FEDERAL LEGISLATION: WHAT DO PEOPLE OUT THERE WANT?

At a meeting of the ABA Family Law Section's Federal Legislation Committee in April of this year Committee Chairman Marshal Willick explained that the Committee now has many concerns. Several years ago, when he was first asked to get involved, the Federal Legislation Committee had very little to do because a family law was not considered federal. The Committee was started in an effort to get satisfactory legislation from Congress or at least aid in the legislative process in the complicated areas of federal tax, federal garnishment and pension availability. Since then the concept of federal family law has exploded and people want to use the federal government for every purpose. Asked to make some more introductory statements, a co-chair of the meeting stated that it is at once frightening and absurd, particularly in the domestic relations field, to see vast numbers of people, and particularly lawyers who should know better, thinking that legislation -- and particularly federal legislation -- is the solution to every problem in life.

Asked about whether federal bankruptcy law will change, a subcommittee chairman explained that Congress seems to be on the point of eliminating equitable distribution awards from the ever-narrowing range of dischargeable debts, and making them just as non-dischargeable as alimony and child support. The supposed formidable opposition from the bankruptcy bar either never materialized or was ignored by Congress.

The proposals to increase the federalization of child support law in hundreds of new ways seem sure to become law this year. Other concerns that Congress has had in the last few months are the only thing that has prevented this so far. Some members wanted to know why all of these federal remedies and requirements have not been extended to cover alimony. Mr. Willick said that it appears some of the principal players in Congress have got the idea that extending it to alimony might just possibly inspire enough opposition to endanger passage of the child-support-related bills. Someone else said that Dr. Galston, working from the White House, is making immediate paternity identification at the time of birth in hospitals his priority. This has kept the Administration from pushing other federalized support innovations of late.

Part of the problem of satisfying everybody was highlighted by the statements of a lawyer from Pennsylvania. She asked why the Committee was not actively sponsoring something called "The Unified Family Court Proposal." This, it appeared, was a proposal to add to federal child support legislation a requirement that every state adopt a separate family court system, such as Virginia almost did in the 1994 Session. Asked why she particularly wanted all 50 States to be forced to adopt the same family court system, the lady explained that because of some 200-year-old constitutional peculiarities of Pennsylvania, it has what she considers a very unwieldy court system. Several different courts may have authority over aspects of child support and alimony, so it can be time- consuming and expensive to get what you want for your client in Pennsylvania. Asked why this problem had not been taken to the Pennsylvania Legislature, this attorney explained that that had indeed been tried, and it turns out the Legislature cannot be convinced to fix things in the desired way. Accordingly, she patiently explained, Pennsylvania won't change until the Federal Government makes it change, so federal laws are needed.

Another audience member suggested that federal child support legislation has just got to go after these renegade employers. They are frustrating enforcement of the child support laws by being allowed to use independent contractors. This lady said that we will only have an effective system for collection of child support when every worker in the United States is forced to be an employee of someone. The large, overriding corporations or government agencies can serve as universal employers so that there will be no more independent contractual relationships, only employer-employee relationships, and then everything will work more efficiently.