Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court‑ordered child‑support bonds fail after floor debate
Summary
House debate over a bill that would let courts require obligors to post bonds equal to up to three years of child support ended with the measure defeated 33–42 after members questioned constitutionality, affordability of bonds and effectiveness for low‑income obligors.
Representative Falk presented House Bill 360, which would allow a court in certain cases to require an obligor to post a bond (similar to a construction bond) for up to three years of child support to secure future payments. Falk said the tool would be aimed at obligors who have assets but persistently fail to pay, and that the bond would allow custodial parents and children to receive support without drawing on state funds.
Floor debate highlighted contested points: Representative Bigelow argued that bonds and more punitive measures may not solve the larger social causes of nonpayment and could make the problem worse. Representatives raised questions about constitutionality and the practicality of obtaining bonds for people who lack credit or collateral; Falk said she had consulted with insurers and that bonding is used in about 17–20 other states. Supporters emphasized judicial review and limited, occasional use.
Representative Felt (sponsor) summarized the bill as an additional judicial tool, not a broad enforcement approach, and asked for support. After a motion to close debate, the House voted; HB 360 failed, receiving 33 yes votes and 42 no votes and was filed.
What it means: The chamber resisted expanding bonding as a general enforcement mechanism amid concerns about access to bonds for low‑income obligors and whether bonds are an effective enforcement method in practice.
Next steps: The bill was filed after the failed floor vote.
