notice to the parent’'s employer, and the timeline for specified employer actions s employer, and the timeline for specified employer actions
    in cases where the parent is a new employee, an existing employee, or is terminated from in cases where the parent is a new employee, an existing employee, or is terminated from
    employment. The state agency was required to use the National Medical Support Notice to employment. The state agency was required to use the National Medical Support Notice to
    “"transfer notice of the provision for the health care coverage of the child to the employer.transfer notice of the provision for the health care coverage of the child to the employer.”" The The
    employer was then to transfer that notice to the appropriate health plan, and take other actions as employer was then to transfer that notice to the appropriate health plan, and take other actions as

    78 The order might instead allow alternative coverage, such as through Medicaid or purchased directly from an insurer.
    Congressional Research Service

    44
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    specified.79specified.79 Amendments to ERISA were also made to effectuate these new medical support Amendments to ERISA were also made to effectuate these new medical support
    policies. These included procedures for plan administrators of group health plans to respond to a policies. These included procedures for plan administrators of group health plans to respond to a
    notice, including by enrolling a child in a plan as appropriate.notice, including by enrolling a child in a plan as appropriate.8080
    Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998
    P.L. 105-306, the Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998, P.L. 105-306, the Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act of 1998,
    included a correction to provisions in the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 included a correction to provisions in the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998
    ((P.L. 105-200) related to automated data processing and financial penalties for states. This P.L. 105-200) related to automated data processing and financial penalties for states. This
    amendment allowed a state to have its annual penalty under Section 455(a)(4)(C) of the SSA amendment allowed a state to have its annual penalty under Section 455(a)(4)(C) of the SSA
    reduced by 20% for each of the five performance measures under the child support incentive reduced by 20% for each of the five performance measures under the child support incentive
    system for which it achieved a maximum score.system for which it achieved a maximum score.
    In addition, the law clarified the date by which states were to enact laws implementing medical In addition, the law clarified the date by which states were to enact laws implementing medical
    child support provisions to allow time for state legislatures that met biennially to enact laws after child support provisions to allow time for state legislatures that met biennially to enact laws after
    final federal regulations were issued in 2000.final federal regulations were issued in 2000.
    1999
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000
    P.L. 106-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, further amended Section 455(a) of the P.L. 106-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, further amended Section 455(a) of the
    SSA to provide an alternative penalty for states that were not in compliance with the centralized SSA to provide an alternative penalty for states that were not in compliance with the centralized
    SDU requirement (under §454(27) of the SSA) but had submitted a corrective compliance plan by SDU requirement (under §454(27) of the SSA) but had submitted a corrective compliance plan by
    April l, 2000, that described how, by when, and at what cost the state would achieve compliance. April l, 2000, that described how, by when, and at what cost the state would achieve compliance.
    The HHS Secretary was required to reduce the amount the state would otherwise have received in The HHS Secretary was required to reduce the amount the state would otherwise have received in
    federal financial participation by the penalty amount for the fiscal year, instead of finding the federal financial participation by the penalty amount for the fiscal year, instead of finding the
    state out of compliance with its state plan. The penalty amount was 4% for the first fiscal year of state out of compliance with its state plan. The penalty amount was 4% for the first fiscal year of
    noncompliance, 8% for the second year, 16% for the third year, 25% for the fourth year, and 30% noncompliance, 8% for the second year, 16% for the third year, 25% for the fourth year, and 30%
    for the fifth or any subsequent year. In addition, the law provided for coordination of the for the fifth or any subsequent year. In addition, the law provided for coordination of the
    alternative disbursement unit penalty with the automated systems penalty so that states that failed alternative disbursement unit penalty with the automated systems penalty so that states that failed
    to implement both the automated data processing requirement (§454(24)(A) of the SSA) and the to implement both the automated data processing requirement (§454(24)(A) of the SSA) and the
    SDU requirement were subject to only one alternative penalty.SDU requirement were subject to only one alternative penalty.
    The law granted access to the NDNH to the Department of Education. These provisions were The law granted access to the NDNH to the Department of Education. These provisions were
    designed to improve the ability of the department to collect on defaulted student loans and grant designed to improve the ability of the department to collect on defaulted student loans and grant
    overpayments.overpayments.
    Foster Care Independence Act of 1999
    P.L. 106-169, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, limited a hold harmless requirement P.L. 106-169, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, limited a hold harmless requirement
    pertaining to TANF collections that was in effect at the time. It did this by stipulating that states pertaining to TANF collections that was in effect at the time. It did this by stipulating that states
    would only be entitled to hold harmless funds if the TANF child support collections that were would only be entitled to hold harmless funds if the TANF child support collections that were
    retained by the states were less than they were in FY1995 and the state had distributed and retained by the states were less than they were in FY1995 and the state had distributed and
    disregarded to TANF families at least 80% of child support collected on their behalf in the disregarded to TANF families at least 80% of child support collected on their behalf in the
    preceding fiscal year, or the state had distributed to former TANF recipients the state share of preceding fiscal year, or the state had distributed to former TANF recipients the state share of

    79 The amendments to Title IV-D with regard to state implementation of the National Medical Support Notice were to
    be effective on October 1, 2001, with an allowance for when state legislatures would earliest be able to meet to
    consider the laws needed to effectuate these requirements. This deadline was subsequently amended by P.L. 105-306.
    80 Similar procedures in ERISA were enacted for state or local governmental group health plans, and church group
    health plans.
    Congressional Research Service

