Managed Care Premium Option for Non-Custodial Parents

Many non-custodial parents do not carry the health insurance for their children that their child-support orders require. Therefore, for those on public assistance, Medicaid is the only insurance provided for many of these children and additional costs for the Medicaid Program are incurred.

This problem could be overcome by requiring the non-custodial parent to either purchase health insurance on their own or to pay the managed care premium for Medicaid coverage. Courts should be allowed to order non-custodial parents without access to health insurance or who refuse to purchase health insurance for their children to pay the Medicaid managed care premium to offset the cost of Medicaid for their children. This cost would be added to the Income Withholding Order by the Friend of the Court and the funds would be transmitted to Medicaid.

Expanding Child Support Initiatives--Social Contract for Unemployed Parents

Michigan children need the support of both parents, whether they are fortunate enough to live with both their mother and father are not. Welfare rolls wouldn't be as high as they are today if all parents supported their own children. Michigan is assuring that custodial parents live up to their Social Contract. Non-custodial parents who owe child support but fail to pay it are a bigger problem. Those parents who have support obligations and jobs will be forced to pay if the Michigan legislature enacts pending bills that make enforcement tools available to the Friend of the Court.

For those parents who are not working, we must find a way to help them live up to their responsibilities. Non-custodial parents-- mostly fathers--who are not working will be expected to work with the Michigan Jobs Commission and other community organizations to find work; if a job cannot be found then community service must be performed. We will work with the educational community to find ways to ensure that teen fathers step up to their responsibilities the same as teen mothers must. Michigan expects something in return from its residents if taxpayers are supporting their children. It has become a national disgrace that people having children do not accept the responsibility of providing for those children. We are going to stop that trend in Michigan.

Decriminalization of Paternity

Currently the Paternity Statute is part of the criminal code and is therefore an adversarial process for all cases, even uncontested ones. Additionally, because it is a criminal process, indigent counsel can be required to be provided at county expense. We will "decriminalize" paternity establishment procedures to make them clearly a civil process.

Specifically eliminated would be those provisions which provide for a jury trial, necessitate court-appointed counsel, and allow for lump sum cash settlements in lieu of a paternity finding.

We would eliminate a specific provision for ordering the recovery of a mother's cost of confinement and hospitalization as being anachronistic.

As an alternative, the Uniform Parentage Act could be adopted, with concurrent repeal of the Paternity Act and appropriate language in the Probate Code.

Federal Takeover of Interstate Support Operations

Interstate Child Support is operated by each state. It is the most difficult part of the Child Support Program to operate. Because the program deals with other states' laws and enforcement staff, performance varies dramatically from state to state. We propose that the federal government take over Michigan's Interstate Support obligations. No other state in the nation has proposed such a radical change in operations. Under this proposal DSS and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would enter into a pilot project agreement to allow the testing of a federal takeover of this portion of the program.

State Contract Provisions

Currently there are no requirements that any agency/company owner doing business with the state be current with a child-support order. There are also no requirements that an agency/company cooperate with the enforcement of child-support orders. Current contracts are silent on this issue. All contracts awarded by the state for any purpose should require a certified statement that the owner/contractor is not in arrears for child support or if in arrears, has an agreement with the Friend of the Court to become current.

Additionally, all contracts should contain language that confirms that the contracting agency cooperates with Friend of the Court in enforcing child-support orders for its employees.

Performance-Based Contract Reimbursement

Currently federal regulations call for reimbursing both Prosecutors and Friend of the Court fully for all activity that is an approved child-support activity. This results in providing funding for an activity whether it produces a result or not. There is little benefit for a provider under a child support enforcement cooperative agreement to be concerned about the cost benefit ratio for the services provided. (The only time cost benefit becomes an issue is when incentives are calculated at year's end. Incentives are earned at a rate dependent upon collections versus costs.) The department often receives complaints that certain contractors are not producing results and yet it continues to pay.

We will switch the Prosecuting Attorney Cooperative Agreement Contracts over to a fixed rate contract in the first year (FY 1994/95) and switch Friend of the Court contracts over to a similar system in the subsequent fiscal year (FY 1995/96).

Dedication of Incentives to Program Use

Child support incentives are currently paid to the county general fund in each county participating in the child support Cooperative Agreement contract process. The largest share of incentive is made payable to the County Treasurer in each county and is treated as general revenue sharing. There are no requirements that this money be spent on the local Friend of the Court or Prosecuting Attorney's Child-Support Program. In many counties the incentive is spent on both the Friend of the Court and Prosecuting Attorney as match for the child support Federal Financial Participation provided under the Cooperative Agreement process. Some counties invest all the incentive and some actually supplement it with county GF/GP. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. There are more counties that keep some incentive for other purposes than there are counties who funnel it all through to the Friend of the Court and Prosecuting Attorneys.

We will propose state legislation that would require all incentives earned in the Child-Support Program to be spent on services relating to Child Support.

Incentive Distribution Based on Performance

Currently all support incentives are distributed based only on the collection activity of the local Friend of the Court. No consideration is given to whether Friend of the Court meets other child-support program requirements. Additionally, the Prosecuting Attorneys are totally left out of the formula, therefore, their performance has no bearing on incentive payments.

Beginning in FY 1995, we propose to distribute a portion of child-support incentives earned based on the performance of both the Friend of the Court and Prosecuting Attorney in each county. We would initially distribute 25 percent of all incentives and increase percentages in later years, based on factors other than collections. Collections would always be weighed heavily in this formula to ensure that collections are a priority. This plan is already being successfully implemented in California.

Federal Funding of Visitation and Custody

Currently visitation and custody mediation are not services eligible for federal funding and are funded totally and at the option of local government. Because of limited county funding, visitation and custody mediation services are not offered to the extent they are needed. The lack of these services is among the most prevalent complaints from custodial parents and non-custodial parents who withhold payments of their support obligations.