2008 Amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ...

Subsection (c)(3) provides that medical support for the child must be stated either by a
periodic cash payment or, alternatively, by an order directing the employee-obligor to provide
health insurance coverage from his employment. In the absence of an order for payment of a sum
certain, an order for medical support as child support requires the employer to enroll the
obligor’s child for coverage if medical insurance is available through the obligor’s employment.
Failure to enroll the child should elicit, at the least, registration of the order for enforcement in
the responding state, to be implemented by an order of a tribunal directing the employer to
comply. Because the employer is so directed by the medical support order, enrollment of the
child in the health care plan at the employee-obligor’s expense is not dependent on the obligor’s
consent, any more than withholding a sum certain from the obligor’s income is subject to a veto.
It is up to the employee-obligor to assert any defense to prevent the employer from abiding by
the medical support order.
Subsection (c)(4) identifies certain costs and fees incurred in conjunction with the support
enforcement that may be added to the withholding order.
Subsection (c)(5) requires that the amount of periodic payments for arrears and interest
on arrears also must be stated as a sum certain. If the one-order system is to function properly,
the issuing tribunal ultimately must be responsible to account for payments and maintain the
record of arrears and interest rate on arrears. Full compliance with the support order will only be
achieved when the issuing tribunal determines that the obligation no longer exists. The amount
of periodic payments for arrears is also fixed by the controlling order unless the law of the
issuing state or the state where the order is being enforced provides a procedure for
redetermination of the amount.
Subsection (d) identifies those narrow provisions in which the law of the employee’s
work state applies, rather than the law of the issuing state. A large employer will almost certainly
have a number of employees subject to income-withholding orders. From the employer’s
perspective, the procedural requirements for compliance should be uniform for all of those
employees. Certain issues should be matters for the law of the employee’s work state, such as the
employer’s fee for processing, the maximum amount to be withheld, and the time in which to
comply. The latter necessarily includes the frequency with which income withholding must
occur. This is also consistent with regard to the tax consideration imposed by choice of law
considerations. The only element in the list of local laws identified in subsection (d) which
stirred any controversy whatsoever was the fact that the maximum amount permitted to be
withheld is to be subject to the law of the employee’s work state. Demands of equal treatment for
all obligees, plus the practical concern that large employers require uniform computer
programming mandate this solution.
SECTION 503. EMPLOYER’S COMPLIANCE WITH TWO OR MORE
INCOME-WITHHOLDING ORDERS. If an obligor’s employer receives two or more
income-withholding orders with respect to the earnings of the same obligor, the employer
121