    45
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    child support payments collected via the federal income tax offset program. If these conditions child support payments collected via the federal income tax offset program. If these conditions
    were met, the statewere met, the state’'s share of child support collections would be increased by 50% of the s share of child support collections would be increased by 50% of the
    difference between what the state would have received in FY1995 and its share of child support difference between what the state would have received in FY1995 and its share of child support
    collections in the pertinent fiscal year. The law provided that this hold harmless provision (then collections in the pertinent fiscal year. The law provided that this hold harmless provision (then
    §457(d) of the SSA) would only be effective for calendar quarters between October 1, 1998, and §457(d) of the SSA) would only be effective for calendar quarters between October 1, 1998, and
    September 30, 2001, and then would be automatically repealed on October 1, 2021.September 30, 2001, and then would be automatically repealed on October 1, 2021.
    2004
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
    P.L. 108-199, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, allowed the Secretary of Housing and P.L. 108-199, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, allowed the Secretary of Housing and
    Urban Development to access data in the NDNH with respect to persons participating in specified Urban Development to access data in the NDNH with respect to persons participating in specified
    federal housing assistance programs.federal housing assistance programs.
    SUTA Dumping Prevention Act of 2004
    P.L. 108-295, the SUTA Dumping Prevention Act of 2004, allowed state workforce agencies P.L. 108-295, the SUTA Dumping Prevention Act of 2004, allowed state workforce agencies
    access to data in the NDNH for the purposes of administering state or federal unemployment access to data in the NDNH for the purposes of administering state or federal unemployment
    compensation programs under federal or state law.compensation programs under federal or state law.
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
    P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, allowed the Treasury Secretary to P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, allowed the Treasury Secretary to
    access data in the NDNH on persons who owe delinquent nontax debt (e.g., small business loans, access data in the NDNH on persons who owe delinquent nontax debt (e.g., small business loans,
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loans, agricultural loans) to the federal government that Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loans, agricultural loans) to the federal government that
    meets certain criteria.meets certain criteria.
    2006
    Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
    P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), made several changes to the CSE P.L. 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), made several changes to the CSE
    program.program.
    With regard to program financing, it reduced federal financial participation for laboratory costs With regard to program financing, it reduced federal financial participation for laboratory costs
    associated with paternity establishment from 90% to 66%. The law also ended the ability for associated with paternity establishment from 90% to 66%. The law also ended the ability for
    states to count states to count expenditures of CSE incentive payments toward CSE incentive payments toward theirstate expenditures that are eligible for 66% federal expenditures that are eligible for 66% federal
    financial participation. In addition, it required states to assess a $25 annual user fee for families financial participation. In addition, it required states to assess a $25 annual user fee for families
    that had never received cash assistance (e.g., that had never received cash assistance (e.g., never TANF cases) where annual collections on their cases) where annual collections on their
    cases were in excess of $500.cases were in excess of $500.
    The law created a number of new options and requirements for CSE distribution, in part to The law created a number of new options and requirements for CSE distribution, in part to
    incentivize states to distribute more child support collections to families currently receiving incentivize states to distribute more child support collections to families currently receiving
    TANF benefits as well as those that had formerly received them. For current TANF families, the TANF benefits as well as those that had formerly received them. For current TANF families, the
    law continued the existing cooperation and assignment requirements, which provide that child law continued the existing cooperation and assignment requirements, which provide that child
    support accruing while the family is receiving TANF be retained by the state and federal support accruing while the family is receiving TANF be retained by the state and federal
    governments to reimburse the cost of that benefit.governments to reimburse the cost of that benefit.8181 However, pursuant to the DRA, states were However, pursuant to the DRA, states were

    81 The DRA made a related change to Title IV-A of the SSA, revising Section 408(a)(3) to eliminate the assignment of
    pre-assistance arrearages in new assistance cases.
    Congressional Research Service

    46
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    provided the option to pass through up to a specified amount of that child support collected on provided the option to pass through up to a specified amount of that child support collected on
    behalf of those current TANF families prior to reimbursing the cost of the benefit. States that behalf of those current TANF families prior to reimbursing the cost of the benefit. States that
    chose to pass through some of the collected child support to each TANF family would not have to chose to pass through some of the collected child support to each TANF family would not have to
    pay the federal government its share of such collections if the amount passed through to those pay the federal government its share of such collections if the amount passed through to those
    families did not exceed $100 per month (or $200 per month for cases with more than one child). families did not exceed $100 per month (or $200 per month for cases with more than one child).
    (A state opting to pass through support was required to disregard the passed through support for (A state opting to pass through support was required to disregard the passed through support for
    the purposes of TANF benefit eligibility in order to be exempted from federal reimbursement of the purposes of TANF benefit eligibility in order to be exempted from federal reimbursement of
    its share of the amount passed through.) For child support paid after a family stops receiving its share of the amount passed through.) For child support paid after a family stops receiving
    TANF, the DRA provided that states could opt for simplified distribution rules that required any TANF, the DRA provided that states could opt for simplified distribution rules that required any
    amount collected in excess of current support owed was first to be paid to the family to the extent amount collected in excess of current support owed was first to be paid to the family to the extent
    necessary to satisfy any support arrearages not assigned; any support paid in excess of that necessary to satisfy any support arrearages not assigned; any support paid in excess of that
    amount then would be applied to arrearages owed to the states and federal government.amount then would be applied to arrearages owed to the states and federal government.8282 States States
    could also choose to pass through any assigned arrears collected on behalf of each former TANF could also choose to pass through any assigned arrears collected on behalf of each former TANF
    family without the need to reimburse the federal government for its share of the collections (as family without the need to reimburse the federal government for its share of the collections (as
    long as the state share was also passed through),long as the state share was also passed through), and discontinue support assignments for then-and discontinue support assignments for then-
    AFDC families that occurred prior to the enactment of PRWORA.AFDC families that occurred prior to the enactment of PRWORA.8383 A state could generally A state could generally
    choose which of these policies to implement, and could alter its choice at any time going forward.choose which of these policies to implement, and could alter its choice at any time going forward.
    In addition, the DRA included provisions thatIn addition, the DRA included provisions that
    • lowered the threshold amount for denial of a passport to a noncustodial parent lowered the threshold amount for denial of a passport to a noncustodial parent
    who owes past-due child support from $5,000 to $2,500;who owes past-due child support from $5,000 to $2,500;
    • allowed states to use the federal income tax refund offset program to collect past-allowed states to use the federal income tax refund offset program to collect past-
    due child support for children in never-TANF cases who are no longer minors, due child support for children in never-TANF cases who are no longer minors,
    and made other changes to the prioritization of debts under Section 6502(c) of and made other changes to the prioritization of debts under Section 6502(c) of
    the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §6502);the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §6502);
    • authorized the HHS Secretary to compare information of noncustodial parents authorized the HHS Secretary to compare information of noncustodial parents
    who owe past-due child support with information maintained by insurers (i.e., who owe past-due child support with information maintained by insurers (i.e.,
    regarding insurance claims, settlements, awards, and payments) and to furnish regarding insurance claims, settlements, awards, and payments) and to furnish
    any information resulting from a match to CSE agencies so that they can pursue any information resulting from a match to CSE agencies so that they can pursue
    child support arrearages;child support arrearages;
    • allowed an assisting state to establish a CSE interstate case based on another allowed an assisting state to establish a CSE interstate case based on another
    state’state's request for assistance (thereby enabling an assisting state to use the CSE s request for assistance (thereby enabling an assisting state to use the CSE
    statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system for statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system for
    interstate cases);

