Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves amendment and re-refers bill to judiciary to end biennial automatic COLA in child support orders
Summary
House File 2456, which would repeal the automatic cost‑of‑living adjustment previously applied every two years to child support orders and require the standard three‑year review, was moved as amended and re‑referred to the Judiciary Committee after testimony from Ramsey County child support officials.
House File 2456, carried by Representative Peggy Scott, would repeal Minnesota's two‑year automatic cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) for child support orders and instead rely on three‑year review procedures required by federal law, sponsors told the House Children and Families Committee on March 26.
Why it matters: witnesses said moving to a three‑year review aligns Minnesota with federal expectations and most other states and allows caseworkers to “right‑size” orders based on current family circumstances rather than an automatic percentage increase.
What proponents told the committee
Trish Schopenhammer, director of the Child Support Services Division in the Ramsey County Attorney's Office, told the committee that the COLA mechanism is rooted in an older model (where support was based on the payer’s income alone) and can produce inappropriate outcomes under modern “income‑shares” rules that account for both parents’ incomes. Schopenhammer said some COLA increases have reached “as high as 14%,” creating orders that are “no longer right sized, which makes them harder to pay.” She described the bill as intended to ensure orders are reviewed every three years, either by notice to parents of the right to request review or by case review where required under federal rules.
Committee action
Representative Scott moved the DE1 amendment, which she said “clarifies the start date of the changes in the greater bill.” The committee adopted the amendment by voice vote and then re‑referred House File 2456, as amended, to the Committee on Judiciary. No roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript.
Ending
Supporters argued the change would improve payment compliance by keeping orders matched to families' actual circumstances; the committee re‑referred the amended bill to Judiciary for further consideration.
