Committee advances bill to require courts to inform divorcing parents of option to avoid automatic wage garnishment

The Children and Family Law Committee advanced House Bill 213 after testimony from the bill's sponsor and several members of the public, including grandparents and parents who described both practical and procedural problems with the current wage-garnishment defaults.

Representative James Spillane, the bill's sponsor, told the committee the measure would require judges to inform divorcing parties at final hearings that they may agree to an alternate payment method instead of the state's default income assignment (automatic garnishment). "Under current law, the default is people automatically have their wages garnished," Spillane said. The bill would also provide a court form where parties could record an agreed payment schedule and payment method so that parents who continue to pay each other directly have a written record the court can reference.

Spillane said the change addresses practical problems: some payers who have voluntarily paid directly before a divorce later find the state cannot record prepayments or prepaying extra amounts in a way that gets credited to the recipient. He said a clearer court form would put payers on notice to keep records and would inform recipients about how to report missed private payments.

Several members of the public and committee participants supported the change as a way to reduce unnecessary garnishments and burdens on the Bureau of Child Support Services. Representative Deborah Desimone and Representative Betty Gay said the measure would allow most parents who want to support their children directly to do so more smoothly and would reduce administrative work for the bureau.

Opponents who testified during the related hearings cautioned that the court must retain discretion to order garnishment in cases with a history of nonpayment or when the parties cannot be expected to cooperate. Committee members asked about safeguards for situations in which one party is an out-of-state resident or where there is a history of delinquency; the sponsor said such situations would remain appropriate cases for garnishment.

Action: At executive session the committee adopted a technical committee amendment and recommended HB 213 ought to pass by a 3-0 vote. The amendment corrected a typographical error in the draft (changing "arraignment" to "arrangement" on line 5).

The sponsor said the bill is narrowly drafted to require only that judges inform parties of the option and offer a form that documents the parties' agreement; it does not change child-support guidelines or enforcement mechanisms. Supporters said the change would reduce unnecessary garnishments for parents who can reliably make direct payments and would create clearer court records when private payment arrangements are chosen.

If the bill advances beyond the Senate committee, sponsors asked for prompt floor consideration so the court form can be added to the uniform child-support guidelines and providers can train staff on the new process.