Wolff, Lori A.- CO 2nd From: Miler, Anne (ACF) Sent: Friday, April 24,2015 123 PM To: Yexsey, Kandace ~ CO 2nd ce Wolf Lor A - CO 2nd: Reddick, Yvette (ACF) Subject RE Consolidated statutory provisions Categories: ange Category andee, Based on our review, the provisions not appear tobe incompatible with UIFSA 08, Anne miler Som Pay Progam Spat Fetal re fC Sega rtocenert (P)zce260s860 From: Yearsey, Kandace - CO 2nd [naoYenrsleK@dhiho.aov) ‘Sent: Friday, Abil24, 2015 1:57 PM To: Riddick, Yvette (ACF); Miller, Ane (ACF) Ce: Wolf, Loe A. = CO 2nd ‘Subject: FW: Consolidated statutory provisions Yvette and Anne, ‘Thanks for your prompt response, andee NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE IHAL ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. 1F YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECENED.‘Arnstong, Richard - DIRECTOR ‘Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:18 PM tdiyley@house idaho. gov LOCSE procedures for handling international locate request ID Hague FPLS Procedures 04222015 pat ‘ange Category Representative Daye, ‘Aitached ie the information fram the Clee of Child Support Enforcement that we discussed Tuesday regarding thelr procedures fr handing intermalionl locate requess fom foreign counties. OCSE documentod the process they go {hough atthe national level when aneher county sends a suppor order and they cont know the locaton ofthe other party. Thope this resolves your concerns. Please let me know if theres any addtional information you need from us, Sincerely, Dick Armetrongwy ADMINISTRATION FOR 4 CHILDREN 22 FAMILIES 570 ant Prontnade SW, 4 Foor, Washinglon DC 20447 www. ache govprogramsiose APR 22 205 Richard Armstrong Director Idaho Department of Health and Welfare 450 West State St. 1th Floor Boise, ID 83720-0036 Dear Director Armstrong: “Thank you for your interest in learning more about how the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) processes locate requests from foreign countries. 42 USC. § 65902) provides that the United States Central Authority will “facilitate support (maintenance) enforcement in cases involving residents ofthe United States and residents of foreign reciprocating counties” by notifying “foreign reciprocating countries of the State of residence of individuals sought for support enforcement purposes, onthe basis of information provided by the Federal Parent Locator Service.” ‘As discussed during the telephone call yesterday, there isa protocol that OCSE follows in responding (o international locate requests. That protocol i outlined below. ‘Current Procedures for Resondins to Locate Reuests from a Forsisn Reviprocating Country ER) 1, Foreign country submits locate request to OCSE. ‘© OCSE maintains a designated e-mail address for receipt of international locate requests: ocscinterational(@acf.hhs.0v ‘+ OCSE has provided this e-mail address to the designated Central Authority of | cach FRC, 2. OCSE verifies thatthe locate request has been made by 9 foreign recnencating country a3 defined by 42 U.S.C. § 659A, ‘© There are curently federal ‘© Austalia (©. Cansdian Provinces/Teritares- Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Newfoundland/{abrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saslatchewan, Yukon © Caech Republic Jateral agreements withEI Salvador Finlend Hungary Ireland sad ‘Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Repubtic Swiverland ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland eoccccccc000 3. OCSE verifies that he locate request comes from the designated Central Authority as determine by the negotiated agreement or declaration between the U.S. Department of State and the FRC. 4. OCSE verifies that the information is requested forthe purpose of establishing, enforcing, ‘or modifying a supron obligation 5. Once vetted, OCSE submits the locate request eleewonicall tothe Federal Parent Locator Service (FFLS) ‘The roquetis subject to curent federal privacy and security requirements +The requests subject to current protestions that prevent the disclosure of any information where there isa domestic violence indicator. 6. Ifthe FPLS locates the noncustodial parent, OCSE will return only the state of residence to the Central Authority ofthe requesting FRC. No other personal identifying information wil be provided. Future Procedures for Respoudins to Locate Rewuests from a Treaty Country Treaty country submits locate request to OCSE. ‘© OCSE maintains a designated e-mail addeess for receipt ofimteraational locate requests: oesenternational/@acths.2ov ‘= OCSE will provide this e-mail address to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and list the e-mail address in its Country Profile. 2. OCSE verifies thatthe lovate request has been made by a Treaty country by checking the current let of Treaty countries (countries that have raifed or acceded to the Treaty ia accordance with Article $8 of the Treaty, and in which the Treaty has entered into force) thatthe Hague Conference on Private International Law maintains. Ihup:/iwww.hech nedindex_en, hpactconventons sttus2&eid 3. OCSE verifies that leate request comes from the country’s designated Central Authority ned by the Hague Conference on Private Intemational Law. See attached4. OCSE verifies that ihe information is requested forthe purpose of establishing, enforcing, ‘or modifying a support obligation. 5. Once verified, OCSE submits the locate request electronically to the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). ‘+The requestis subject to curent federal privacy and security requirements ‘+ The roquestis subject to current protections that prevent the disclosure of any information where there is a domestic violence indicator. 6. Ifthe FPLS locates the noncustoial parent, OCSE will retum only the state of residence tothe Central Authority ofthe requesting Treaty country. No other personal identifying information will beprovided. Sincerely, wo Turelyl — Commission Ofte of Child Supp Enforcement ce: Yvette Riddick, Director of Policy & Tra Office of Child Support Enforcement Kandace Yearly, IV-D Director ‘Administetion for Child Supportgorpans ‘weno ‘ysrauy “ys[fu suomeonumumnod jo sa8en Bue rwowusunapey ssoappy (Hy) Suomny 29 = Por sonLioyny senuompny | HOOH. 1y0 19804,Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd From: Tuetsy, Vicki (ACF Sent: Monday, Apri 20, 2015 11:29 AM To: Wolf, Lori A.- CO 2nd ce Mller, Anne (ACR: Yeasley, Kandace - CO 2nd Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd Rick, Wette (ACF: Wilensky, Dvor (ACF; Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) Subject: FY, UIFSA summary “Attachments: LUFSA 8x11 Page 1 and 2 LW editspptx Categarion: ‘ange Category Yes, Laurie, we wil review it now andget back o you. From: Wolf, Lori A. - CO 2nd {mai olf idaho. oo») ‘Sent: Monday, Api 20,2015 12:73 9 ‘To: Turetsky, Vek (ACF); Keth, Rober (HHS/OGC) ‘Ce: Kunz, Greg CO 2nd; Yearsiey, Kandace = CO 2nd Subjects UIFSA summary ‘We ae trying to create something simple yet informative to provide lepsators onthe impacts ofthe Hague Convention ‘andthe interaction with UIFSA. Woud you mind reviewing the attached document for accuracy and consistency with ‘your understanding of the facts? | would be interested in your take on this document in trying to help explain the problems the Hague intended to rescve and the reasoning behind having UIFSA guide the implementation atthe state level. We are trying to back off the treats lite bit and help educate lawmakers in our attempt to get the necessary votes “Thanks fo all your help. An input/aivice would be welcomed. tort NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) (OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER, [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECENED.manag fDIpry {yBisieno Aoyog onnersFB>1 359 J9 uonensuwpy smog ypeoidiy ANAWNABAOD ans. dio ue aanseig 10} AUOWAMY UIEILIEW S21815 « saves ‘ne ss013e aonsesd pue o8enBuey UuOHIUN ‘spiepues jeuonmansuos sn pue ssaa0ud a7p Jo vonDaI01d sassooord annensumpe Jeuon ewsayu x9jdu0> 03 sori) meld = squauifpn! yodéns pyyp uBtesoy Jo wauiaosoju9 pue vopusosay Wo} « suojamjos ~s9npos4 [Ould ‘werBoug Hodes py payonuo aes ing parey ey Ayer9po4 & 10} suonnjos pue 's9ssa20%q ‘Swalqo1d suerBoug $9 10} spiepuers upY » 5590014 ang Jo voRD@}044 sme] ers sapun suoRaa%014 » aura2ioyu3 Joy spuepuers » -auysyqersg 19910 304 spuepuers » ayers sn woamiag fauarsisu09 swuauysydiwosoy t ‘519,100 3809 mo} panpuepueis Aouaystsuep annensiuuipy panoidl » ‘eunoas voneuuoju UIEWIEW + ‘yxaydiwo paonpay Anuesyluais sessa2oud 1a9yj3 POUND » ssenoig ang jo uon2eioud » stusuysyduio2oy f vorsdopy jano7 areas Janay aueas au mer Ages onequasaiday aes sn snoog wpeoiddy vwsain sassa00ug annenstuupy oxewuasaiday reuonewery smog ipeaiddy NOUN3ANOD 3NVH_ 1mo1 51509 unupy da2y © me] 245 Aq pajonuey umpy s9 o ‘910 ula104 104 5592014 UPY © sayeis sn weemyaq Ayuuoyiun © fey vopewowoydusy ‘ansuadxo Aion asam suonse uy © ‘anypayaul Alon a10m ss30044 0 sassanoud jo fouayssuooul © s2ssanoud jo Aynaydwoy © suoq2e Bunajdwo> Ayrayya © svepio Sussa2oud w shejap Buoy © supigoug onnensiunupyKurz, Greg - CO 2nd Friday, Apri 17,2015 308 PM Keth, Robert (HHS/OGC) ce ‘Wolf, Lori. = CO 2nd Subject: Connecting t idaho categories: range Category ‘Thanks for connecting with us today. If we need to connect again, is your preference for contact emall?| | gave Lor Wolf, our Administrator an update ofthe call when she came back into cell service. ‘hei ikly to make a direct connection with you. Thanks again Greg Kune 208-863-2048 From: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) [mailo:RobertKeith@HHS,GOV} Sent: Friday, April 17,2015 12:54 PM To: Kunz, Greg -CO2nd Subject: RE: Connecting ‘Who from idaho wl be onthe call? From: Kunz, Greg - C0 2nd {maitosunzGehy ida.) ‘Sent: Friday, Api 17,2015 2:52 PM ‘To: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Hiller, Arne (ACF); Wolf, Lori A. = CO 2nd Subject: Re: Connecting We send init fr 3:00 eastern Sent from my virtual mobil office, (On Apr 17, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) «Robert Keith@HHS, GOV> wrote Me. Kunz, ‘understand that some idaho Legislators have addtional questions. Do you want to setup a confsrence cll? | would like someone fom the Office af Child Support Enforcement also tobe onthe linen ase any additional follow-up may be needed, and | have copied Ms, miler “The sooner the better.fob Keith NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(ES) NAMED ABOVE. IF VOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER. [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Tuetsy, Vik (ACF) Friday, Api 17,2015 2:11 PM Yeasiey, Kandace - CO 2nd Wolf or, - CO 2nd Barron, RussellS.- CO 10th; Kurz, Greg -CO 2nd Re New York Times (Seatle Bureau) Media request range Category Gotit thanks From: Yearstey, Kandace - CO 2nd {nslto:YearseXdao.cov) Sent: Friday, Api 17, 2015 04:09 PH ‘To: Turetsiy, Vik (ACF) Ce: Wolf Lor A, - CO 2nd ; Baron, Russel S.~CO 10th ; Ku, Greg = CO 2nd Subject: RE: New York Times (Seat= Bureau) Media request Vie, \daho i fine on the release of information tothe New York Times “Thank you so much for sharing the information being released and ensuring we ae aligned in our messages: Kandee From: Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd ‘Sent: Friday, Api 17, 2015 1:49 PM ‘To: Shanahan, Thomas - CO Lot; Farbing-Or, Ni - CO 10th (Ce: Wolf Lor A. = CO 2nd; Baron, Rusa S.~ CO 10th; Yearsley, Kandace ~ CO 2nd ‘Subject: Fd: New York Times (Seale Bureau) Media request Please advise on this content from Gov level, CSE waiting for a sponse Sent from my virtual mabile office. Begin forwarded massage: From: "Turetsky, Viki ACF)", "wolfl@dhw.idaho.gov" Sent: Friday, April 17,2015 2:11 PM To: Kurz, Greg ~ CO 2nd; Wolf Lovi A = CO 2nd; Yearsle, Kandace - CO 2nd Subject: Re New York Times (Seattle Bureau) Media request Categories: Orange Category Let me know ifyou have any concern From: Turetsy, Viel (ACF) ‘Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 03:37 Pw To: "kuneg@dhv idaho. gov ; wolM@dhw.Adaho.gov s ‘yearslekadchw idaho gov Subject: Fw: New York Times (Seattle Bureau) Meda request Here ie our draft response toa mediainguiry.Iwanted to make you and the governors affice aware before we respond, Let me know ifyou have any concerns. From: Vitel, Cynthia (ACF) ‘Sent: Friday, Api 17,2015 03:26 PW To: Turetsty, Vek (ACF) Ce: Heling, Andrea (HHS/ASPA); Woe, Kenneth (ACF), Goulding, Laura (ACF) ‘Subject: New York Times (Seate Bucau) Meda request Media: Kirk Johnson, New York Times (Sestle Bureau} Spokesperson: Office of Child Support Enforcement Planned Interview Dat NA Subject: How Idaho's fllure to pass UIFSA affects other states Deadit COB today Expected place of airing: New York TimesExpected date of publication / airing: Unknown Additional ‘We've provided this reporter withthe link to the IM regarding UIFSA 2008, and he had these follow up ‘questions (proposed answers are telow 'My reading is that that without Idaho, the treaty could not be ratified, and thus the international provisions. ‘of the treaty ast applies to those other states isnot applicable ~ is that correct? ‘Yes, you are correct It daho does nor timely enact UIFSA 2008, it Jeopardizes the abiity of the United states to ratify the treaty. ‘Without a ratified treaty families and children in the United States will not receive child support from parents In other countries. Many countries will not enforce orders from the United States in the absence of a treaty relationship. ln addition, inthe absence of a treaty relationship, the only avenue custodial parents will have to enforce a support order in another country that will process the case Is to hire a private lawyer and conduct Internationa tigation, something wel beyond the financial means of most custodial parents. “Might there be federal funding implications for other states as well? As of today, all states with legislative sessions to date have passed UIFSA 2008 before adjournment. While the failure of Idaho to pass UIFSA 2008 has federal funding implications for Idaho, it does not have federal funding, Implications for other states. However, state child support programs have supported U.S. involvement in the treaty negotiations since the process started in the early 2000, because ofthe potential benefits to US. families and children. The treaty wil greatly expand the number of countries that wil recognize and enforce USS. child support orders. Therefore, more US. children will be able to obtain financial support, regardless of where their parents live, Gmthia Vitel Director, Office of Public Affairs ‘Administration for Children and Families cuitinen & raniues“Tues, Vick (ACF) Friday, Apr 17,2015 137 PM Kurz Greg ~CO 2nd; Wo, Loti A - CO 2nd 'yearsleyk@dhwidaho gov" Fw New York Times (Seattle Bureau) Media request Categories: ‘Orange Category Hee it ur daft esponce toa mediainauity. wanted to make you and the governor's ofice aware before we