    82 Alternatively, states could choose, pursuant to amendments to Sections 454(34) and 457 of the SSA, to continue to
    apply some of the distribution rules that were in effect immediately prior to the enactment of the DRA. For support
    collected via the tax refund offset, states that opted for the new DRA distribution rules would distribute those
    collections in the same way as other support for former-assistance cases, distributing it first as current support, then to
    family arrears, and finally to state-owed arrears. For states opting for the old distribution rules, federal offset payments
    would first be applied to state-owed arrears, and then to arrears owed to the family. (Under the old distribution rules in
    Section 457(a)(2)(B)(IV), this enforcement method could not be used to collect current support. The DRA repealed this
    provision, but it would still apply to states opting for the old distribution rules.)
    83 The DRA amended Section 408(a)(3) of the SSA to eliminate the assignment of pre-assistance arrearages in new
    assistance cases, but left it up to the states to decide whether to discontinue older assignments. For further information
    about how various scenarios under these distribution rules were implemented after the enactment of the DRA, see
    HHS, OCSE, Assignment and Distribution of Child Support Under Sections 408(a)(3) and 457 of the Social Security
    Act    , AT-07-05, July 11, 2007, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/assignment-and-distribution-child-support-
    under-sections-408a3-and-457-social; and HHS, OCSE, Instructions for the Distribution of Child Support Under
    Section 457 of the Social Security Act    , AT-97-17, October 21, 1997, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/
    instructions-distribution-child-support-under-section-457-social-security-act.
    Congressional Research Service

    47
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    • interstate cases); required states to review and, if appropriate, adjust child support orders of TANF required states to review and, if appropriate, adjust child support orders of TANF
    families every three years;families every three years;
    • required that medical care support for a child be provided by either or both required that medical care support for a child be provided by either or both
    parents (and provided that the medical support requirements could be enforced parents (and provided that the medical support requirements could be enforced
    against the custodial parent if health care coverage is available to that parent at against the custodial parent if health care coverage is available to that parent at
    reasonable cost); andreasonable cost); and
    • repealed the expiration of the 1% technical assistance and 2% FPLS funding for repealed the expiration of the 1% technical assistance and 2% FPLS funding for
    the program.the program.
    Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006
    P.L. 109-250, the Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006, granted access to data in the P.L. 109-250, the Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006, granted access to data in the
    NDNH to the state agencies that administer the Food Stamp program for the purposes of NDNH to the state agencies that administer the Food Stamp program for the purposes of
    administering that program. (P.L. 110-246, enacted in June 2008, changed the Food Stamp administering that program. (P.L. 110-246, enacted in June 2008, changed the Food Stamp
    program references to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP].)program references to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP].)
    2007
    Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007
    P.L. 110-157, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007, allowed the Secretary of P.L. 110-157, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007, allowed the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs to access data in the NDNH to obtain information on individuals applying for Veterans Affairs to access data in the NDNH to obtain information on individuals applying for
    certain veteran benefits and services. This authority initially expired on September 30, 2011.certain veteran benefits and services. This authority initially expired on September 30, 2011.8484
    2008
    Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
    P.L. 110-351, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, added P.L. 110-351, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, added
    the child welfare programs authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the SSA to the list of the child welfare programs authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the SSA to the list of
    programs that have access to the NDNH and other FPLS databases. This changed effectively programs that have access to the NDNH and other FPLS databases. This changed effectively
    allowed state child welfare agencies to include requests for locate services for information about allowed state child welfare agencies to include requests for locate services for information about
    relatives of children served by the child welfare system; as opposed to prior authority, enacted in relatives of children served by the child welfare system; as opposed to prior authority, enacted in
    1997, which only permitted use of locate services for individuals known, or alleged, to have 1997, which only permitted use of locate services for individuals known, or alleged, to have
    parental rights to the children. This broader access was consistent with the lawparental rights to the children. This broader access was consistent with the law’'s goal of s goal of
    identifying relatives as placement resources for children served by state child welfare agencies.identifying relatives as placement resources for children served by state child welfare agencies.85 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 P.L. 111-585

