Family Law Section Works to Improve Public Policy Aspects of New
Collection Law
By Daniel T. Dillon
The new law represents a huge, systemic law
change, fundamentally affecting and making preeminent among all other
debts, the collection of one type of liability - child support. These
changes affect nearly every legal practice area. |
Members of the State Bar Family Law
Section devoted a great deal of personal time recommending changes
to the original draft of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
legislation proposed by the Department of Workforce
Development (DWD). The section coordinated its efforts every step of
the way with the State Bar Government Relations Department, without
whose help it would have been impossible to track the continuously
changing status of the Act or mount a cohesive response.
We met with numerous legislators, conferred with leadership
committees of the DWD, and testified at every legislative hearing in
which the Act was considered. Rep. Michael Huebsch of Onalaska, and the
members of his Assembly Children and Families Committee, took the task
of shepherding the legislation through the Capitol and gave us every
fair opportunity to be heard. This legislation was very complex,
lengthy, and at times, much in dispute. The Huebsch Committee resolved
disputes with great civility and respect for differing points of
view.
The public policy changes sought and won by the Family Law Section
were 1) to preserve a critical role for trial judges (the same judges
who had entered the support order being collected under PRWORA), 2) to
insist upon improvements in the Act's notice and hearing due process
provisions, and 3) to provide financial and court order reviews free of
charge. Wisconsin trial judges and other State Bar sections argued for
similar modifications. As ultimately passed, the trial judge (or family
court commissioner) will see these cases at key points of the
controversy, including to determine and adjust the amount of arrearages,
and to resolve ownership disputes involving the obligor and third
parties.
The word "lobby" is deliberately avoided above, although one could
call it that. To say that what members of the Family Law Section do is
"to lobby," is to stretch the common understanding of the verb, at least
as it may apply in Washington, D.C., circles. For one thing, our lawyers
all work for free. We also paid for our own parking, not to mention
lunch.
The Family Law Section advocates for the commonweal, not a private
interest. The section's Board of Directors mirrors its membership. Like
its members, the board is a gender-balanced body, with lawyers in
private and public practice, hailing from all over the state,
representing a range of clients from those who can afford a lawyer, to
those who absolutely cannot. It represents support obligors, payees, and
governmental offices in between. The section has liaisons to the judges,
family court commissioners, and DWD. Like all other State Bar sections,
it cannot take a legislative position under its bylaws without a 60
percent super-majority in favor, which is also the rule determining
whether the State Bar Board of Governors may adopt a legislative
position. The Family Law Section has never (within memory) lobbied for a
legislative position contrary to a position taken by another section or
the Board of Governors.
The Family Law Section lobbied the PRWORA bill not because it wanted
to, but because it had to. The bill represents a huge, systemic law
change, fundamentally affecting and making preeminent among all other
debts, the collection of one type of liability (child support). As a
result, it impacts the ownership and the ability to convey property
debt- or lien-free by child support obligors to third parties, some of
whom may be quite innocent. The Act contains more debt collection
firepower than anything ever seen in American constitutional law, with
more authority to seize and collect than all of these combined: the IRS,
Drug Enforcement Administration, or any state or federal judge on behalf
of any judgment creditor. The legislation drew opposition in part from
banks, credit unions, car dealers, real estate interests, retirement
plans, and many other concerns, not just the Family Law Section.
The Act has greater potential impact in its sphere of influence than
such major Wisconsin law innovations as the Consumer Act, Marital
Property Act, and all forms of business ownership acts put together. (It
also exists as a mainframe upon which civil libertarians fear future
debt collection changes will be modeled.) There is a serious public
policy reason for the new Act, without question. All lawyers from nearly
every area of the State Bar need to know something about it.
The Act is a better law than it would have been had the Family Law
Section not advocated for the changes it sought. The Legislature, DWD,
and other elements of state government the section worked with all
appreciated our participation in the process, once the work was done. It
was mutual. Call it lobbying if you wish. The section likes to think it
was a necessary service to our government, and to our profession.
Daniel T. Dillon, Notre Dame 1973, is
a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. He chairs the
Family Law Section and is past chair of its Legislation Committee. He
practices family law, personal injury, and general litigation at the
Nowlan & Mouat Law Firm in Janesville.
Wisconsin
Lawyer