respond. Let me know if youhave any concerns From: Vitti, Cynthia (ACF) Sent: Friday, Api 17,2015 03:26 PM To: Turetsky, Vek (ACF) Ce: Heling, Andrea (HHS/ASPA); Wol, Kenneth (ACF; Gouna, Laura (ACF) ‘Subject: New York Times (Seattle Bureau) Media request Media: Kirk Johnson, New York Times (Seattle Bureau} Spokesperson: Office of Child Support Enforcement Planned Interview Date: N/A Subject: How Idaho's falure to pass UIFSA affects other states Deadline: COB today Expected place of airing: New York Times Expected date of publication / airing: Unknown Additional info: ‘We've provided this reporter with he link to the IM regarding UIFSA 2008, and he had these follow up {questions (proposed answers are below} [My reading is that that without léaho, the treaty could not be ratified, and thus the international provisions of the treaty ast applies to those other states is not applicable — is that correct? Yes, you are correct.If idaho does not timely enact UIFSA 2008, it jeopardizes the ability of the United States to ratify the treaty Without a ratified teeaty, families znd children inthe United States will nt receive child support from parents In other countries. Many countries will not enforce orders from the United States in the absence of a treaty relationship. In adltion, in the absence ofa treaty relationship, the only avenue custodial parents will have to enforce a support order in another country that will process the case i to hire a private lawyer and conduct International tigation, something well beyond the financial means of most custodial parents, “Might there be federal funding implications for other states as well? As of today, all states with legislative sessions to date have passed UIFSA 2008 before adjournment. While the failure of laho to pass UIFSA 200 has federal funding implications for Idaho, it does not have federal funding implications for other states. However, state child support programs have supported US. involvement in the treaty negotiations since the process started in the early 2000s, because ofthe potential benefits to U.S. families and children, The teaty wil greatly expand the number of countries that will recognize and enforce US. child support orders, Therefore, more U.S. children will be able to obtain financial support, regardless of, where their parents live, Cynthia Vitett Director, Office of Public Affairs Administration for Children and Families Z Sent: Friday, Apr 17,2015 1:13 PM Te: Kurz, Greg ~CO 2nd; Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) ce Wolf Lori A. CO 2nd Subject: RE Connecting Categories: range Category Here's the link tothe Spring Family Law Quarteriy— tt a Jons/famiy law quarterly hor hivefamily fq issued fetansorsaat From: Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd Sent: Friday, April 17,2015 2:52 PM To: Keth, Robert (HHS/OGC) Miller, Anne (ACF); Wolf, Lor A. =CO 2nd Subject: Re: Connecting ‘We send init for 3:00 eastern, Sent from my vitual mobile office ‘On Apr 17,2015, a 12:08 PM, Keith, fobert{HHS/0GC) «Robert Keith@HHS.GOv> wrote: Me Kung, understand that some ldahe Legsators have addtional questions. ‘Do you want to setup a conference cll? | would like someone from the Office of Child Support Enforcement also tobe onthe line in ase any additional follow-up may be needed, and Ihave copied Ms. ler. The sooner the beter Bob Keith NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIUAL(S)OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. CO 2nd From: Kurz, Greg ~CO 2nd Sent: Friday, Apel 17,2015 8:16 AM X Tuetsy, Viki ACP) ce Wolf Lor A.- CO 2nd Subject: Re Connecting again w Bob Keith ‘categories: ‘range Category Let usknow what you fin out. We wil kep our fingers cross for a connection today Thank you so much! ores Sent from my virtual mobile office > On Apr 7, 2015, at 757 AM, Trethy, Vicki (ACF wrote: > gotin touch with Bob this morning. Bb isthe process of getting clearance. > Bob's direct emailisrobertkeith@ths.gov > Orginal Message > From: Turetsky, Vick (ACF) > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 08:18 AM >To: KunzG@dhw idaho gov’ > Subject: Re: Connecting agaln w Bob Keith >Gres, > Today is the only day he may be avaliable before leaving for Europe on vacation. Let me try to connect now. >-— Original Message — > From: Kune, Greg - CO 2nd [mallto-tun2G@dhw idaho gov > Sent: Friday, Apil 17,2015 08:59 AM. 3 Tor Turetsky, Viek (ACF) > Subject: Connecting agaln w Bab Keith > Vick, > I sent tex at last night and then this moti > We'd like 30 minutes (or bit more possible) of Bob Keith's time. We are ready to explain again’ UIFSA to key Idaho individuals This i a good sgn, We want to r-tll the story around info from Bob Keith and his knowiedge of UIFSA.and ‘we need todo that inthe fist few days of next weeks there any way you could help arrange ime with Bob for us today? thought should also send an email to ensure delivery> don't know how to contact Bob directly; f you have contact information, we'd try tomake contact. We thought you ‘might help us expedite contact > if contact today isnot posible, wha: might we make happen? >Thanks, > Greg Kunz > 208-863-2084 5 NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIALOR PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS) OR ENTITYIES) NAMED ABOVE IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIFIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPVING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE ‘OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.From: ‘Wolf Lori. - CO 2nd Sent: Thursday, Api 23,2015 1008 AM To: ‘Representative Lyin Luke’ ce Yearly, Kandace - CO 2nd: rian Kane Subject: RE Publi Policy Amendment Categories: Orange Category ‘Thank you Representative Luker. Wewill review these amendments and let you know ifwe have any questions prior to Sending them to OCSE. We will ry toget them out for federal review as qucky as possible. ~Orignal Message From: Representative Lynn uker naitouker@house idaho gov} Sent: Thursday, April 23,2015 9:47 AM To: Wolf, Lor ACO 2nd ce: Yearsey, Kandace -CO 2nd; Brian Kane ‘Subject RE: Public Policy Amendment Importance: High Lori and Kandy, attached are the proposed public policy amendments. There ae two. The firsts the Washington "Amendment which has been previously approved by OCSE, jst changing it to Idaho, nd adding inthe due process line that was in our previously approved émendment. The second is our previously approved amendment, with some clean ‘up and an addition related to publicassstance. They have both been placed inthe Foreign Judgment Chapter of ile 10 hich is better than the prior locatoe, but stil ina dferent location than the Uniform aw per OCSE instruction. ‘You ready have the Registration Arrendment, sol thnk we are ready to submitthese three. Rep. Dayly is stil, working dlgenty on his amendment but lam not sure iit wll be ready later today or not. If possible, | would suggest we submit these 3 and then submit Rep. Dayley's when ready. Let me know if you have any questions. ‘Thankyou. Rep. Luker From: Wolff, Lor A.-CO 2nd [WolfLBdhw.idaho.g08] Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2015 12:32 PM “Tor Representative Lynn Luker Ce: Kandace Yearsley Subject FW: Registration of Order Anendment Representative Luker, ‘After reviewing this proposed amendment, we have afew suggestions we would ike to discuss with you. Ifyou could tive me a call st your earliest conven ence, we can talk about afew minor changes we would suggest from the Child Support perspective. You can reach me on my cll phone at 208-850-5176. |look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Lori wait ‘Administrator - Division of Welfare mn " 208-850-5176 (el) 208-332-7258 office)Original Message-— From: Representative Lynn Luker[malto‘uker house idaho.gov) ‘Sent: Wednesday, April 22,2015 10:07 AM ‘To: Yearsiey, Kandace - CO 2nd; Brian Kane; Armstrong, Richard - DIRECTOR Subject FW: Registration of Order amendment Importance: High Kandace, lam attaching a draft ofthe Order Registration amendment approved in concept by Director Armstrong. hhave made the code reference change suggested by Brian Kane, making a new section 56203F. Please review, andiit ‘meets with approval of you and Director Armstrong, please forward as Soon as possible fr OCSE approval. Thank ou. Rep. Laker From: Kane, Bran (rian. kane@agidaho gor] Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2015 9:38AM To: Representative Lynn Luker Subject: RE: Registration of Order Amendment Hi Representative Luker~ | think this wl work for your purposes and fr submission to the Director. You might want to consider placing thsin Tile 56, Chapter 2 as ether anew suosection of 56-203C as anew paragraph (3) and then renumber the current (3) 35. (4), Orit could work a a standalone section as a new 56-203F. Reading through those provisions, this seems ke a ‘more natural fi within that section. brian Original Messagt From: Representative Lynn Luter [mailto uker @houseidaho.cou Sent: Tuesday, April 21,2035 5:47 PN “To: Kane, Brian Subject Registration of Order Amencment Brian, attached i a draft amendmen to addeess the order registration issue per the agreement of Director Armstrong. For reference look at sections 31, 32,and 33 of $8 1067. tputitin the miscellaneous H & W section chapter 33, Tile 67 It does reference the registration process of 7-1044 (Section 33), but doesnot change that section. itis intended! to supplement section 7-1042 (Section 31), but does not conflict withthe process ofthat provision, ust requires ‘registration, without specifically mertoning that section Let me know what you think. Again, fyou ae in agreement withthe language, we can gett over to Director Armstrong ‘ond Ms Yeersley for submission, Rep. Luker NOTICE: Ths ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(\ES) NAMED ABOVE. [IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE (OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION i PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIP THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolf Lori A, = CO 2nd ‘Wednesday, Apil22, 2015 1232 PM uker@houseidaho gov Yensley, Kandace - CO 2nd FW: Registration of Order Amendment Registration Amendment SB1067 Ver2015 0422.doc igh Orange category Representative Luker, [After reviewing this proposed amendment, we havea few suggestions we would ike to discuss with you, Ifyou could tive me a call at your earist convenience, we can talk about afew minor changes we would sugges from the Child Support perspective. You can reach eon my cell phone at 208-850-5176. look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Lori woitt [Administrator - Division of Welfare wolfi@dhw idaho.gow 208-850-5176 (cel) 208-332-7258 (office) Original Message From: Representative Lynn Luker [naltoiluker@house idaho.gou} Sent: Wednesday, April 22,2015 10:7 AM ‘ot Yearsley, Kandace - CO 2nd; Brian Kane; Armstrong, Richard DIRECTOR Subject: FW: Registration of Order Anendment Importance: High Kandace, 1am attaching a draft of the Order Registration amendment approved in concept by Director Armstrong, | hhave made the code reference change suggested by Brian Kane, making anew section 56-203F. Please review, and fit ‘meets with approval of you and Director Armstrong, please forward as oon as possible for OCSE approval. Thank you. Rep. Luker From: Kane, Brian [brian.kane@agidaho gov] Sent: Wednesday, April22,2015 9:38 AM ‘To: Representative Lynn Liker Subject: RE: Registration of Order Amendment Hi Representative ker | think this wll work for your purposes an for submission tothe Director. You might want to consider placing this in “ile 56, Chapter 2 a either anew ssection of 56-203C as a new paragraph (3) and then renumber the curent (3) as (4). Or it could work ata standalone section as anew 56-203F. Reading through those provisions, tis seems like a ‘more natural it within that section,Bian Original Message From: Representative tyan Luker(maito:luker@house idaho. gou Sent: Tuesday, April 21,2015 5:47 Pl To: Kane, Brian Subject: Registration of Order Amendnent Blan, attached isa draft amendmentto address the order reistration isue per the agreement of Director Armstrong For reference look at sections 31, 32,and 33 of SB 1067. Iputitin the miscellaneous H & W section chapter 3, Tite 67 It does reference the registration prosess of 7-1044 (Section 33), but does not change that section. itis intended to supplement section 7-1042 (Section 21), but does not conflict with the proces of that provision, just requires registration, without spectically menioning that section. Let me know what you think. Again, you are in agreement withthe language, we can getitover to Director Armstrong, ‘and Ms, Yearsey for submission, Rep. tukerWolff, Lori A. CO 2nd From: Wolf, Lori A. -CO 2nd Sent: Tuasday, Apri 21,2015 4:11 PM To: "Turtsky, Vicki (ACF) Yearly, Kandace - CO 2nd Subject: RE How di the FPS call go? Categories: ‘Orange Category Please thank all your staf fr taking the time to meet with us on such short notice. Dale is probably our most likely "svng” vote so getting him comfortasle with the information and bls crcl. Although there were alot of hypothetical, your staff ida great eb answering his questions. I think he left with a better sense that we protect the Information and this aw ie not opening us upto risks of security r privacy breeches. ‘You guys have been outstanding this past week. | can’t thank You enough for all your help and support. ‘We wil be in touch, We ate hoping an announcement comes by the end ofthe week on a special session. We will keep ‘you posted tort From: Turetsty, Vik (ACF) mato iktTuretshy@ACF.ihs.oo4) Sent: Tuesday, Ap 21,2015 3:52 PM ‘To: Wot, Lr A. = CO 2nd; Yearsley, Kandace - CO 2nd Suibject: How did the FPLS call 07Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd Wilf Lor A. = €0 2nd “Tuesday, Apri 21,2015 142 PM “Riddick, Wette (ACF) YearsleK@idaho.gov ‘Miler, Anne (ACF; Mestre, sete (HHS/OGC)Deimeke, Linda (ACF); Turetsty, ii (Ac RE Meeting with Representative Categories: ‘orange Category id you get this emai? From: Wolf, Lor A. ~CO 2nd Sent: Tuesday, April 21,2015 1:17 PM Tos Rick, Wette (ACF); YearsleKidaho.gov_ Miller, Anne (ACF); Mestre, Ustte(HHS/OGC); Deimeke, Linda (ACF); Turetsky, Vic (ACF) Subject: RE: Meeting with Representative “Thank you so much fr your support. Below isthe conference call nformation: Toll Free: 1-877-820-7831 Participant Code: 7238638 From: Ridcick, Yvette (ACF) {maton rddckbact hs. oov) Sent: Tuesday, Api 21,2015 12:48 9M ‘To: Wo Lot. = CO 2nd; "Yearslekidato.gov" Ce: Miller, Anne (ACF); Mesure, Usete (HHS/OGC); Deimeke, Unda (ACF); Tuetsy, Vict (ACF) Subject: FW: Meeting with Represertative Lor and Kandace: Lda Deimeke, the Director in charge ofthe FPLS and! (Policy) can do this, I have also invited others. Please provide us with a conference call number and we willl in at 400, Thanks! ‘atte Hlgereon Rial Director, Division of Paley and Training Federal Offce of Child Suppart