    84 P.L. 110-157 terminated the New Hires Directory comparison authority for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at the
    end of FY2011 (i.e., September 30, 2011). P.L. 112-37 (enacted in October 2011) extended the termination date to
    November 18, 2011. During the period from November 19, 2011, through September 29, 2013, the provision was not in
    effect. The Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-37) made the provision
    effective beginning September 30, 2013, and for 180 days thereafter.
    85 45 C.F.R. §302.35(d)(2); and HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau/OCSE, Request for Locate Services, Referrals, and
    Electronic Interface between Child Welfare and Child Support Information Services,     ACYF-CB-IM-12-06 and OCSE-
    IM-12-02, August 1, 2012. Guidance issued in 2007, before enactment of P.L. 110-351, suggested the locate
    information concerning noncustodial parents might provide leads that would allow child welfare agencies to identify
    other (nonparental) relatives of the child but direct queries on those other relatives were not allowed. This guidance
    (ACYF-CB-IM-07-06 and OCSE-IM-07-06) has been superseded.
    Congressional Research Service

    48
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    2009
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, temporarily reinstated federal , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, temporarily reinstated federal
    financial participation for financial participation for state expenditures of child support incentive payments for FY2009 and FY2010.child support incentive payments for FY2009 and FY2010.
    2010
    Claims Resolution Act of 2010
    P.L. 111-291, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, added a requirement that employers report to P.L. 111-291, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, added a requirement that employers report to
    the NDNH the first day that a newly hired employee performs remunerated services for the the NDNH the first day that a newly hired employee performs remunerated services for the
    employer.employer.
    2011
    Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011
    P.L. 112-40 (Title II), the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011, added a definition P.L. 112-40 (Title II), the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011, added a definition
    of of newly hired employee for the purposes of the NDNH to include both employees who had not for the purposes of the NDNH to include both employees who had not
    previously been employed by the employer and certain rehired employees.previously been employed by the employer and certain rehired employees.
    2013
    Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013
    P.L. 113-37, Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013, included P.L. 113-37, Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013, included
    provisions renewing the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to access the NDNH to provisions renewing the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to access the NDNH to
    obtain information on individuals applying for certain veteran benefits and services. The relevant obtain information on individuals applying for certain veteran benefits and services. The relevant
    authorities were to be in effect as of the date of enactment (September 30, 2013) and end 180 authorities were to be in effect as of the date of enactment (September 30, 2013) and end 180
    days later.days later.
    2014
    Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act
    P.L. 113-183, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, included several P.L. 113-183, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, included several
    CSE provisions. In order to standardize and streamline the enforcement of child support in CSE provisions. In order to standardize and streamline the enforcement of child support in
    international cases, it (1) required the HHS Secretary to use the authorities provided by law to international cases, it (1) required the HHS Secretary to use the authorities provided by law to
    ensure the compliance of the United States with any multilateral child support convention/treaty ensure the compliance of the United States with any multilateral child support convention/treaty
    to which the United States is a party; (2) amended federal law so that the federal income tax to which the United States is a party; (2) amended federal law so that the federal income tax
    refund offset program is available for use by a state to handle CSE requests from foreign refund offset program is available for use by a state to handle CSE requests from foreign
    reciprocating countries and foreign treaty countries and made related amendments to allow access reciprocating countries and foreign treaty countries and made related amendments to allow access
    to the FPLS and NDNH databases; (3) required states to adopt the 2008 amendments to UIFSA to the FPLS and NDNH databases; (3) required states to adopt the 2008 amendments to UIFSA
    verbatim to ensure uniformity of procedures, requirements, and reporting forms; and (4) clarified verbatim to ensure uniformity of procedures, requirements, and reporting forms; and (4) clarified
    which state court has controlling jurisdiction in establishing, enforcing, and modifying child which state court has controlling jurisdiction in establishing, enforcing, and modifying child
    support orders.
    Congressional Research Service

    49
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950

    support orders. The law provided Indian tribes or tribal organizations access to the FPLS by designating them as The law provided Indian tribes or tribal organizations access to the FPLS by designating them as
    “"authorized persons.authorized persons.”" (This did not include authority to access taxpayer data within the system.) (This did not include authority to access taxpayer data within the system.)
    It also allowed Indian tribes or tribal organizations that operated a CSE program to be considered It also allowed Indian tribes or tribal organizations that operated a CSE program to be considered
    a state for purposes of authority to conduct an experimental pilot or demonstration project under a state for purposes of authority to conduct an experimental pilot or demonstration project under
    the SSA Section 1115 waiver authority to assist in promoting the objectives of the CSE program.the SSA Section 1115 waiver authority to assist in promoting the objectives of the CSE program.
    The law also included a Sense of the Congress statement specifying that (1) establishing The law also included a Sense of the Congress statement specifying that (1) establishing
    parenting time arrangements (also known as parenting time arrangements (also known as visitation) when obtaining child support orders was ) when obtaining child support orders was
    an important goal that should be accompanied by strong family violence safeguards; and (2) an important goal that should be accompanied by strong family violence safeguards; and (2)
    states should use existing funding sources to support the establishment of parenting time states should use existing funding sources to support the establishment of parenting time
    arrangements, including child support incentives, Access and Visitation Grants (§469B of the arrangements, including child support incentives, Access and Visitation Grants (§469B of the
    SSA), and Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants (§403(a)(2) of the SSA), and Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants (§403(a)(2) of the
    SSA).SSA).
    It required data standardization within the CSE program to improve the ability of two or more It required data standardization within the CSE program to improve the ability of two or more
    systems or entities to exchange information and to correctly use the information exchanged. Also, systems or entities to exchange information and to correctly use the information exchanged. Also,
    it required the HHS Secretary, in conjunction with developing the CSE strategic plan, to review it required the HHS Secretary, in conjunction with developing the CSE strategic plan, to review
    and provide recommendations for cost-effective improvements to the CSE program and a variety and provide recommendations for cost-effective improvements to the CSE program and a variety
    of best practices related to, for example, enforcement methods, parenting time/visitation, services of best practices related to, for example, enforcement methods, parenting time/visitation, services
    for parents (including employment support), and international enforcement (including passport for parents (including employment support), and international enforcement (including passport
    restrictions). In addition, it required all states to use electronic processing of automated systems restrictions). In addition, it required all states to use electronic processing of automated systems
    for the collection and disbursement of child support payments via the SDU. This was to occur by for the collection and disbursement of child support payments via the SDU. This was to occur by
    electronically submitting child support orders and notices to employers (for income withholding electronically submitting child support orders and notices to employers (for income withholding
    purposes) using uniform formats prescribed by the HHS Secretary and, at the option of the purposes) using uniform formats prescribed by the HHS Secretary and, at the option of the
    employer, using the electronic transmission methods prescribed by the HHS Secretary.employer, using the electronic transmission methods prescribed by the HHS Secretary.
    2018
    Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
    P.L. 115-123, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, included provisions that increased the annual P.L. 115-123, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, included provisions that increased the annual
    CSE user fee from $25 to $35. For cases to which the fee applies, it increased the threshold for CSE user fee from $25 to $35. For cases to which the fee applies, it increased the threshold for
    the fee from $500 to $550 in annual child support collections on the case.the fee from $500 to $550 in annual child support collections on the case.
    2021
    Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits
    Improvement Act of 2020
    P.L. 116-315, the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits P.L. 116-315, the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits
    Improvement Act of 2020, included provisions that authorized the Secretaries of Labor and Improvement Act of 2020, included provisions that authorized the Secretaries of Labor and
    Veterans Affairs to access the NDNH for purposes of tracking employment of veterans.Veterans Affairs to access the NDNH for purposes of tracking employment of veterans.


