Proposed citizen oversight for Montana child support division draws sharp support and opposition

Representative Curtis Schomer introduced House Bill 352 to the Senate Health and Public Health Committee on March 17, saying the bill would establish a citizen oversight committee to review guideline calculations and restore legislative oversight of Montana's Child Support Services Division.

Sponsor's case and proponents: Schomer and witnesses argued that Montana's child support program operates as a largely "administrative" system and that CSSD currently makes guideline and enforcement decisions with limited participation from case participants. Proponent Temple McLean told the committee that federal guidance and Montana's quadrennial report call for meaningful public input, including from low-income custodial and noncustodial parents. "Montana is highly or what I call purely administrative," McLean said in testimony describing the state system and the historical role of public input when the guidelines were initially developed.

Don Cape, representing the Coalition for Safety and Justice, and other proponents urged the committee to pass the bill. Proponents emphasized fairness, the need for tax and CPA expertise when changing calculators that use tax data, and long-term impacts on families and children if guideline calculations are incorrect.

Department opposition and concerns: Christy Tordowski (transcript spelled "Turdowski" in one place), administrator of CSSD, testified that DPHHS opposes HB 352 as amended. Tordowski told the committee the department already convenes a 13-member committee with diverse expertise that reports to CSSD and that the agency "reports to the Children's Family Health and Human Services Interim Committee at the committee's request." She argued HB 352 would duplicate effort, introduce delays, and transfer decision-making authority to a committee in ways that could jeopardize timely policy changes affecting children and families.

Patrick Quinn, an attorney who staffs CSSD, also opposed the bill and answered committee questions about existing administrative review and appeal processes. Attorney testimony noted that parties may request an administrative hearing with an administrative law judge and that proposed orders can be contested through that process.

Sponsor's rationale and committee dialogue: Representative Schomer described personal experience with the system and said that after a prolonged dispute he had to go to court to correct a proposed order; he said that motivated a desire to restore independent oversight. Committee members asked whether existing pathways (administrative hearings and the department's current committee) already provide the public input HB 352 seeks. DPHHS officials said a process for proposing guideline changes already exists; proponents countered that representation of case participants on the existing committee is insufficient.

No formal vote appears in the hearing transcript. The legislative hearing record closed after testimony and questioning.