Enforcement ‘Admiistraton for Children end Families Dept of Heath ana Human Services 370 Enfant Promenade SW Washington D¢ 20447 iek@acl nhs. 202-401-4685 From: Miler, Anne (ACF) Sent: Tuesday, Ap 21,2015 2:11 “os Riddick, Yvette (ACF; Addison, Barbara (ACF) ‘Subject: FW: Meeting vith Represertatvefy Wash 6 ue? (Sraseariter (Pyaneaensse0 From: Wolf, Lori A. - CO 2nd fmt: Wolf_@dhys.ieWoaho.covl ‘Sent: Tuesday, Apil2i, 2015 1:51 PM ‘To: Miler, Anne (ACF); Tuesky, Visi (ACF); Keith Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Yearsey, Kandace » CO 2nd ‘Subject: Meeting with Representative Hello, "apologize for doing this lst minute, but we havea demonstration setup with Representative Daley akey vote we ‘need to swing) at 2:00 MST (4:00EST}, Hel stil hung up onthe security Issues and would like to dearly see and ‘understand what information wil be provided to foreign countries when they inquire about the location ofa US resident. twould be very helpful if we could hae someone with authority (one o all of you) to speak about how seriously the US. and federal government takes privacy and security issues and gve assurances that NO foreign country will ever have direct acess to any USdatabase, ‘Aga, | apologize forthe short notice, but could you (some or al supports in 2 hours with this demonstration, He has ‘committed to switching his vote (which ithe one we need), ihe can be assured this not an issue, ‘Thank YOUII| wl send out a conference lie as s00n a5 get confirmation on who. ightbe able to jin Lori Wolff aie Seach NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE ‘CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) (OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEWED.From: Wei Lori A =CO 2nd Sent: Tuesday, Api 21,2015 117 PM. To: "Riddick, Yvette (ACR); YearsleK@idaho.gov ce Miler, Anne (ACF; Mestre, Lisette (HHS/OGC Deimeke, Linde (ACP); Turetsy, Vicki an Subject: RE Meeting with Representative Categories: Orange Category ‘Thank you so much for your support. Below i the conference cal information: “oll Free: 1-877-820-7831 Participant Code: 7238638 rom: Re, Wate ACF ratte cat ts.) uesday, Api 21, 2015 12:48 PM ‘Tor wot oA" cO 2nd "teaslet@abo.g0/ eter sone fac; Mee sets (IOC) Deel, Und (ACF; Tues, (ACF Subject: FW: Mesting with Represertative or and Kandace: Unda Deimeke, the Dicector in charge ofthe FPLS and (Policy) can do this. have also invited others, Please provide us With a conference eal number and we wil clin at 00. Thanks! ‘Watts Hlderson Riddick Director, Division of Potcy and Training Federal Ofce of Chid Support Enforcement ‘Administration for Chidren and Fares Dept of Health and Human Services 370 LEnfant Promenade SV ‘Washington 0¢ 20447 202-401-4805 From: Mller, Anne (ACF) ‘Sent: Tuesday, Apt 21, 2015 2:11 FM “To: Riddick, Wette (ACF); Addison, Earbara (ACF) Sulbject: FW: Meeting with Representative fy Sor Pay roman pat Fed ton oC Supa Entcemers HeCrcan Morera 8(o)auesrsaer ‘From: Wolf Lori A. - CO 2nd {mito dWoaho.00x) Sent: Tuesday, Api 21, 2015 1:54 PM Te ie, me (AC Trey, Ves (ACE; Ket Rober (8/06) Ce: Yearsiey, Kandace - CO 2nd ‘Subject: Meeting with Representative Hello, {apologize for doing ths last minute, but we havea demonstration setup with Representative Daley (akey vote we need to swine) at 2:00 MST A:00EST) He still hung upon the security issues and would like to clearly see and Understand what information wl be 2rovided to foreign countries when they inquire about the location of a US resident. It would be very helpful if we could have someone with authority (one oral of you) to speak about how seriously the U.S. and federal goverment takes privacy and security issues and give assurances that NO foreign country will ever have direct access to any US database. ‘Again, | apologize forthe short notice, but could you (some or al) support usin 2 hours with this demonstration. He has ‘committed to switching his vote (which isthe one we nee), fhe can be assured this Is not an issue “Thank YOUII | will send out a confererce line 2s soon a get confirmation on who might beable to join NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) ORENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER, AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECENED.Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd From: Wolf, Lori A= CO 2nd Sent: Monday, Apri 20,2015 129 PM To: ih, Robert (HHS/OGC) Subject: BW: CRS report ‘Attachments: 43109 pd R43757 pat categories: Orange Category From: Yeasley, Kandace - CO 2nd ‘Sent: Monday, April20, 2085 12:42 9M ‘To: Barron, Russell S, CO 10th; Wo, Lor A - CO 2nd (Ce: Kunz, Greg 00 2nd ‘Subjects FW: CRS report Here are the Congressional reports from both 2013 and 2014 2013- Hague Convention Treaty on Recovery of International Child Support and H.R. 1896 2014- Child Welfare and Child Support: The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L, 113-183)Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd From: Wolf Lori A. = CO 2nd Sent: Monday, Apri 20,2015 1238 PM To: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGCY; Turesty, Vick (ACR) ce Kunz, Greg ~ CO 2nd: Yarsey, Kandace ~ CO 2nd Miller, Anne (ACF) Subject: RE UIFSA summary categories: Orange Category ‘Thank you! Helpful suggestions. From: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) {mito Roberti, GOV) ‘Sent: Monday, Api 20, 2015 12:25 PM ‘To: Wolf, Loa A. = CO 2nd; Turetshy, Vic (ACF) (Ce: Kunz, Greg CO 2nd; Yeasley, Kandace ~ CO 2nd; Miller, Anne (ACF) ‘Subject: Re: UIFSA summary (One small uggstion that might mace to emphasize that enforcement remains within the state's authority. There are no standardized procedures (such as mandatory wage withholding in domestic cases “prompt enforcement” required under Article 32.2 and there sa list of possible enforcement measures, but itremains entirely up to the state to determine such remedies in a particular case. From: Wolf, Lo A. = CO 2nd [malt W Sent: Monday, Apri 20,2015 12:23 PM ‘To Turetsy, Ved (ACH); Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd <{unzGibwAdaho.aor>; Yeasley, Kandace ~ CO 2nd Subject: UIFSA summary ‘We are trying to create something simple yet informative to provide legislators onthe impacts of the Hague Convention ‘and the interaction with UIFSA. Would you mind reviewing the attached document for accuracy and consistency with ‘Your understanding of the facts? | would be interested in your ake on this document in tying to help explain the problems the Hague intended torescive and the reasoning behind having UIFSA guide the implementation atthe state level, We are trying to back off the "threats" a ite bit and help educate lawmakers in our attempt to get the necessary votes ‘Thanks for allyourhelp. Any input/aivice would be welcomed. tori NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) CORENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBU"ION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION iS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER. [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECENED.Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd From: Wilf Lori A ~ CO 2nd Sent: Monday, Api 2, 2015 706 AM 1 “Turetsty, Vick (ACF Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd Yearsley, Kandace = CO 2nd Subject: RE we are scanning the remaining Family Law @ articles now Categories: Orange Category ‘Thank you Vick, That would be very relpful. We are working on something now for a conversation planned with Legislators this aftemaon. Would you be open to us sending it to you for review? We want to make sure what we've crested is accurate and consistent with your Interpretation From: Turesky, Vic (ACF) [maio:ick TuetsACE hsv} ‘Sent: Monday, Api 20, 2015 7:05 AM "To: Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd Ce: Wolf, Lori A. - CO 2nd; Yeasey, Kandace - CO 2nd ‘Subject: we are scanning the rematting Family Law Q ates nowFrom: Wolf, Lori A= CO 2nd Sent: Saucday, April 18,2015 9:48 PM To: “uretsy, Viki (ACF) ce unz, Greg ~ CO 2nd; Yeasley, Kandace - CO 2nd Subject: Re FPLS data Categories: orange Category Vick, | think this Would be very helpful We te trying to get a forum established with key legislators to answer some ofthese critical questions. wil get back to you early Monday to determine a time for this conversation. “Thanks for everything ori >On Apr 18,2015, at 205 PM, Turetiy, Vik (ACF) A thought-ould ithe useful to havea briefing on Monday on interstate data access and communication tool through the Federal Parent Locator Service (and the absence of authority to provide FPLS acces to other countries)? Kandee obviously knows al af his, bat let me know If hearing from us would be helpful, > Also, we'd be happy to connect youto the National Center on State Courts and/or National Conference of State Legislatures. Original Message — > From: Kunz, Greg CO 2nd (mailtostuneG@dhw idaho gov) > Sent Saturday, April 18, 2015 10:34 AM >To: Turetsky, Vick (ACF) Keith, Robert (HHS/0GC) > Ce: Wolf, Lori A. -CO 2nd < oll @dhu. idaho gow; Yearsley, Kandace - CO 2nd > Subject: Re: Alaska (and this am. emails) > Thank you so much > This information, Alaska's status, th whit states status (wth detail, and Mary Helen's article wil allow us to work ‘effectively this weekend to create a resentation and needed responses fora scheduled meeting we have with our Director t 11:00am on Monday morning, fora meeting he has with key legislators at 1:00. > 1 can't fully express how critical geting this information today, on the weekend, sto us We will tart working immediately to have informatio rea for Monday. >Thanks forthe late night and weekend help. Your supports incredible > Greg, Lori, and Kandee (andthe whole Idaho team)> Sent from my virtual mobil office >> On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Turesky, Vicki (ACF) > Greg, >> Alasias legislative session which began on January 2, 2015, ends on Sunday April 19, but under the state's constitution the session canbe extended to last fra total of 120 day. n the last few years, the session has been routinely extended, and we expect that wll happen again this year. >> We are in egular contact withthe Alaska Department of Revenue, and state officals expect thatthe UIFSA Bilis going to pass >> Vek > NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION I INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE (OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER ANO DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED,From: Tuts, Vick (ACF) Sent: Tuesday, April 21,2015 441 PM To: Wolf, Lori A - CO 2nd: Veatsly, Kandace -CO 2nd Subject: RE How did the FPLS call go? Categories: ‘range Category keep me posted, and please let me krow f theres anything else we can do to Increase his level af information. viet From: Wolf Lori A. ~CO 2nd Sent: Tuesday, April 21,2015 6:12 PM ‘To: Tuetsky, Vek (ACF); Yearsley, Kandace ~CO 2nd Subject: RE: How did the FPLS cali >? Vie, Please thank al your staff for taking the time to meet with us on such short notice. Daley i probably our most likely “swing” vote so getting him comfortable with the information and bil iscritical. although there were alot of hypothetical, your staff daa great jb answering his questions. | think he left with a better sense that we protect the information and this law isnot opening us upto risks of security or privacy breeches. You guyshave been outstanding this ast week. | can't thank you enough for all your help and support \We il bein touch. We are hoping an announcement comes by the end ofthe week ona special session. We will keep you posted, Lori From: Tuetsy, Ve (ACF) [malto:lckt Turetskvi ACE, hs. oov] ‘Sent: Tuesday, Api 21, 2015 3:52 PM Wo, Lon A. = CO 2nd; Yearsiey, Kandace - CO 2nd ‘Subject: How did the FPS cal go? NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION Is INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) CORENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIEY THE SENDER, AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECENED.Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd From: Keth, Robert (HHS/OGO) Sent: ‘Mendy, Apri 20, 2015 530 PM, Te: Yeusly, Kandace - CO 2nd: Turtsky, Vicki (ACR) ce Miler, Anne (ACF) Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd Riddick, Wott (ACR); Wilensky, Dvora (ACF: Wilf Lari. CO 2nd Subject: Re: UIFSA summary Categories: ‘orange Category Well need some further explication of question #2. “Non-proprietary" isnot terminology we use ‘Are you seeking a statement on the diy to safeguard information furnished to states and other authorized uses by (OCSE, and limitations upon the use ofthat information for purposes allowed under federal law? If so, are you focused upon the very limited information that OCSE would make avallable to Foreign Central Authorities? ‘The safeguarding rules ae complex and depend upon the source and the permitted use ‘You cite by way of example "state aderes for an Idaho person." donot believe OCSE willbe disclosing anything other than the fact that the person resides ithe state, not a home or work adress. From: Yearsey, Kandace ~CO 2nd [inao: Years. idaho.0ov) Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 06:42 ‘To: Turetsly, Vick (ACF); Ket, Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Mller, Anne (ACF); Kurz, Greg - 00 2nd ; Riddick, Wette (ACF); Wiensky, Ovora (ACF); Wolf, Loi A. - CO 2nd Subject: RE: UIFSA summary Vicki and 80b, “Thank you so much forall your time ind support as we ae trying to figure out the next steps. Today our Director met ‘wth some of the concerned legislators and they have requested a couple of lems. 41) Ie posite to acquire a poly statement or procedure around the process OCSE uses to acquire stale [scaresses for on Idoho parson fer exampc? 2) [sit possible 1 gat a printout he federal law wit the word “nonproprietay" highlighted throughout? We wil reed fo outine the spectic cnx! in whieh is used and the boundary ofthe ato hs us, | haven't been able to connect withthe Diector since the meeting so | dont have context forthe second question but if {you need me to provide that | can carat get hat. We are tying to get answers as qucky as possible so | thought ‘Would send these questions off to you tis evening, Letme know if there are questions orifyou need more context and | will gt mors information. Thank you! Kanaee Yearsiey Child Support Director208-334-0620 From: Turetsty, Vicki (ACF [malo Vk Turstsi® ACE. hhs.oo¥) ‘Sent: Monday, Api 20, 2015 11:29 AM ‘To: Wo, Lon A. - CO 2nd er Mlle Anne (ACF); Yearsley, Kandace - CO 2nd; Kune, Greg ~ CO 2nd Rick, Yvette (ACF); Whlensky, Dvore (ACF): Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) Subject: FW: UIFSA summary ‘es, Laure, we wl review Know a get back to you. From: Wolf, Lor A, ~CO 2nd [naif dhuisaho.co¥) ‘Sent Monday, Api 20, 2015 12:23 Pt ‘To: Turetsty, Vek (ACF); Keith, Robe (HHS/OGC) (Ce: Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd; Yearsey, Kandace ~CO 2nd Subjects UIFSA summary \We ae trying to create something siple yet informative to provide legislators onthe impact of the Hague Convention “andthe interaction with UIFSA, Would you mind reviewing the attached document for accuracy and consistency with ‘Your understanding of the facts? | wculd be interested in Your tke on this document in trying to help explain the problems the Hague intended to resave andthe reasoning behind having UIFSA guide the implementation atthe state fevel. We are trying to back off the "heats" a itl bit and help educate lawmakers our attempt to get the necessary votes. ‘Thanks forall your help. Any input/advice would be welcomed. or NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION Is INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS) (OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. 