Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Child-support bond measure fails after debate on enforcement and fairness
Summary
The House defeated House Bill 17, which would have allowed courts in narrow contempt cases to require obligor parents to post bonds securing future child-support payments. Supporters said it would secure payments for up to three years; opponents warned it could be punitive and burdensome for lower-income parents.
Lori Falk, the bill sponsor, told the House that House Bill 17 would allow a court, after finding contempt for nonpayment and a demonstrated ability to pay, to require an obligor parent to obtain a bond or surety to secure future child-support payments for up to three years.
"The bill simply provides that a party could request that the court order a bond be acquired by the obligor parent," Falk said, explaining options including surety companies, bail bondsmen, or posting cash with the court.
Representative Bigelow pressed Falk on enforcement, asking how the Office of Recovery Services would be unable to collect assets through existing wage garnishment and other authorities. Falk replied that wage withholding works only for regularly paid employees and that many obligors are self-employed or paid irregularly; in those narrow cases a bond would secure future payments and avoid placing custodial parents on public assistance.
Other members expressed concern about practical effects. "My concern is how this might be abused in the court systems," Representative Bigelow said, warning that the requirement to post a bond could be punitive and place an additional expense on those who are not wealthy. Representative Oda described bond mechanics, noting surety companies evaluate credit history and assets and that sureties may be limited in availability.
Falk emphasized the bill’s narrow application: it would apply after a court has found contempt and determined ability to pay, and it was intended for limited circumstances where future payments needed securing.
After floor debate and questions, the House voted. House Bill 17 received 36 yes votes, 38 no votes, and 1 absent, failing to pass and being returned to staff for filing.
The House record includes an inconsistency in how the sponsor was referenced at different moments in the transcript; Falk is identified on the floor as the presenter and is quoted above as the sponsor.
