Family Law Section Works to Improve Public Policy Aspects of New Collection Law

By Daniel T. Dillon

Members of the State Bar Family Law Section devoted a great deal of personal time recommending changes to the original draft of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) legislation proposed by the Department of Workforce Development (DWD). The section coordinated its efforts every step of the way with the State Bar Government Relations Department, without whose help it would have been impossible to track the continuously changing status of the Act or mount a cohesive response.

We met with numerous legislators, conferred with leadership committees of the DWD, and testified at every legislative hearing in which the Act was considered. Rep. Michael Huebsch of Onalaska, and the members of his Assembly Children and Families Committee, took the task of shepherding the legislation through the Capitol and gave us every fair opportunity to be heard. This legislation was very complex, lengthy, and at times, much in dispute. The Huebsch Committee resolved disputes with great civility and respect for differing points of view.

The public policy changes sought and won by the Family Law Section were 1) to preserve a critical role for trial judges (the same judges who had entered the support order being collected under PRWORA), 2) to insist upon improvements in the Act's notice and hearing due process provisions, and 3) to provide financial and court order reviews free of charge. Wisconsin trial judges and other State Bar sections argued for similar modifications. As ultimately passed, the trial judge (or family court commissioner) will see these cases at key points of the controversy, including to determine and adjust the amount of arrearages, and to resolve ownership disputes involving the obligor and third parties.

The word "lobby" is deliberately avoided above, although one could call it that. To say that what members of the Family Law Section do is "to lobby," is to stretch the common understanding of the verb, at least as it may apply in Washington, D.C., circles. For one thing, our lawyers all work for free. We also paid for our own parking, not to mention lunch.

The Family Law Section advocates for the commonweal, not a private interest. The section's Board of Directors mirrors its membership. Like its members, the board is a gender-balanced body, with lawyers in private and public practice, hailing from all over the state, representing a range of clients from those who can afford a lawyer, to those who absolutely cannot. It represents support obligors, payees, and governmental offices in between. The section has liaisons to the judges, family court commissioners, and DWD. Like all other State Bar sections, it cannot take a legislative position under its bylaws without a 60 percent super-majority in favor, which is also the rule determining whether the State Bar Board of Governors may adopt a legislative position. The Family Law Section has never (within memory) lobbied for a legislative position contrary to a position taken by another section or the Board of Governors.

The Family Law Section lobbied the PRWORA bill not because it wanted to, but because it had to. The bill represents a huge, systemic law change, fundamentally affecting and making preeminent among all other debts, the collection of one type of liability (child support). As a result, it impacts the ownership and the ability to convey property debt- or lien-free by child support obligors to third parties, some of whom may be quite innocent. The Act contains more debt collection firepower than anything ever seen in American constitutional law, with more authority to seize and collect than all of these combined: the IRS, Drug Enforcement Administration, or any state or federal judge on behalf of any judgment creditor. The legislation drew opposition in part from banks, credit unions, car dealers, real estate interests, retirement plans, and many other concerns, not just the Family Law Section.

The Act has greater potential impact in its sphere of influence than such major Wisconsin law innovations as the Consumer Act, Marital Property Act, and all forms of business ownership acts put together. (It also exists as a mainframe upon which civil libertarians fear future debt collection changes will be modeled.) There is a serious public policy reason for the new Act, without question. All lawyers from nearly every area of the State Bar need to know something about it.

The Act is a better law than it would have been had the Family Law Section not advocated for the changes it sought. The Legislature, DWD, and other elements of state government the section worked with all appreciated our participation in the process, once the work was done. It was mutual. Call it lobbying if you wish. The section likes to think it was a necessary service to our government, and to our profession.

Daniel T. Dillon, Notre Dame 1973, is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. He chairs the Family Law Section and is past chair of its Legislation Committee. He practices family law, personal injury, and general litigation at the Nowlan & Mouat Law Firm in Janesville.

Wisconsin Lawyer