1F ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECENED. NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE ‘CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) (OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF TIC CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. CO 2nd From: Kei, Robert (HHS/OGO) Sent: Menday, Apri 20, 2015 208 PM To: Wilf Lor A.» CO 2nd! Tuetsy, Vik ACF) ce: Kunz, Greg ~ CO 2nd: Yearsey,Kendace -CO 2nd Miler, Anne (ACF) Subject: RE-UIFSA summary Categories: Onnge Category took qulck look atthe 2013 and 2014 CRS Reports. ‘The 2014 Report at p. 14, states succinctly whats actually going to occur: the foreign Central Authority wil be given “access to information inclcatng the sate" wiere the NCP resides. {can see how the 2013 Report might 2e misunderstood. Tt states accuratsy that. a new definition of “authorized person” Is created, but then it goes on to expan the breadth of the FPLS and to note the traditional concerns about expansion of ‘access, The latter out of context and aetanly nat rating tothe legislation. Nothing is incorrect. The FPLS is vast and Congress has incrementally an jucously expanded access through the ‘years (e., to HUD, to Edcation). Bx In every sation where acess Is provided, OCSE also scrupulously its the Information provides to that which is needed for the purposes intended, COCSE has stated as reflected in the 2013 Report, that wil provide the state location ofthe NCP tothe foreign Central Author, and afer that he CA wl ea recy withthe state “There is absolutely no way tata foregn CA would ever gain unlinited and unrestricted "access" to OCSE's actual data systems, From: Wolf Lori A - CO 2nd [Wolf.@dhwidaho.g0¥) ‘Sent: Monday, Api 20,2015 2:37 PN To: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC); Turetsty, Vek (ACF) Ge: Kunz, Greg = CD 2nd; Yearsley, Kandace ~ CO 2nd; Miler, Anne (ACF) ‘Subject: RE: UIFSA Summary ‘Thank you! Helpful suggestions. From: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) maito:Rabert Keth@HHS. GOV) Sent: Monday, Api 20,2015 12:26 FM ‘To: Wolf, Lon A= CO 2nd Tuetsy, Vi (ACF) ‘Kuna, Greg CO 2nd; Yearsley, Kandace - CO 2nd; Miler, Anne (ACF) Subject: Re: UIFSA summary (One small suggestion that! might mate fs to emphasize that enforcement remains within t no standardized procedures (such as mandatory wage withholding in domestic cases), estate's authority. There are “prompt enforcement’ is required under Article 32.2 and there i list of posible enforcement measures, but itremains entiely up tothe state to determine such remedies na particular case From: Wolf, Lol A. ~CO 2nd {malt:WolfL@dhwidaho.o04) ‘Sent: Monday, Apri 20, 2035 12:23 PM‘To: Turetsky, Ved (ACF); Keith, Robe (HHS/OGC) ‘Ce: Kune, Greg CO 2nd ; Yearsley, Kandace - CO 2nd ‘Subject: UIFSA summary We are trying to create something siple yt informative to provide legislators on the impacts of the Hague Convention ‘and the interaction with UIFSA. Would you mind reviewing the attached document fr acuracy and consistency with {Your understanding ofthe facts? | would be interested in our take on tis document in trying to help explain the problems the Hague intended to resale and the reasoning behind having UIFSA guide the implementation atthe state level. We are trying to back ff the “threats” itl it and help educate lawmakers in our attempt to get the necessary votes. ‘Thanks forall your help. Any input/acvice would be welcomed. Lor NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITIES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION 1S PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED, NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) CORENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. CO 2nd From: Turetsty, Vicki (ACF Sent: ‘Menday, Apri 20, 2015 705 AM To: Kurz, Greg = CO 2nd ce Wilf, Lori CO 2nd: Yeorsle, Kandace -CO 2nd Subject: \weare scanning the remsining Family Law Q atles now categories: ‘orange CategoryTuetsy, Vicki (ACF) Menday, Apri 20, 2015 640 AM Kunz, Greg ~ CO 2 Keith, Robert (HHS/OGO) Wilf Lor A CO 2nd Yearly, Kandace ~CO 2nd; Miller, Anne (ACF) E-Alaska (and this am. emai) ‘orange Category Greg. {am back in my office and have the 009 Family Law Quartery volume here. Would you like us to scan and send the other articles? View Original Message: From: Kune, Greg -CO 2nd [mait:kursG@2ahw idaho.gou Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 10:35 4M To: Turetsky, Viekl (ACF); Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Wolf Lor ACO 2nd; Vearsley, Fandace -CO 2nd Subject: Re: Alaska fan this a.m. eral) Thank you so muchll ‘This information, Alaska’s status, the white stats status (wth deta, and Mary Helen's article wl allow us to work effectively this weekend to create a presentation and needed responses fra scheduled meeting we have with our Dicector at 11:00am on Monday morsing, fora meeting he has with key legislators at 1:00 | can't fully express how critica gettirg this information today, on the weekend Is tous. We wil start working immediately to have information reay for Monday. “Thanks forthe late night and weekend help. Your supports incredible ‘reg, Lor, and Kandee (an the whole Idaho team) Sent from my vitual mobile office. >On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Turethy, Vek (RCF] wrote! > Greg, > Alaska's legislative session which began on January 20,2015, ends on Sunday Api 19, but under the state's Constitution the session can be exterded to las fora total of 120 days. Inthe lst few years, the session has been routinely extended, and we expect tat will happen again this year.> We ae in regular contact withthe Alaska Department of Revenue, and state officals expect thatthe UIFSA bil going topass. >viek [NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR. PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIMENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE ‘OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN FRROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFYTHE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.From: “Teal, Vek (ACF) Sent: Sunday, April 19,2015 648 AM To: ‘Wei Lori A -CO and ce Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd: Yessy, Kandace - CO 2nd Subject: Res FPLS data categories: oxange Category Justa note to let you know that | willbe fing back to OC this morning an offine until mid-afternoon your time. if you need something. — Original Message —~ From: Wolf Lori A, -CO 2nd [maito;Wolff,@dhw.daho gov} Sent: Satueday, Apri 18,2015 11:47 PM “or Tretsky, Viel (ACF) Ce: Kunz, Greg- CO 2nd Subject: Re: FPLS data Vici, think this would be very helpful. Weare trying to get a forum established wit Key legislators to answer some ofthese critical questions | wl get back to you early Monday to determine a time for this conversation. ‘Thanks fo everything. or >On Apr 38, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Turetiy, Vick (ACF) wrote > Athought-would it be useful to havea briefing on Monday on interstate data access and communication tools ‘through the Federal Parent Locator Service (and the absence of authority to provide FPLS access to other countries)? Kandee obviously knows al ofthis, bt let me know if hearing from us would be help > Also, we'd be happy to connect youto the National Center on State Courts and/or National Conference of State Legislatures Original Message —— > From: Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd [malto-tunzG@dhw idaho gov) >Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 10:34 AM >To: Turetsky, Viki (ACF): Keith, Roker (HHS/OGC) > Ce: Wal Lor A, -CO 2nd > Subject: Re: Alaska (and this asm. els) > Tank you so muchl!>This information, Alaska's status, the white stats status (with detail), and Mary Helen's rte wil allow us to work effectively this weekend to create a presentation and needed responses fora scheduled meeting we have with our Director at 11:00am on Monday mornin, fora meeting he has with Key legislators at 1:00, > can’t fuly expres how critical geting this information today, on the weekend, sto us. We wil start working Immeciately to have information ready fo Monday. > Thanks forthe late night and weeked help. Your support is incredible > Greg, Lari and Kandee (and the whele Idaho team) > Sent from my virtual mobile office, >> On Apr 18, 2015, a 8:02 AM, Turesky, Vick (ACF) wrote: >> Greg, >> Alaska’s egllativ sesion which began on lanvary 20,2015, ends on Sunday April 19, but under the state's Constitution the session can be extended toast fora total of 120 days. Inthe as few years, the session has been Foutinely extended, and we expect that will happen again this yer. >> We arein regular contact with the Alaska Department of Revenue, and state officals expec thatthe UIFSA bills going to pass. >> Vie > NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS) OR ENTITYIES} NAMED ABOVE. IFYOU ARENOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE ‘OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION 15 PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED. NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIALOR. PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S} OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE, TFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIN, PLEASE SE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COFTING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE (OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION iS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIF* THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED,Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd. Wolff tori ACO 2nd From: “Turetsty, Viel (ACA) Sent: Saturday, Ari 18, 2015 206 PM To: Kurz, Greg ~CO 2nd ce Wei, Lori A. = CO 2nd: Yearly, Kandace -CO 2nd Subject: FPS data Categories: Orange Category | thought-would it be useful to havea briefing on Monday on interstate data access and communication to's through the Federal Parent Locator Service (ard the absence of authority to provide FPLS access to other countries)? Kandee ‘obviously knows allof this, but let meknow if hearing from us would be helpful ‘Also, we'd be happy to connect you te the National Center on State Courts and/or National Conference of tate Legislatures Original Messag From: Kurz, Greg CO 2nd [malito:KusxGe@dhwidaho.gou} Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2035 10:34 aM To: Turetsy, Vick ACF; Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Wolf Lor A, ~CO 2nd Subject Re: Alaska (and this a.m. emails) ‘Thank you so muchl! ‘Thisinformaton, Alaska’s status, the white states status (with etal, and Mary Helens article wil allow us to work effectively this weekend to create a presentation and needed responses fora scheduled meeting we have with our Director at 11:00am on Monday morning, for a meeting he has with key legislators a 1:00, | can‘ fully express how critical getting this information today, on the weekend is tous, We wil start working ‘immediately to have information ready for Monday. ‘Thanks for the late night and weekend help. Your support is incredible ‘Greg, Lov and Kandee (and the whole Idaho team) Sent rom my virtual mobile oie >On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Turetiky, Viel (ACF) Gree,> Alaska’s legislative session which beyan on January 20,2035, ends on Sunday April 19, but under the state's Constitution the session canbe extenced ta last fora total of 120 days. Inthe ast few Years, the session has been routinely extended, and we expect tat wil happen again this yar. > We ae in regular contact withthe Alaska Department of Revenue, and state officals expect that the UIFSA bil going topass >Viek NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL{S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. TFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE ‘OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION S PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. CO 2nd From: “ures, Vicki (ACF) Sent: Saturday, Api 18, 2015 9:04 AM To: Kurz, Greg -CO 2nd ce Wilf, Lor A. = CO 2nd; Yearsey, Kandace ~CO 2nd Subject: Re:Alaska (and tis am. emails) Categories: ‘oninge Category Just et ws know what you need, Bo wl be traveling out ofthe country soon, as | mentioned. lam in touch with AARP. Goodluck, vicki — Original Message — From: Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd malt:KunzG@hw idaho.gov) Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2035 10.34 AW “To: Turetsky, Viel (ACF) Keith, Rober: (HHS/OGC) Ce; Wolf Lor A, -CO 2nd ; Yearsley, Kandace -CO 2nd Subject: Re: Alaska (and this a.m, eral) ‘Tank you so mucht! ‘This information, Alaska's status, the white states status (with deta, and Mary Helen's article wil allow us to work effectively this weekend to create a presentation and needed responses for a stheduled meeting we have with our Director at 11:00am on Monday morring, fr a meeting he has with key legsators at 1:00, can’t fully express how etieal getting this information today, on the weekend, ito us. We il start working immediatly to have information ready for Monday. “Thanks forthe late night and weekend help. Your support is incredible ‘Greg, Lor, and Kandee (and the whole Idaho team) Sent from my virtual mobile office > On Apr 18,2015, > Greg, 8:02 AM, Turetdy, Vik (ACF) wrote:> Alas’ s legislative session which began on January 20,2035, nds on Sunday Apri 9, but under the state's Constitution the session canbe extended to last for a total of 120 day. In the lst few yeas, the session has been Foutinely extended, and we expect thet wll happen again this year. > We ae in regular contact withthe Aaska Department of Revenue and state officals expect thatthe UIFSA bil i going topass. >viek NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED THE INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS} OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE, IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECINENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE (OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMAION 'S PROWIGITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENOER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd From: eth, Robert (HHS/OGO) Sent: Sotuday, Api 18, 2015 532 AM To: ‘Welt Lori -CO and Subject: Fw Research Categories: orange Category tere is Mary Helen's artile ite thebest aekground on how we went about our agotations. Mary Helen led the US Team and she and were on the Drafting Committe. | don't have Scott Kiem’ email Could you send it to hm? | gave Greg a copy. Don't hesitate to call meat 202 423 9515 can help In any way. Bob From: Panask, Susan (HHS/OSC) ‘Sent: Thursday, Al 16,2015 09:00 AM Copyright () 2009 American Bar Association Family Law Quarterly Spring, 2008 43 Fam. LQ 21 ‘SYMPOSIUM ON INTERNATIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT UNITED STATES PERSPECTIVE ON THE NEW HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY MAINTENANCE Mary Helen Carlson * * attorney-Adviser, Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, United States Department of State. The views expressed are thase of the author and not necessarily the views of the U.S. government, No copyright is asserted with regard to this article by the author or the Department of state, Text: [21] 1. Introduction‘The United States was the first country to sign The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (hereinafter Convention). nt The United States signed it on November 23, 2007, moments after its adaption by The Hague Conference on Private International Law. Footnotes nt Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Ney. 23, 2007) http://www. ncch.net/index” en, ohp?act=conventions.text&cid=131 (hereinafter Convention). + End Footnotes: - In the year since the United States signed the Convention, there has been great progress with the steps that must be taken under U.S, domestic law before the Convention can enter into force for the United States, In July 2008, the proposed federal implementing legislation was submitted to Congress. Also in 5uly 2008, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), also known as National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), approved amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), required to impiement the Convention under state law. n2 On September 8, 2008, the President transmitted the [#22] Conventioy to the Senate, asking for its prompt advice and consent to ratification. 13 The American Bar Association (ABA) and the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) strongly support the Convention and have urged Congress fo act swiftly so that the United States can become a party a5 soon as possible. n4 Footnotes === 2-222 e sean 2 UNIF, INTERSTATE FAMILY SLPPORT ACT (2008) (UIFSA) available at the Uniform Law Commission Website, yrvv.necuslorg under Fal Acts, The Summary states: "The 2008 UIFSA Amendments modify the current version of UIFSA's international provisions to comport with the obligations of the United States tinder the 2007 Hague Convention on Maintenance.” Id. 13 Message to the Senate Transmitting The Hague Convention on the Intemational Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, Sept. 8, 2008, 44 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 36, 1187, avallable ot htto://frebaate.sccess.ano,sov/cal- See aba Seton on Family 1am Report the House of Delegates Reston 106 (i. 11 2008) ww ora/leader rec tions/OneHundredSix.doc; see aso, Nat" Child Support Enforcement Ass'n, Resolition Supporting Ratification of The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance and Supporting Conforming changes tothe Unfrm tnestateFamly Support Ac, Aug 2 2008 = = End Footnotes In the world of multilateral conventions, where ratification often takes many years, not decades, this Convention has thus far progressed with lightning speed! nS All of these efforts evidence the United States’ strang support for the Cowention and its intention to implement it as quickly as possible. The US. delegation to this negotiation is eptimistie that the new Congress will act on the Convention in 2008, n6 Footnotes - - 15 Examples of the implementation process for several other treaties may be instructive. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Intemational Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention) was ‘adopted in 1980 and fist entered into force in 1983. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, 19 1.LM, 1501, Te vas not until 1988, however, that the United States became a party to The Hague Abduction Convention. The Hague Convention on theProtection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) Was approved In 1993 and entered into force In 1995. Convention on Protection of Children and Co- ‘operation in Respect of Intercourrry Adoption, May 29, 1993, 32 LLM. 1134, It did not enter into force for the United States, however, until 2008. The United Nation's Convention on the Lav of the Sea was, ‘approved in 1982, and entered inco farce in 1994. United Nations Convention on the Lav ofthe Sea, Dec. 420, 1982, 21 1.L.M, 1245, The United States Is stil not a party, although the President transmitted the Convention to the Senate in 1994, where it remains pending 1G The treaty cannot enter into ferce for the United States until all necessary federal and state Implementing legislation is in effect. The proposed Federal implementing legislation gives the states two ‘years to adopt UIFSA (2008), with the consequence that, ifthe Senate gives its advice and consent to Tatification and Congress enacts the implementing legislation in 2009, the Convention would enter into Force for the United States not eater than fall 2011, of, more hkely, January 21, 2012. UF course, congressional action s delayed, the entry-Inte-force-date ofthe Convention wil also be delayed. = == End Footnotes: - Joining this Convention will provide many advantages to the United States. A single multilateral ‘convention will save Ie the time and expense required to negotiate bilateral agreements with individual ‘countries, n7 A [#23] uniform global system, with the same rules applying to all countries, will make case processing more efficent, The new Convention, with its detaled procedures for how Central Authorities, ‘must handle applications and simplified rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign child support decisions, wil greatly speed up irternatlonal case processing. Perhaps the major benefit ofthis Convention for the United States willbe recirocity. Courts and child support agencies in the United States already recognize and enforce foreign chid support obligations in many cases, whether or not the United States has a child support agreement with the foreign country. Many foreign countries, however, will not process foreign child support requests in the absence of a treaty obligation. Thus, ratification of the Convention by the United States will mean that more children residing in the United States will receive the financial ‘support they need from their parents, whether the parents reside in the United States or in a foreign ‘country that is party to the Convention, Footnotes = ~~~ 17 Since the federal government first began negotiating bilateral child-support agreements in 1996, the. United States has entered into such agreements with thirteen countries (Australia, the Czech Republic, EL Salvador, Finiand, Hungary, Irland, Israel, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak. Republic, Switzeriand and the United Kingdom). The United States also has bilateral reciprocity arrangements with eleven Canadan provinces and territories. See Notice of Declaration of Forelgn Countries a Reciprocating Caunivies for the Enforcement of Family Support (Maintenance) Obligations, 73 Fed, Reg. 72555 (Nov. 28, 2008). Soon, agreements should be in place with Brazil and Costa Rica, += End Footnote I. U.S. Approach to This Negotiation ni Footnotes. 'n8 General comments under this heading are based on another article by the author, See Mary Helen Carison, U.S. Participation inthe International Unification of Private Law: The Making of the UNCITRAL Draft Cariage of Goods by Sea Convention, 31 TUL, MAR, L.), 615 (2007). wanes esse + End Footnotes: == “The U.S, approach to this negotiation, like its approach to all private international law projects, n® can perhape best be described by two words: participatory and pragmatic, = Footnotes - =19 “Private” international law is generally understood to refer to the international process of unifying or harmonizing the rules that govern international transactions between private partes, as opposed to "public" international law, which is concerned with relations between governments. = == End Footnotes: - ~~~ ‘The Office ofthe Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law (L/PIL) at the State Department is, the action office for private international law negotiations within the U.S. government and coordinates U.S. participation in such negotiations. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Is responsible for child support policy within the U.S. government UPIL and OCSE thus were the two federal entities mast involved in this negotiation. ‘But substantive child support law in the United States is almost entirely state law, rather than federal law. ‘The day-to-day processing of child support cases is handled almost entirely by state child support agencies [#24] and tribunals. A key goal of L/PIL and OCSE was therefore to be certain that we obtained the requisite expertise and guidance of those who help familles in need of child support and those who wil be most affected by the Convention, These are the state and local child-support officials, private sector, entities that provide eritical support services for these officials, state lawmakers, family courts, academics ‘who specialize In family law, and arivate attorneys wha represent parents in international child support ‘The U.S. delegation to this negotiation, which spanned five years (2003-2007) and involved five Special Commission meetings and a final Diplomatic Conference fora total of approximately fifteen weeks of format negatiations, reflected this participatory approach. It included, in adltion to officials from L/PIL, OCSE, and the HHS Office of the General Counsel, representatives from Individual U.S. state child support agencies and the ULC. ni0 Moreaver, L/PiL and OCSE encouraged other U.S. interests to participate in the Fegotiation by Joining the delegations of nongovernmental organizations that were given observer status at the negotiation. U.S, child support experts were included on the delegations of NCSEA, the International Bar Association (IBA), the International Association of Women Judges (IAW2), and the International Society of Family Law (ISFL). n11 During the formal negotiations, the U.S. delegation met frequently, often more than once a day, to coordinate and plan. All [¥25] U.S. participants, whether they ‘were part of the U.S. delegation or the delegation of a nongovernmental organization, were invited to attend these meetings. Footnotes - =~ 110 The author was the head of the U.S. delegation. Other members of the U.S. delegation to the November 2007 Diplomatic Session were: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Commissioner Margot Bean, Department of Heath and Human Services (HHS) Associate General Counsel Robert Keith, ‘OCSE Division of Policy Director Elizabeth Matheson, OCSE Policy Specialist Katherine Donley, University of Texas School of Law Professor John Sampson, University of Oklahoma College of Law Professor Robert Spector, Margaret Campbell Haynes (UIFSA expert and consultant to OCSE), and Mariana Silveira (research director at the National Law Center for InterAmerican Free Trade, consultant to the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law (L/PIL) and Latin Ametican legal expert). int The National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) delegates at the Diplomatic Session were Ann Barkley (co-chair of NCSEA's International Relations Commitee), Kay Farley (co-chalr of NCSER's International Relations Committee), Vernon Drew (president of the Center for the Support of, Families), Alisha griffin alrector of New Jersey Child Support Programs), and Marlyn Ray Smith (chief legal counsel, Child Support Enforcement Division, Massachusetts Department of Revenue). The 184 dolegates were Gloria DeHart (who, as a Calfornia assistant attorney general, was a pioneer in the feld of international child support beginring in the 1970s), Gary Caswell (former Texas assistant attomey general specializing In international chlld support cases), and the Honorable Battle Robinson (retired Delaware Family Court judge and the chair of the Uniform Law Commission's (ULC) UIFSA Drafting group). The U.S. members of the International Association of Women Judges (JAW) delegation were the Honorable Shireen Fisher and the Honorable Patricia Whalen (both retired Vermont family court judges and judges on theInternational Criminal Tribunal for Bosnia and Herzegovina). The U.S. members of the Intemational Society of Family Law (ISFL) were University of Iowa Law Professor Ann Estin and Washburn University ‘School of Law Professor Linda Elrod. End Footnotes: “The U.S. delegation's participatory approach extended far beyond the formal meetings in The Hague. Well before the first Special Commission In 2003, and throughout the five-year negotiation, the U.S. delegation hheld numerous meetings n the United States with relevant private sector stakeholders and government ‘entities to abtain the requisite expertise and guidance on bath the general direction the United States Should take in this negotiation and the specife positions the U.S, delegation shauld pursue. The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Private Intemational Law formed a Study group on International Child Support, whieh held regular meetings open to the public and announced in advance in the Federal Register. Members of the U.S. delegation alsa made presentations at the annual Hrio/OUSE (raining sessions for state and local child support officals and at mestings ofthe ULC, NCSEA, and the ABA. All of this outreach helped to ensure thatthe positions taken by the U.S. delegation represented a balanced position that was the product of tae suggestions and concerns of all of thase who provide services under the Convention, in particular, the state child support officials who are responsible forthe day-to-day processing of international child support cases. “The goal of this inclusive pracess was to Include every interest group in the process of developing the U.S. position on the legal and policy issues that arose in this negotiation. It was of paramount importance to the U.S. delegation that no one was let aut and that every Interested party had an opportunity to be heard. The U.S. delegation wanted to produce a Convention that met the needs of America's families, children, and the child support community, and one that that community would broadly and strongly ‘support during the ratification