Amended SB16 would cap child-support withholding at 35% for lower-income obligors; sponsors dispute large fiscal note
Loading...
Summary
Ian Miller, legislative aide for Sen. Sydnor, told the committee SB16 (as amended) caps child-support withholding at 35% for those earning under $40,000 and delays implementation to 2028; members questioned drafting errors (25% vs 35%), whether 'disposable earnings' or 'individual income' governs eligibility, and a $3.9 million fiscal note tied to staffing that sponsors disputed.
Ian Miller presented Senate Bill 16 as amended and asked the House Judiciary Committee for a favorable report. He said the bill limits child'support withholding to 35% for parents with annual incomes below $40,000 (about 250% of the federal poverty level), delays implementation until 2028, and removes a $3.9 million fiscal note by shifting an income'determination workload to employers.
Committee members flagged drafting inconsistencies: Miller acknowledged a drafting error where the bill packet still showed 25% in one place and said the sponsor will correct it to 35%. Members also asked whether the bill uses "disposable earnings" or "individual income" to determine the 250% threshold; Miller said the amendment opts to use the obligor's individual income for the current year and the text will be corrected to be internally consistent.
Several delegates questioned the large fiscal note and the administration's estimate that 20'plus employees would be required to implement form changes and workload; Miller said the sponsor does not believe the $5 million'plus implementation claim is accurate and described the change as a modest update to existing withholding forms and employer instructions. Members also asked about federal compliance concerns; Miller said the bill tracks prior expert recommendations and that opponents'claims of noncompliance were not clearly explained in the opposition record.
The committee did not take a vote during the sponsor'only presentation but elicited assurances that drafting inconsistencies would be resolved before any final action.