    Congressional Research Service

    50
    The Child Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950


    Author Information

    Jessica Tollestrup

    Specialist in Social Policy


    Acknowledgments
    The author is indebted to the prior research and analysis 2025 Supporting America's Children and Families Act

    P.L. 118-258, the Supporting America's Children and Families Act, included child support provisions in Title II of the law. Those provisions were intended to enable tribal CSE programs to have access to federal tax information comparable to that of state and local CSE programs. The law also allowed contractors of state, local, and tribal CSE agencies to have access to federal tax information comparable to that of CSE agency employees.

    Title II of P.L. 118-258 amended SSA Section 464 to explicitly provide that federal tax refund offset data sharing authorities apply to tribal IV-D programs. (A related technical amendment to SSA Section 453(g) allowed federal reimbursement to tribal programs for the costs of the information exchange.) The law also amended the Internal Revenue Code Sections 6103 and 6402(c) to allow tribal IV-D programs access to taxpayer data governed by those sections on par with the access given to federal, state, and local child support agencies. And it removed from the Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(l)(6)(B) the enumerated categories of taxpayer data that could be disclosed to IV-D agency contractors while expressly applying the safeguard requirements in Section 6103(p)(4) to taxpayer data shared with state, tribal, and local child support enforcement agencies and their contractors. This effectively allowed contractors of all IV-D agencies to have the same access to data as employees of these agencies.

    To have direct access to the CSE locate, establishment, and enforcement tools that utilize taxpayer data, tribal programs were required to demonstrate their ability to comply with applicable federal safeguards described in the Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(4). Failure to follow the law regarding the disclosure of taxpayer information could subject employees and contractors of tribal child support agencies to the same penalties as employees and contractors of state and local child support agencies.86

    Prior research and analysis were     conducted by retired CRS Specialist in Social conducted by retired CRS Specialist in Social
    Policy, Carmen Solomon-Fears, including CRS Report R44423, Policy, Carmen Solomon-Fears, including CRS Report R44423, Child Support Enforcement: Legislative
    History    . She also is grateful for the expert review by History. CRS colleagues Evelyne P. Baumrucker, Margot CRS colleagues Evelyne P. Baumrucker, Margot
    Crandall-Hollick, Paul S. Davies, Gene Falk, Vanessa C. Forsberg, Katelin P. Isaacs, Crandall-Hollick, Paul S. Davies, Gene Falk, Vanessa C. Forsberg, Katelin P. Isaacs, KristieKristy N. Kamarck, N. Kamarck,
    Patrick A. Landers, Erika Lunder, and Emilie StoltzfusPatrick A. Landers, Erika Lunder, and Emilie Stoltzfus.

    Disclaimer
    This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
    shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
    under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
    than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
    connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
    subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
    material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
    copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

    Congressional Research Service
    R47630 · VERSION 1 · NEW
    51
    provided expert review.

    Footnotes

    1.

    See Sections 451-469B of the SSA (42 U.S.C. §§651-669b). The federal regulations can be found at 45 C.F.R. Parts 301.0-310.40.

    2.

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," August 31, 1996, https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/personal-responsibility-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-1996.

    3. See, for example, Center for Law and Social Policy, "Child Support is an Effective and Important Program for Families," August 31, 2016, https://www.clasp.org/blog/child-support-effective-and-important-program-families; and Daniel Schroeder, The Limited Reach of the Child Support Enforcement System, American Enterprise Institute, December 2016, https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-limited-reach-of-the-child-support-enforcement-system/. 4.

    This report also generally excludes laws that only made technical corrections to Title IV-D of the SSA. (Those laws that were excluded include P.L. 99-514, P.L. 100-647, P.L. 104-208, P.L. 105-220, P.L. 109-241, P.L. 109-435, P.L. 110-234, P.L. 110-246, and P.L. 113-79.)

    5.

    For the purposes of the IV-D program, Section 1101(a)(1) of the SSA defines "state" as including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

    6.