process. “The result of this highly participatory process was that the United States took extremely practical positions during this negotiation, U.S, stakeholders provided a much-needed reality check to the largely theoretical ‘work that has sometimes been the tendency in private international fam negotiations. The U.S. child Support community tld the U.S, delegation that it wanted a Convention that provides real solutions to the actual problems that child support workers encounter in handling International cases. m2 Footnotes - ~~ ~~ 'n12 The Convention is supplemented by an Optional Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, Nov. 23, 2007, http://mww.hech.net/index_en,phpzact=conventions.text@cid=133. The Protocal fs an example of what, for the United States, isa largely theoretical work that addresses a probiem that we have generally rot encountered. The United States does not intend to sign the Protocol. ‘The general rule in the United States is to apply the law of the forum, rather than to force Iigants to take ‘on the burden and expense of analyzing and arguing foreign law, which would probably often result in ‘decisions based on an incorrect application ofthe foreign lav. End Footnotes: ~ [#26] Although everybody agreed that it was essential that the new Convention provide a clear legal baste forthe enforcement of support obligations, U.S. stakeholders also told the U.S. delegation that, more often, the problem was nota legal one, but rather a failure of administrative cooperation. The U.S. stakeholders told the U.S. delegation that they wanted a Convention that focused on implementation. Provisions dealing with responsibilties of central authorities, administrative cooperation, case handling procedures, accountability, and information from parties concerning their laws and procedures were thus, priorities. ‘Some countries initially objected that it was unusual, unnecessary, and inappropriate to include so many provisions on cooperation and procedures, They argued that the text ofthe Convention need only address Jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement, and that the cooperation and procedural measures could be Gealt with informally outside of the text of the Convention, By the conclusion of the negotiations, hawever, Sil delegations were convinced af the importance of the cooperation and procedural provisions, andtherefore, the Convention places an appropriate emphasis on them. MIL. U.S. Goals ‘The U.S, delegation had three overall goals in this project: First, a Convention that the United States could join, Indeed, ather countries shared this goal; many delegates told the U.S. delegation that the global Community did not need another zhild support Convention thatthe United States did not join. Second, @ Convention that emphasized parental responsibilty and produced results, that i, that provided child ‘Support in international cases in = predictable, consistent, efficent, affordable, and timely manner. Finally, ‘Convention that would be broacly accepted, that is, oné that the greatest number of countries, from all Tegions of the world and at varius levels of development, could join A. A Convention the United States Could Join “There were a few "deal-breaker" ssues for the United States. While the U.S. delegation could and did ‘compromise on many major issues, it knew that the United States could not join a Convention that did not Satisfy their concerns on those few issues. The major "éeal-breakers" involved issues of scope, Jurisdiction, establishing orders, and costs: 1, SCOPE “The mandatory scope of the Convention had to be limited to child support (and spousal support In cases vwhere the claim for spousal support isin conjunction with 2 claim for child support). in the United States, there [#27] is 8 massive federal and state program that provides a very high level of free services to child support applicants (and spousal support applicants if there is related chill support case). Title IV-D Of the Social Security Act establishes a uniform set of requirements with which states must comply as a Condition for receiving federal furds for each state's child support program. n13 All ity states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam participate. Footnotes 113 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669) (2003). ~~ End Footnotes: - =~ = = Few countries even approach the same level of services in child support cases that are provided in the United States. There is no uniform federal or state program with regard to support obligations for other types of family relationships. Some other countries have programs that offer the same services in child, support cases and cases involving other types of relationships. These countries wanted the Convention to cover all types of family relationships. The result was a compromise; Article 2(1) provides that the Convention applies on a mandatcry basis to maintenance obligations arising from a parent-child felationship. nid Article 2(3) further provides that a country may declare that it will extend the Convention, or any patt of It, to maintenance obligations arising from other types of family relationships nis 114 Convention, supra note 1, at. 2(1) nS Id, at art. 2(3), = = End Footnotes: ~~ ~ = =-2, JURISDICTION “The Convention could nat require the recognition and enforcement of 2 foreign child support decision when the foreign tribunal had based its jurisdiction on the fact that the creditor n16 (custodial parent or child) resided in the forum country. At ts core, the Convention isan instrument that provides for the recognition {and enforcement of foreign child support judgments. It does many other important things, but this I perhaps the Convention's key obigation,+= Footnotes -- ‘n16 Members ofthe delegation and representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from the United States had to shift to the tarminology employed in the rest ofthe world, An “obligor” under UIFSA fs called the "debtor" in the Convention, and an "obllgee" Is the "creditor." The U.S. terminology was, ‘adopted in 1950 in the first versien of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1950), § 2(9) (h), 9C U.LA, 273 (2001), and has remained constant ever since. End Footnotes: «=== === == CCreditor-based jurisdiction Is the standard in virtually all countries except forthe United States, In the United States, under current Supreme Court jurispridence, the mere fact that the creditor or child resides inthe forum does not give the fotim jurisdiction over the debtor in child support case. n17 In order to satisfy our due process standards, there must be a [2B] nexus between the debtor and the forum in Order to give the forum jurieicticn over the debtor. In other words, itis the debtor's contacts with the Forum, that are determinative, not the creditor's or the child's residence, ni8 - = Footnotes ‘n17 See generally Kulko v, Superor Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978). ni I. ~ End Footnotes: = Because creditor-based jursdlctlen Isso familar to other countries, there was at first substantial Tesistance to the U.S, position that this could not be a mandatory jurisdietional basis under the Convention, Other countries argued that if virtually every country In the world, other than the United States, considered this a valid juisdictional basis, then the United States should simply change is rule. In the frst year of the negotiations, the U.S. delegation was told that the United States would simply have to ‘amend its Constitution’ It took several years to conwince other delegations that the U.S. delegation was ‘ot just being stubborn, and it cauld not agree to mandatory creditor-based jurisdiction even if wanted to. The U'S. delegation had to cowince ts foreign colleagues that in the United States the executive and legislative branches could nat overrule @ Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution simply by ‘adopting, as domestic law, an international Convention that included a rule that was inconsistent with the Court's decision. Likewise, the ather twa branches could not substitute their interpretation ofthe Constitution for that of the Court. nt Footnotes 1n19 See Convention, supra note |, art. 20. At one point in the U.S. delegation's efforts to convince other elegations that It really had no discretion on this ssue, It cited Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). the landmark Supreme Court case that held that "i is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law i." Id. at 177-78, ~~ End Footnotes: - other countries were finally convinced, Article 20 of the Convention resolves this issue by including residence of the creditor in the frum a5 a basis of jurisdiction in paragraph (1). 20 Paragraph (2) makes this obligation discretionary by alowing countries to make a reservation to the obligation. n23 Te can be ‘assumed that the United States will make such a reservation. Footnotes, 120 Convention, supra note 1, ait. 20(2). 124 Id. at art. 20(2). One of the advantages of a mandatory ist of jurisdictional bases is that under thatsystem, there are few cases where there are multiple, inconsistent orders. The U.S. delegation, of course, Fecognized that a consequence ofa discretionary ist of jurisdictional bases would be more cases with multiple orders. It also understood that an argument could be made that the Supreme Court could be Called on to decide the validity of treaty signed by the President after the advice and consent of the Senate that includes a mandatary rule on creditoror child-based jurisdiction. In such an instance, the Court might well uphold the constitutional of that rule, either by overruling or distinguishing Kiko. The USS. delegation concluded, however, that It would be Loo risky to accept a text that it knew would be subject to constitutional challenge End Footnotes -3, ESTABLISHMENT “The Convention had to cover nat anly recognition and enforcement of an existing foreign order, but also Establishment of a new decision fr a [229] foreign applicant, Incuding establishment of parentage wnen hhecessary to obtain a support order. Many countries strongly preferred a Convention that was limited to recognition and enforcement of edsting foreign decisions; cases are simpler and less costly for a receiving Country to process than requests to establish a new decision. Moreover, many countries had no experience ‘with establishing new orders for foreign applicants. ‘A.country that accepts creditor-based jurisdiction would rarely need to ask another country to establish an trier for one of its residents, The ereditor (custodial parent) is virtually alvays the applicant in a child Suppott case, Ifthe debtor does not have sufficient contacts with the United States to satisty our constitutional due-process requirements, however, a U.S. creditor might need to ask another country to establish an order. Therefore, it was essential to the United States that the Convention include an ‘obligation to establish child support orders, including paternity establishment. ‘one ofthe major concerns of somte countries was the cost of paternity establishment, which the U:S. delegation was told could be as much as $ 3,000 in some countries. The U.S. delegation presented Information about how the cost of testing both the child and the putative father had been reduced in the United States, through technology and economies of scale, to as litle as $ 150. In addition, countries Fealized that in some cases, it might be to the creditor's advantage to have the intial order established in ‘another country where the child support guidelines would result in a higher order than a decision made in the country where the applicant resided, Other delegations eventually accepted the United States’ position. Article 10(1) includes an application for Establishment of a decision (incking where necessary the establishment of paternity) a5 one of the ‘applications covered by the Convention. 22 Footnotes 122 Fd, at art, 10(1). = End Footnotes: =~ 4, COSTS “The Convention had to provide that all services were cost-ree or virtually cost-free to the creditor. Due to {ite syptest that fon plave now inthe United States, and, For bath practical and policy reasons, i was ‘extremely unlikely that the United States would join a Convention that did not provide no-cost or low-cost Services, As a matter of policy, the United States was convinced that the Convention could not succeed, rho matter how wonderful al Rs ether provisions were, irit did not require countries to provide virtually Cost-free services in ehild suppor cases handled by Central Authorities. All of the amazing provisions on Saministrative cooperation, recognition, enforcement, and so forth, would be nothing but empty promises [#30] If services were not provided at virtually no cost. tm fact, in the U.S. delegation’s view, ane ofthe major Falings of existing child support conventions was. the falure to require cost-ree services. Most child support applicants who use government child support programs are people of modest means, who would simply be unable to pursue recovery of child support if they had to pay high fees inclucing fees for legal services, This is especially true in international cases, where the costs for attorney's fees and enforcement actions can be greater than the amounts collectedEnabling creditors to collect child support is In the interest of many governments, as in many countries, the government (ultimately the taxpayer) will support a child Ifthe parents do not. Given that the United States currently has @ no- or low-cost system in place for international cases, and given thatthe U.S. delegation beleved that such a system i a key ingredient in a successful international Child support regime, the U.S. delegation did not want to begin charging applicants. If the Convention Sllowed countries to charge applicants, the United States could have been faced with a system where It provided a complete range of very advanced, effective child support services to Its treaty partners, and the other countries charged U.S. applicants substantial fees for providing a much lower level of services. [AS a practical matter, the U.S. deegation doubted that there would ever be support in the United States for joining a Convention that resulted in such an imbalance In cespnnse to the U.S. delegation's arouments, It was noted that not all countries have a system of social Welfare, and that many countries do nat provide cost-free legal services in child support cases to their own Fesidents, For these countries, the resource Implications of providing free services, Including legal ‘assistance, in international eases were significant, The cost Issue was 9 very difficult one to resolve, and the US. delegation was not at all confident that it would be resolved successfully until nearly the last day ‘of the Diplomatic Conference, When the cost issue was frst disaussed during the frst year or two of the negotiation, there