Committee adopts amendment to limit wage garnishments for low-income child-support obligors; votes 10–1
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Judicial Proceedings Committee approved an amendment to Senate Bill 16 that limits the share of disposable earnings subject to child-support wage withholding for obligors at or under 250% of the federal poverty guideline, shifts certain administrative duties to employers, and passed the bill 10–1. A fiscal note of about $3.8 million for FY2027 was discussed.
The Judicial Proceedings Committee on Friday approved an amended bill intended to reduce the economic pressure on low-income child-support obligors while preserving collections for custodial parents. Counsel Shamari told the committee that Senate Bill 16 would limit an earnings-withholding order for qualifying obligors and require that employers include specific information in withholding notices.
Shamari, the committee counsel, explained that the amendment in the packet (No. 613623) substitutes a new statutory cross-reference and ‘‘places the onus on the employer as opposed to the child support administration,’’ and raises the immediate deduction cap to 35% of disposable earnings for qualifying obligors. Shamari said that protection would apply when an obligor’s household income for the current year does not exceed 250% of the federal poverty guidelines for a family of one (roughly $39,000 as discussed in committee).
A committee member thanked counsel and the work group and said the change ‘‘makes a lot of sense’’ for obligors earning around the 250% threshold, adding that the bill addresses both ongoing monthly deductions and accumulated arrearages. Senator James sought confirmation that the bill does not alter child‑support orders set by the court; Shamari replied that the court’s order remains separate and that the employer is charged with executing the withholding consistent with federal limits.
Shamari also noted a fiscal note of approximately $3,800,000 in FY2027, and said the amendment’s approach — shifting deduction responsibilities to employers and clarifying statutory limits — was intended to reduce the original fiscal impact. Committee discussion referenced research the sponsor’s group compiled: evidence showing collections do not increase when garnishment rates exceed certain thresholds, business‑service analyses indicating high garnishment rates reduce employee retention, and qualitative reports from low‑income noncustodial parents about leaving the formal workforce.
Chairman Smith moved to adopt the amendment; the amendment was adopted and the committee moved a favorable report on SB16. The committee conducted a roll‑call vote: the bill passed 10–1, with Senator James recorded in the negative and other members recorded in the affirmative.
The committee’s action sends SB16, as amended, out of committee for further legislative consideration.