    States were historically required to provide CSE services to Indian tribes and tribal organizations as part of their CSE caseloads. Although tribes were not specifically included in the CSE statute until the enactment of PRWORA in 1996, several tribes had negotiated agreements (e.g., informal, cooperative, intergovernmental, joint powers) with some states in a mutual effort to serve Native American children. PRWORA allowed direct federal funding of approved tribal CSE programs. In general, Native American children living on Indian reservations that have a tribal CSE program are covered by that specific tribal CSE program; Native American children who do not live on Indian reservations are covered by the state's CSE program. However, there are many establishment and enforcement scenarios that might follow differing conventions. For further information, see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/child-support-professionals/tribal-agencies.

    7.

    For a period during 2023 through 2025, this office was referred to as the Office of Child Support Services, and the program it administers as the Child Support Services Program. On June 5, 2023, HHS published a notice in the Federal Register changing the name of the program and administering entity within HHS to the Office of Child Support Services in Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (88 Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 107, June 5, 2023, p. 36587). No conforming changes were proposed to 45 C.F.R. until December 31, 2024, when OCSS published a direct final rule in the Federal Register that would have further effectuated the name change of the office and made related changes to the program name. This direct final rule was to have been effective 60 days after its publication (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 250, December 31, 2024, p. 107015). However, on February 27, 2025, HHS re-opened the comment period and delayed the effective date, and then subsequently withdrew the direct final rule (Federal Register, Vol. 90, No. 77, April 23, 2025, p. 17012). On December 19, 2025, HHS published a notice in the Federal Register changing the name of the program and administering entity back to the Office of Child Support Enforcement in Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Federal Register, Vol. 90, No. 242, December 19, 2025 p. 59525).

    8.

    For more information, see CRS Report RS22753, Child Support Services Annual User Fee: In Brief.

    9.

    In contrast, pursuant to amendments to IV-D made by PRWORA, the CSE program provides tribes and tribal organizations direct federal funding.

    10.

    Similarly, Section 1912 of the SSA requires that as a condition of receiving Medicaid assistance, those families must also cooperate with CSE programs and assign their rights to medical support. In addition, Section 471(a)(17) of the SSA requires the child welfare agency "where appropriate" to secure assignment of child support rights on behalf of any child receiving foster care support pursuant to Title IV-E of the SSA. However, the establishment of a child support order is not a condition of Title IV-E foster care support. Finally, 7 U.S.C. §2015(l) provides a state option to require that families receiving assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cooperate with CSE programs as a condition of that assistance.

    11.

    For a summary of each of these services, see CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Services: Program Basics.

    12.

    The NDNH is a database of personal, wage, and employment information on American workers. Employers are required by P.L. 104-193 to send new hire reports to the State Directory of New Hires, which then sends the required information to the NDNH. Contrary to its name, the NDNH includes more than just information on new employees. It includes information on (1) all newly hired employees, compiled from state reports (and reports from federal employers), (2) the quarterly wage reports of existing employees (in Unemployment Compensation [UC]-covered employment), and (3) unemployment compensation claims. The NDNH was originally established to help states locate noncustodial parents living in a different state so that child support payments could be withheld from that parent's paycheck. Since its enactment in 1996, the NDNH has been extended to several additional programs and agencies to verify program eligibility, prevent or end fraud, collect overpayments, or ensure that program benefits are correct. The NDNH is a component of the FPLS, which is maintained by OCSE and housed at the Social Security Administration. For further information, see CRS Report RS22889, The National Directory of New Hires: An Overview.

    13. According to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), "Federal, State, and local entities work together to identify, investigate, and prosecute egregious cases of noncustodial parents who knowingly fail to pay support obligations and whose cases meet the criteria for Federal prosecution under the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act. These entities include the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), State child support enforcement offices, the Department of Justice, and OIG.... The ultimate decision on whether to prosecute a child support case at the Federal level lies with the Department of Justice." For further information, see https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/child-support-enforcement/about/. 14.

    For further information, see CRS Report R43020, Medical Child Support: Background and Current Policy.

    15.

    Unless otherwise noted, all FY2022 data in this report are from HHS, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), FY2022 Preliminary Data Report and Tables, Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables.

    16.

    In FY2022, $145.5 billion in child support obligations ($31.3 billion in current support and $114.1 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but $28.3 billion was paid ($20.2 billion current, $8.1 billion past-due; numbers do not sum to total due to rounding).

    17.

    Elaine Sorensen, Arthur Pashi, and Melody Morales, Characteristics of Families Served by the Child Support (IV-D) Program: 2016 Census Survey Results, HHS, OCSE, November 2018, p. 3, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/iv_d_characteristics_2016_census_results.pdf.

    18.

    The most recent estimate is Timothy Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2017," Current Population Reports, P60-269, U.S. Census Bureau, May 2020, pp. 5, 11. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf.

    19.

    William J. Brockelbank and Felix Infausto, Interstate Enforcement of Family Support, 2nd Ed., 1971.

    20.

    In 1989, the NCCUSL reviewed the revised version of URESA and determined the need for major revisions. The result was the development of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), a new interstate act that superseded URESA and the revised version of URESA. The NCCUSL amended UIFSA in 1996, 2001, and 2008.

    21.

    William F. Fox, "The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act," Family Law Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 2, (Summer 1978), pp. 113-145; and Linda Henry Elrod, "The Federalization of Child Support Guidelines," Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, vol. 6, 1990, pp. 106, 107.

    22.

    See the discussion of the early history of the AFDC program in CRS Report R44668, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History.

    23.

    For more information, see CRS Report R44668, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History.

    24.

    HHS, OCSE, National Institute for Child Support Enforcement, History and Fundamentals of Child Support Enforcement Handbook, July 1980, pp. 1-4.

    25.

    S. Rept. 93-1356, pp. 42-55.

    26.

    HHS, OCSE, "Kids, They're Worth Every Penny," 9th Annual Child Support Enforcement Report to Congress, December 1984, p. 111.

    27.

    Remarks of Senator Russell B. Long, Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 7 (March 14, 1972), p. 8291.

    28.

