| |
![]()
Vol. 71, No. 12,
December 1998
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.
|