    President Gerald R. Ford, "Statement on Signing the Social Services Amendments of 1974," January 4, 1975, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-social-services-amendments-1974.

    29.

    U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Child Support Enforcement Program Reform Proposals, hearing, 98th Congress, 2nd session, January 24 and 26, 1984.

    30.

    Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 23 (November 16, 1983), p. H33043.

    31.

    President Ronald Reagan, "Remarks on Signing the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984," August 16, 1984, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-child-support-enforcement-amendments-1984.

    32.

    President Ronald Reagan, "Remarks on Signing the Family Support Act of 1988," October 13, 1988, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-family-support-act-1988.

    33.

    "Official Recommendations of the United States Commission on Interstate Child Support," Family Law Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1 (Spring 1993), pp. 31-84.

    34.

    Jeff Ball, "How a 'Blueprint for Reform' Led to 20 Years of Program Improvement." National Child Support Enforcement Association, https://www.ncsea.org/documents/The_Interstate_Commission_20_Years_Later_FINAL1.pdf.

    35.

    U.S. General Accounting Office, "Child Support Enforcement: Families Could Benefit From Stronger Enforcement Program," GAO/HEHS-95-24, December 1994, pp. 3-4, https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-95-24.

    36.

    HHS, OCSE, 20th Annual Child Support Enforcement Report to Congress, for the period ending September 30, 1995, p. 6.

    37.

    Ibid., p. 2.

    38.

    HHS, OCSE, 21st Annual Child Support Enforcement Report to Congress, for the Period Ending September 30, 1996, p. 7

    39.

    For further background on AFDC and TANF, see CRS Report R44668, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History.

    40.

    President William J. Clinton, "Remarks on Signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and an Exchange With Reporters," August 22, 1996, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-personal-responsibility-and-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-1996.

    41.

    President William J. Clinton, "Remarks on Signing the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 and an Exchange With Reporters," June 24, 1998, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-signing-the-deadbeat-parents-punishment-act-1998-and-exchange-with-reporters.

    42.

    President William J. Clinton, "Statement on Signing the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998," July 16, 1998, available online from Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-child-support-performance-and-incentive-act-1998.

    43.

    See Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Conference Agreement, as amended and passed by the Senate on December 21, 2005, January 27, 2006, p. 6, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress-2005-2006/costestimate/s1932conf0.pdf.

    44.

    President George W. Bush, "Remarks on Signing the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005," February 8, 2006, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-8.html.

    45.

    For further information, see CRS Report R43779, Child Support Enforcement and the Hague Convention on Recovery of International Child Support.

    46.

    John Kerry, Secretary of State, September 30, 2014, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/09/232337.htm.

    47.

    This law added Section 402(a)(10) to the SSA. All changes to Title IV-A of the SSA prior to 1996 were to the law governing the AFDC program. The AFDC program was repealed by PRWORA.

    48.

    HHS, OCSE, National Institute for Child Support Enforcement, History and Fundamentals of Child Support Enforcement Handbook, July 1980, p. 90.

    49.

    In 1989, the NCCUSL reviewed the revised version of URESA and determined the need for major revisions. The result was the development of UIFSA, a new interstate act that superseded URESA and the revised version of URESA. The NCCUSL amended UIFSA in 1996, 2001, and 2008.

    50.

    Such sums were authorized to be appropriated to carry out this activity. The HEW Secretary was directed to transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury sufficient amounts of funding appropriated pursuant to this authorization to enable the performance of this activity.

    51.

    HHS, OCSE, National Institute for Child Support Enforcement, History and Fundamentals of Child Support Enforcement Handbook, July 1980, p. 90.

    52.

    The FPLS is an assembly of systems operated by OCSE in HHS, to assist states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parents for the establishment of paternity and child support obligations, as well as the enforcement and modification of orders for child support, custody, and visitation. The FPLS assists federal and state agencies in identifying overpayments and fraud, and assists with assessing benefits.

    53.

    P.L. 93-647 allowed a "reasonable" application fee to be imposed on non-AFDC families for CSE services.

    54.

    P.L. 93-647 provided that the AFDC payment to an otherwise eligible child would not be sanctioned if their parent (or other relevant individual) fails to cooperate with this requirement.

    55.

    The 25%/10% rate ended on September 30, 1977. Pursuant to P.L. 95-30 the rate became 15% of such child support collected by localities or by one state for another state.

    56.

    Although non-AFDC families have had the option to sign up for CSE services since the start of the CSE program in 1975, federal funding of CSE services on behalf of non-AFDC families was not made permanent until 1980. P.L. 93-647 extended CSE funding for non-AFDC families through June 30, 1976; P.L. 94-365 extended it through June 30, 1977; P.L. 95-59 extended it through September 30, 1978; P.L. 96-178 extended it through March 31, 1980; and P.L. 96-272 made it permanent.

    57.

    §454 of the SSA.

    58.

    §458(a) of the SSA.

    59.

    Disposable earnings is the amount of earnings left after legally required deductions (e.g., federal, state, and local taxes; Social Security; unemployment compensation; state employee retirement systems) have been made. Deductions not required by law (e.g., union dues, health and life insurance, charitable contributions) are not subtracted from gross earnings when the amount of disposable earnings for garnishment purposes is calculated.

    60.

    See §11 of P.L. 95-142.

    61.

    P.L. 95-142 amended SSA Section 1912, which was later amended by Section 2367(b) of the Medicare and Medicaid Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-369) to require Medicaid state programs to condition Medicaid eligibility on an applicant's or enrollee's compliance with these requirements (with good cause exceptions in establishing paternity).

    62.

    §1903 of the SSA.

    63.

    §464 of the SSA.

    64.

    A similar provision for AFDC families had already been enacted as part of the original CSE law (P.L. 93-647), but was later repealed by P.L. 95-598, and then restored by P.L. 97-35.

    65.

    These expedited processes had the effect of limiting the role of the courts. An expedited judicial process is a legal process that generally lessens the processing time of establishing and enforcing a child support order. This process gives a judge surrogate authority to take several actions in lieu of the judge (e.g., take testimony and establish a record, enter default orders if the noncustodial parent does not respond in a timely manner to "notice" or "service of process," accept voluntary acknowledgments of support, and approve stipulated agreements to pay support). Judge surrogates are sometimes referred to as masters, referees, hearing officers, or presiding officers.

    66.

    All of these changes were made to Section 466 of the SSA.

    67.

    Ten years later, in 1997, P.L. 105-33 prohibited these Medicaid families from having to pay an application fee for CSE services.

    68.

    §205 of the SSA.

    69.

    This requirement was subsequently repealed by PRWORA.

    70.

    These changes amended Part 6, Subtitle B, Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to add Section 609 (29 U.S.C. §1169).

    71.

    This section was later redesignated as SSA Section 1908A under the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (as incorporated into the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 [P.L. 106-113]).

    72.

    This amendment added Section 1908 to Title XIX. This section was later redesignated as SSA Section 1908A under the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (as incorporated into the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 [P.L. 106-113]).

    73.

    For detail on how the PRWORA rules apply to various categories of arrearages, see Question 30 in HHS, OCSE, Instructions for the Distribution of Child Support Under Section 457 of the Social Security Act, AT-97-17, October 21, 1997, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/instructions-distribution-child-support-under-section-457-social-security-act.

    74.

    Some of these changes were made to Section 454(23) of the SSA.

    75.

    These requirements were precursors to the requirement for the National Support Notice, among other procedures, subsequently established in P.L. 105-200.

    76.

    As part of these, the law stipulated that no information from the FPLS was to be disclosed to any person if the state had notified the HHS Secretary that the state had evidence of domestic violence or child abuse, and that disclosure of such information could be harmful to the custodial parent or the child. Many other technical changes concerning the FPLS were also made.

    77.

    According to the House Committee on Ways and Means report (H.Rept. 105-77, p. 16) accompanying the bill that, as amended, became P.L. 105-89: "This provision assists States in making timely and informed decisions about permanency by allowing State child welfare agencies to access the Federal Parent Locator Service to identify and locate parents or other relatives who may be interested in providing a permanent home for a child in foster care. Even if a parent or other relative is unable to provide a home for the child, ruling out this alternative early in a child's placement will allow the agency and court to move expeditiously towards adoption or another permanent alternative. The Committee understands that under current law, the FPLS can also be used specifically to provide notice of termination of parental rights proceedings."

    78.

    The order might instead allow alternative coverage, such as through Medicaid or purchased directly from an insurer.

    79.

    The amendments to Title IV-D with regard to state implementation of the National Medical Support Notice were to be effective on October 1, 2001, with an allowance for when state legislatures would earliest be able to meet to consider the laws needed to effectuate these requirements. This deadline was subsequently amended by P.L. 105-306.

    80.

    Similar procedures in ERISA were enacted for state or local governmental group health plans, and church group health plans.

    81.

    The DRA made a related change to Title IV-A of the SSA, revising Section 408(a)(3) to eliminate the assignment of pre-assistance arrearages in new assistance cases.

    82.

    Alternatively, states could choose, pursuant to amendments to Sections 454(34) and 457 of the SSA, to continue to apply some of the distribution rules that were in effect immediately prior to the enactment of the DRA. For support collected via the tax refund offset, states that opted for the new DRA distribution rules would distribute those collections in the same way as other support for former-assistance cases, distributing it first as current support, then to family arrears, and finally to state-owed arrears. For states opting for the old distribution rules, federal offset payments would first be applied to state-owed arrears, and then to arrears owed to the family. (Under the old distribution rules in Section 457(a)(2)(B)(IV), this enforcement method could not be used to collect current support. The DRA repealed this provision, but it would still apply to states opting for the old distribution rules.)

    83.

    The DRA amended Section 408(a)(3) of the SSA to eliminate the assignment of pre-assistance arrearages in new assistance cases, but left it up to the states to decide whether to discontinue older assignments. For further information about how various scenarios under these distribution rules were implemented after the enactment of the DRA, see HHS, OCSE, Assignment and Distribution of Child Support Under Sections 408(a)(3) and 457 of the Social Security Act, AT-07-05, July 11, 2007, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/assignment-and-distribution-child-support-under-sections-408a3-and-457-social; and HHS, OCSE, Instructions for the Distribution of Child Support Under Section 457 of the Social Security Act, AT-97-17, October 21, 1997, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/instructions-distribution-child-support-under-section-457-social-security-act.

    84.

    P.L. 110-157 terminated the New Hires Directory comparison authority for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at the end of FY2011 (i.e., September 30, 2011). P.L. 112-37 (enacted in October 2011) extended the termination date to November 18, 2011. During the period from November 19, 2011, through September 29, 2013, the provision was not in effect. The Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-37) made the provision effective beginning September 30, 2013, and for 180 days thereafter.

    85.

    45 C.F.R. §302.35(d)(2); and HHS, ACF, Children's Bureau/OCSE, Request for Locate Services, Referrals, and Electronic Interface between Child Welfare and Child Support Information Services, ACYF-CB-IM-12-06 and OCSE-IM-12-02, August 1, 2012. Guidance issued in 2007, before enactment of P.L. 110-351, suggested the locate information concerning noncustodial parents might provide leads that would allow child welfare agencies to identify other (nonparental) relatives of the child but direct queries on those other relatives were not allowed. This guidance (ACYF-CB-IM-07-06 and OCSE-IM-07-06) has been superseded.

    86.

    For further information on this law, see CRS Report R48503, Child Welfare and Child Support: The Supporting America's Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258).