was strong ‘opposition tothe U.S. position in favor of cost-free services, The U.S. delegation, hoping to be able to sign the Convention atthe close of the Diplomatic Session, completed, before departing for The Hague, all of the domestic procedures required to obtain authorization from the Secretary of State to sign the Convention, The U.S. delegation noted, however, in its request to the Secretary, that one major issue, that ls, costs, remained unresolved and stated that the U.S. delegation would not sign the Convention Unless that issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the Department of State and HHS. ‘The final outcome on costs was remarkable. The Convention provides [34] that all services, including legal assistance, in child support cases must be provided free of charge to the creditor. n23 Alternatively, in cases involving establishment af 2 child support order, but not those involving recognition and ‘enforcement of an existing order, a country may dectare that It will make the provision of free legal assistance subject to a means test based an the means of the child, n24 These provisions are a major, ‘advance and will likely be one of zhe main reasans the Convention succeeds. This approach wil Nkely tncourage countries to develop simpler, streamlined, and less-expensive systems for processing child support cases. Footnotes -- ~~~ 123 1d. at art. 15 (providing Free legal asistance for child support applications). There js an exception for the rare case when the requestec country considers the application to be manifestly unfounded. Id. 124 1d, at art. 16 (providing a declaration to permit use of the child-centered means test). Many countries Strongly preferred that all requests for legal assistance be made subject to a means test based on the means ofthe creditor (that is, the custodial parent). This is the test many countries apply to requests for {ree legal assistance in domestic cases, The United States, along with some other countries, objected t0 this beecuse the likely result would have been that viruolly al of ts pppicants would have been denied free legal assistance. The alternative of a child-centered means test was a compromise i order to encourage the widest possible ratification, The result should be the same (that I, free legal assistance) In virtually all child support cases. += End Footnotes-~ == -- = B.A Convention That Will Produce Results In adiition to wanting a Convention that the United States could join, another U.S. goal was a Convention that would have positive results. A strong legal framework for enfarcement of suppert obligations was an Important First step, butt would be meaningless Ifthe Convention did not result in more money reaching more families more quickly. The Convention augments the legal framework with provisions that ensure the °Convention will produce results, This Convention will ikely be the global instrument under which International child support eases ere processed for the next fifty years. It needed to set a high standard that represented the best of current practices, which developing countries could gradually adopt. “There are some major obstacles ia the current systems for processing international child support cases. ‘The new Convention provides methods to remedy these obstacles, 1, LONG DELAYS IN THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS BY CENTRAL AUTHORITIES All experts recognized that one ofthe major problems in international child support was the length of time ft took to process an application it often took many months or even years before a case was resolved. There were many reasons for this: child support warkers do not hance many international cases and are Unsure of what to do with them: workers in one [#32] country are not familar with another country's requirements and thus do not send the necessary documentation; the documentation needs to be translated; there is no continuity when an individual caseworker is reassigned; and so on. Previous conventions do not even address these practical issues. While there was resistance at fist to inckuding them, the Convention offers major improvements to address this delay syndrome, including, deltaled requirements for information that must be included in an application under the Convention n25 And detailed procedures that Central Authorities must use in transmitting, receiving, and processing “applications and cases, n26 In addition, the negotiators established a Working Group on Forms, which developed a number of useful standardized forms. Article 11 provides that all ofthe information requlred to be included in applications under the Convention can be provided by use of these standardized forms. 127 This should significantly decrease cost and delays. Footnotes, ‘925 Id, at art. 11 (stating application contents). 126 Id, at art. 12 (providing for transmission, receipt, and processing of applications and cases through Gentrai Authorities) 27 Fe at art, 14, = ++ End Footnotes: = ~~ ~~ Finally, the negotiators also established an Administrative Cooperation Working Group (ACWG), as 2 forum for discussion of issues of administrative cooperation, which proved to be so productive that the (elegations at the Diplomatic Session recommended that consideration be given by The Hague Conference to the establishment of a permanent standing Central Authority Cooperation Committee. 2, COMPLICATED, EXPENSIVE, AND LENGTHY PROCEDURES FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN DECISION Existing multilateral child support conventions leave the procedure for recognition and enforcement to be Feyulated by tne domestic low of the Sountry addressed. In some countrien, cumborcome procedures at this stage-Including extensive ex officio review--cause serious delays and costs, which in turn place an fenormous burden on a creditor. The new Convention makes major Improvements in this process by Severely restricting the grounds for ex officio review, placing the burden of raising objections to Fecognition and enforcement on the respondent, and requiring that an appeal cannot stay the enforcement Of the order unless there are exceptional cumstances. n28 === Footnotes: === =~ 128 Id. at art. 23 (procedure on an application for recognition and enforcement). The United States and many other countries went into tie Diplomatic Session thinking that the provisions for the procedures on recognition and enforcement had been settled. The system described in Article 23, while very similar to the systems currently In place inthe United States, Canada, and the European Union, was, however,totaly different from the pracedutes used in some other countries, Including China, Russia, and Japan. ‘These countries argued at the Diplomatic Session that they would not be able to join the Convention Unless it gave them some flexibility with regard to recognition and enforcement procedures. The result wwas article 24, an alternative procedure which, ike Article 23, also is intended to ensure that the procedures are expeditious, the gtounds for review are limited, and the burden of raising defenses is Placed mainly on the respondent. However, In practice, tile 24 may turn out not to be as strict as the Fegular procedure outlined In Artie 23, 1d, at art 24 cee 2-- 222. End Footnotes: - ~~~ ===» «++ == [#33] 3, FAILURE BY SOME COUNTRIES TO COMPLY WITH THE CONVENTIONS OBLIGATIONS ‘One ofthe most common complaints about some of the existing private international conventions in the family law area is that they are fine on paper but they fll to work in practice because countries do not live Lup to thelr obligations, For example, there have been complaints about some countries that are parties to the 1956 United Nations Convention an the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, The Hague Abduction ‘Convention, of The Hague Adoption Convention that they have no procedures in place to implement some Of their provisions or otherwise fal to live up to thelr treaty obligations. The Convention is unusval inthe Tengths to which it goes to provide encouragement, support, and incentives for countries to fully implement it Article 57 addresses pre-Conventon requirements, thats, things a country must do before it can become. 2 party. n29 Tt requires that a country provide a description of (1) Its laws and procedures concerning ‘maintenance obligations, (2) how the new country will meet Its Article 6 obligations concerning Central ‘Authority responsibilities, (3) how It wil provide effective access to procedures under Article 14, and, (4) its enforcement rules and procedures, n30 One result ofthese requirements should be that a country wil have to consider carefully how Ie ntends to cary out its obligations. The task of providing this Information, which was initaly regarded by some delegates as too onerous, will be substantially eased by lise of the Country Profile form created by the ACWG. This standardized form wil facilitate and simply the provision of information, and make that information available to all countries in a “user Friendly" fashion, Footnotes - =~ == === =~ 129 Id at art. 87. 30 16. ~~ End Footnotes: ~ “The Convention also addresses the need for post-Convention monitoring and review. It calls fer the Convening of periodic Special Commissions to review the practical operation of the Convention, n31 encourages the development of good practice guides, and requires countries to cooperate with the Permanent Bureau in gathering information concerning the practical operation of the Corwention, including statistics and case lave. 132 Footnotes ~~ nat dd, at att. $4(2). 132 1d, at art. 54(2). = End Footnotes- ~~ [#34] C. A Convention That WillBe Widely Accepted “The Convention is not perfect. There are some provisions in the Convention that the United States wouldhave preferred to see worded diferentiy. For example, but forthe need to compromise in order to reach Consensus, the U.S, delegation would have preferred that the streamlined procedures for recognition and ‘enforcement 33 were mandatory fora cauntees, and thatthe alternative (and potentially weaker) rules 1n34 were not included. The U.S, ¢elegation regrets that it was not possible fo include comprehensive rules fon modification of orders, s0 as to prevent circumstances in which there are multiple orders in the same ease. n35 + Footnates ~~~ 133 Fd, at art. 23 34 Id, at art. 24 135 fd. at art. 18. This article provides limited rules that il discourage multiple orders in certain cases. ‘One of the reasons it proved impossible to devise a comprehensive rule on modification isthe fact that the United States Jurisdiction rules (in particular, the prohibition on creditor- or child-based jurisdiction) differ from the rules of nearly every otrer country = == End Footnotes: - Also, the U.S. delegation is disappointed thatthe free services provided to creditors under Aticle 15 was not extended also to debtors, The U.S delegation thinks this unequal treatment will make it more dificult for debtors to modify an inappropriate order in the country that made the order, with the result that the {nbunal in the debtor's country of residence willbe tempted to issue another order. This may result in two different orders in effect. A multiple order system proved to be unworkable in the United States before the ‘advent of UIFSA. ‘The U.S. delegation also is disappointed that the enforcement measures are not stronger; lack of effective Enforcement procedures has proven to be a serious flaw of The Hague Abduction Convention. Article 34 requires that “effective™ enforcement measures must be made avallable, and that enforcement must be “prompt” n36 Specific enforcement measures, however, such as Income withholding, are merely suggested, rather than mandated. Footnotes. 36 Jd, at art. 34 <= +++ End Footnotes: Compromises on the issues spectied above were necessary in order to reach another of the U.S. goals, namely that the Convention be accepted by most countries in all regions ofthe world and at all levels of development. There is every indeation that the Convention will be widely adopted in Hague Conference tember countries of the European Union, Narth America, Australia, New Zealand, Canadian provinces, ‘nd in other places in which Intemational child support systems are currently in place. In addition, the U's. delegation believes there wll be significant adoption of the Convention by many countries in Latin Iincrica, Aaa, antl Atlica, which presently have no system: in place for processing international cases ‘ond, indeed, may have no system in place for processing domestic cases. [#35] 1V. 1t May Not Be Perfect, But It Is Very Good [At times during the negotiation, the U.S, delegation's goals for a Convention that produced results and fone that was widely accepted were In danger of being at odds with each other, There isa tipping point in ‘ny negotiation where the beneft of wide acceptance is outweighed by the detriment resulting from the Compromises required to obtain that wie acceptance. In close consultation with all U.S. child support enforcement interest, the U.S. delegation early on recognized what its "deal-breaker" issues were, that {s those issues where there could be no compromise because the U.S. delegation thought that if it did so, it would tip that delicate balance between a Convention that sets high standards and produces real Fesults, and one that is 0 flexibe that nearly every country can join it without much effort but daes not 2‘accomplish much. Beyond those sues, however, the U.S. delegation was extremely pragmatic and was willing to make compromises to azcommodate the strongly held views of other countries. ‘The U.S. delegation believes the result will be a Convention that is an amazing advance over the status uo. The comprehensive but simgse legal framework and detailed administrative procedures are real Breakthroughs. The U.S. delegation believes the Convention will provide a system of international child Support enforcement that is "accesible, prompt, efficient, cost-effective, responsive and far." n37 c++ = Footnotes 1937 Id. at preamble P 2. Sent: Friday, April 17,2015 551 PM To: Kunz, Greg ~ CO 2nd: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGO) ce. Wilf, Lori A ~CO 2nd Yearsey, Kandace -CO 2nd Subject: Re:idaho categories: orange Category Hi Gree, jst saw your ema, Well try to get youa response as soon a possible Vick Original Message —~ From: Kurz, Greg ~CO 2nd [mailto KunsG@dhw idsho.gov Sent: Friday, April 17,2015 07.01 PM To: Keth, Robert (HHS/OGC);Turetsky, Viel (ACF) Ce: Wolf ori A. -CO 2nd ; Yearsley, Kandace -CO 2nd Subject: Idaho ‘We can't tel what the reference to "White States" means onthe map in the attached document, Itreferences “states not considering legtslation” CCan you tell us what that means? Thanks, reg Original Message: From: Boyd, Elsie RCO 10th On Beha Of Armstrong, Richard DIRECTOR Sent: Friday, April 17, 2035 4:27 PM. ‘Tor Barron, Russell. -CO 10th; Wolf Lori A. -CO 2nd; Kunz, Greg -CO 2né;Yeasley, Kandace -CO 2nd Ce:Shanahan, Thomas-CO 10th Subject: $1067 Please have someone research this fr the Director. David Hensley specially asked about Alaska and the white states. ‘Thank you. se —-Orignal Message—- From: Scott Bedke [maitsbeske14@gmal.com)Sent: Friday April 17,2085 3:41 PM ‘To: David Hensley Tammy Perkins; Armstrong, Richard - DIRECTOR, Subjeet: Document dooe ™ Need tobe ready to adress thi NOTICE: THs ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS) OR ENTITIES) NAMED ABOVE. {EVOL ARF NOT THE INTENDED RECIMENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE (OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION 1S PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd. From: Keth, Robert (HHS/OGC) Friday, April 17,2015 420 PM Kunz, Greg)~CO 2nd ‘Wolf Lori A. = CO 2nd Re: Connecting to Idaho orange Category tm fine or call my cll. 202 423 9515, From: Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd ‘Sent: Fday, Apr 17, 2015 05:08 PM To: Kath, Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Wolf, Lot A, = CO 2nd ‘Subject: Connecting to Idaho ‘Thanks for connecting with us today. Ife need to connect again, ie your preference for contact email? | gave Lori Wotf, aur Administrator, an update ofthe call when she came back into cel sevice. ‘he is ikely to make a direct connection with you. ‘Tanks again. Greg une 208-863-2086 From: Keith, Robert (HHS/OGO)[mailo:Rober.Keth@HHS.GOV] Sent: Friday, April 17,2015 12:54 PM To: Kunz, Greg -CO 2nd Subject: RE: Connecting Who from idaho wil be onthe cal? From: Kunz, Greg ~ CO 2nd [malto:tunzG@dhdaho.004} ‘Sent: Friday, Api 17, 2015 2:52 PM ‘To: Kath, Robert (HHS/OGC) Ce: Mller, Anne (ACF); Wolf, Lori A= CO 2nd ‘Subject: Re: Connecting Wie send invite fr 3:0 eastern, Sent from my virtual mobile office. (on Apr 27, 2025, a 12:08 PM, Keith, Robert (HHS/OGC) Robert. Keith@HHS.GOV> wrote: Me. Kunz,understand that some laho Legislators have addtional questions. Do you went to set up conference call? | would like someone from the Office of Child Support Enforcement also tobe onthe line incase any additional follow-up may beneeded, and have copied Ms, Mille. ‘he sooner the better Bob Keith NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WIIICII MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS) (OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER, [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED, NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUALS) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER, [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEWED.From: “Turetsy, Viki (ACF) Sent: ‘Thursday, Api 16,2015 340 PM To: Yeiesley, Kandace - CO 2nd; Wott, Loi A. -CO 2nd; Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd Subject: FW OCSE media request UIFSA and Idaho committee objections Categories: ‘orange Category Hi, Kandee, Lori and Bil, | wanted to let you know that we've received an interview request from Bill Dentzer atthe Idaho Statesman that we'd lke you and the governer’s office to be aware of. We have not responded to the reporter yet: Please see our draft responses below. We would not want to fight this out in the media, Vieki From: Goulding, Laura (ACF) “Thursday, Apel 16, 2015 05:08PM ‘To: 0S - Interviews; Danek, Kim (ACF) Ce: Vitel, Cyntia (ACF; ioe Kenreth (ACR); Fisher, Patrick (ACF) ‘Subject: OCSE media request: UIFSA and Idaho committee objections Me Bill Dentzer, Idaho Statesman Spokesperson: Office of Chl Support Enforcement Planned Interview Dat N/A Subject: UIFSA and idaho committee objections Deaatine: ASAP (8pm Pacific) Expected place of airing: Idaho Statesman Expected date of publication / airing: Unknown Adaltional ino:After receiving OCSE’s Information Memorandum, this reporter has ask for clarification to answer the prompts ‘below. He is trying to answer, in simple Q&A form, the objections from the Idaho legislative committee. See ‘below the prompts for our recommended answers. We are not comfortable with the potential flow of informati tribunals. No private information on idaho chtizens wil flow to foreign tribunals. Idaho currently applies state and {federal security and privacy laws in sharing information for child support purposes in intergovernmental cases, and this will not change. Federal law contains tight resrietions on access to Federal Parent Locator Service (FIs) information. Both UIFSA 2008 and the treaty have provisions to ensure the confidentiality of Information when there fa isk of family violence on Idaho citizens to foreign This is federal coercion (vote this or no money) Because parents travel ad live in diferent states, Congress determined years ago that It would be highty desirable to have certain uniform sate laws. To assure enactment ofthese state laws, Congress tied funding for states child support and welfare programs to the enactment of such legislation. These "mandatory state laws” have been required for participation in the cooperative state and federal child support enforcement ‘rogram since the Reagan Adminstration. ‘With Welfare Reform, in 1996 (PL. 104-193), Congress expanded the requirements that a state had tomect in ‘order to have an approved Title 1V-D child support program. Among the requirements was a provision that a state must adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. States have been operating under required state laws for thirty years and have al had UIFSA laws for twenty years. ‘The state of Wyoming made amendments. Why can't Idaho? No state is permitted to make any substantive amendment to UIFSA 2008, However, there are specific places in UIFSA 2008 where states may use terminology appropriate under state law. OCSE reviewed Wyoming's proposed bill to enact UIFSA 2008 35 we have with other states, and we identified 2 few substantive variances between Wyoming's proposed legislation and UIFSA 2008. These appeared to be inadvertent. We requested that the state amend its proposedbill,and Wyoming made the requested changes, We can't look at the basis for foreign orders. Or modify them. ‘The 2007 treaty provides procedures for administrative cooperation, so that orders in ane country can be recognized and enforced in another country. Just as with interstate cases, it isnot permitted forthe receiving ‘country to reltigate the existing order. However, when a Central Authority in a treaty country asks a U.S. tribunal to recognize and enforce a treaty support order, the noncustodial parent inthe U.S. will receive notice ofthe request. The noncustodial parent has an opportunity o contest the recognition and enforcement of the order. Ian order cannot be recognized, the IV-D agency in Idaho will seek to establish a new order, fit has jurisdiction over the parent. ‘This is a treaty and under Article 6 of the constitution we would be bound by its terms ‘There appears to be some confusion as to how the treaty will be implemented. A treaty isthe “Law of the Land,” but unlike some, this treaty is not selfimplementing. Nor isit being implemented by enactment of binding federal law that would be applied in all state child support proceedings. The decision was made, before negotiations began, that the best way to implement ths treaty would be through UIFSA, which all,states were already using to process interstate and international child support cases. Ths treaty, thus, will be implemented in accordance with state law, but it is essential, of course, for al states to have the same Uniform state law provisions.Pao, Nisha (ACF) ‘Thursday, April 16,2015 8:10 AM Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd ‘Goonka, Susan (ACF) Juergens, Ron (ACF Shields, Frank (ACF; Hammon, Jule -CO ‘2nd Rupp Ericka - CO 2nd; Barron, Russel S.- CO TOth; Wolf, Lori A.- CO 2nd Subject: {ollbw up from Tuesday 4/14 Office of Family Assistance phone cll Categories: ‘orange category Dear Greg, am writing to follow up onthe phone call my staff had with you and your team on Tuesday afternoon, Following up onthe questions you ds:ussed with my team, our response i as follows: ‘Section 402 of the Socal Security Act sets forth the TANF plan requirements and section 402(a2} provides that a state must operate a child support program under an approved child support plan Idaho's child suppart plan is disapproved as of ly 1, its TANF funcing sin jeopardy. |am happy to follow upto talk with you personally. We can schedule atime at your convenience, and my direct phone number and email ae azo below. Best regards, Nisha ‘Nisha Patet Director, Office of Family Assistance: ‘Adminstration for Children and Families USS. Department of Health and Humas Services ‘901 D Street, SW, Washington, DC 20:47 (202) 201-9276 isha patel@acthhs.gov betp//wwr ac nhs ams/ofsWolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd Turetsy, Vicki (ACE) Tuesday, Apel 14,2015 10:50 AM Yeursiey, Kandace - CO 2nd Wilf, Lori ~ CO 2nd: Kurz, Greg CO 2nd Re: Agenda for Discussion between OCSE and DHW ‘range Category ‘Should the NOlletter be addressed tothe governor or Director Armstrong? From: Turetsky, Vidi (ACF) Sent: Tuesday, Api 14, 2015 11:49 AM ‘To: YearsleK@chw idabo.gov' y KonsG@chw idaho 9 ‘Subject: Re: Agenda for Dscusson between OCSE and DH Good morning ‘We had discussed the possibility of my fing to Kaho if necessary on Wednesday or Thursday. When I double checked ‘my schedule, realized that tomorrox, Wednesday, isnot available have commitments here in San Francsco until pm. Thursday remains flexible. | wil give yous heads-up when we know the timing of our ltter to you. It mayor may not go out as early as today or Viek From: Yearsey, Kandace - CO 2nd {alto Yearsek@dh, dao. cov) ‘Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 07:20 4 ‘To! Turesky, Vik (ACF) Barron, Rusa S.~CO 10th ; Wolf, Lor A. -CO 2nd ; Kuna, Greg - CO 2nd Subject: Agenda for Discussion between OCSE and DEW [Attached you wil ind an agenda forthe meeting Scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9am MST. Deputy Director Russ Barron willbe facilitating the meeting Since | donot know who you have invited from OCSE, please forward as appropriate. “Thanks again for your quick response to this matter. Talkto you tomorrow. Kandee Yearsey 1V-0 Director208-334-0620 NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S} ‘OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. 1F ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd From: “Tues, Vick (ACF) Sent: “Tuesday, Apri 14,2015 9:49 AM "Yeursle, Kandace CO 2nd ‘Wei Lori A. ~ CO 2nd Kunz, Greg -CO 2nd Re:Agends for Discussion between OCSE and DHW range Category {Good mening, We had discussed the possibilty of mv ying to Idaho if necessary on Wednesday or Thursday. When I double-checked my schedule, realize that tomorrow, Wednesday, snot avallable-l have commitments herein San Francisco unt 1:30 pm. Thursday remains flexible. | wil give you heads-up when we know the timing of ou letter to you. Itmay or may not go out as ealy as today or Viet From: Yearsley, Kandace ~ CO 2nd {nalto:YearseK@ ah daho.o0¥) ‘Sent: Sunday, Api 12, 2015 07:20 PM ‘To: Turetsy, Vek (ACF) Cc: Barron, Russel, = CO 10th ; Wolf, Lor A. - CO 2nd ; Kur, (Greg -CO 2nd ‘Subject: Agenda for Discussion between OCSE and DH ick, ‘Attached you wil find an agenda forthe meeting scheduled fr tomorrow morning at Samm MST. Deputy Director Russ Barron wil be factating the meeting Since I do not know who you have ivited fom OCS, please forward as appropriate. ‘Thanks again for your quik responseto this mater Talk to you tomorrow. Kandee Yearsiey WV-0 Director 208-334-0620 NOTICE: THiS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE ‘CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) (OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. CO 2nd From: Turetsy, Vik (ACF) Sent: Menday, pei 13,2015 3:45 PM To: Kunz, Greg = CO 2nd ce ‘We Lori. ~CO 2nd; Yearsey, Kandace - CO 2nd Subject: Re:Can uhelp us make contact Nisha? Categories: orange Category Nisha sends her deep regrets for not keing avaiable today or tomorrow morning Wer testimony before Congress is tomorrow morning. She say itis her top priority to talk after her testimony is over, and Inthe meantime, he deputy ‘rector Susan Golonka is availble fora faster conversation. Vie From: Kunz, Greg» CO 2nd ‘Sent: Monday, Api 13, 2015 02:24 FM ‘To: Turetsy, Vicki (ACF) (Ce: Wolf, Lon A, ~ CO 2nd ; Yearsey, Kandace - CO 2nd Subject: Can u help us make contact w Nésha? She s heauly protected by her organization. Need 15 min meeting w he like we had with you ‘Thanks Greg NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) (OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION Is PROHIBITED. 1F ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. CO 2nd From: Turetsy, Viki (ACF) Sent: Menday, April 13, 2015 157 PM To: Kunz, Greg ~ CO 2nd ce Wal, Lori A.- CO 2nd; Yearsley, Kandace ~CO 2nd Subject: Re: Con uhelp us make contact w Nisha? Categories: orange category | wil all her now. | do know she ha to testify before Congress today. From: Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd [mained daho.cov) Sent; Monday, Api 13, 2015 02:24 PM To: Turetsy, Vick (ACF) Ce: Wolf, Lor A. - CO 2nd ; Yeasley, Kandace ~CO 2nd «'earsekhv idaho.gov> ‘Subject: Can u help us make contactw Nisha? ‘Se i heavily protected by her organitation, Need 15 min meting w her ike we had with you. Thanks Greg NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION Is INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE, IFYOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. 1F ‘YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.Wolff, Lori A. - CO 2nd Wolff tori ACO 2nd From: “Tura, Vicki (ACR) Sent: Sunday, Api 12,2015 342 PM To: Kunz, Greg ~CO 2nd; Yearsey, Kandace - CO 2nd: Wolf, Lori A. -CO 2nd Subject: Re: UIFSA 2008 Amendment Requirement Categories: ‘orange Category In our Notice of Intent to disapprove te state pan, we wll provide the state with 6 days to correct. This is our standard corrective action peri for plan nonconformity In addition, the state would have the right to appeal our final ‘determination to dlsapprove the state plan. Viek From: Turetsky, Ved (ACF) ‘Sent: Saturday, Api 11,2015 06:00 4 ‘To: KunzGe@dtw idaho.9ov'; "YearsleK@dwrJdaho.gov' ; "Wolf L@diwe.idaho gov Sulbjoct: Re: UIFSA 2008 Amencmen: Requirement Thanks From: Kunz, Greg - CO 2nd {malto:KaneG@ahw.daho. gov) ‘Sent: Saturday, Apel 11, 2015 05:52PM “To: Yeasley, Kandace -CO 2nd ; Wolf, Lori A. ~CO 2nd ; “Tuts, Vik (ACF); Kune, Greg ~CO 2nd Sulbject: RE: UIFSA 2008 Amendment Requirement Viel, am going to cll you. Kandee, Vicki and Loris, 1am going to initiate and connect us 24way cal at 405 MT about 15 minutes from now). IVthat fais wil end a conference number with alin detal to each of your cel phones. ‘Because we recently changed our conference call vendor the & way call my best bet ‘Thanks al Greg Kune 208-863-2044From: Yearsley, Kandace ~CO 2nd Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2015 3:40 PN “To: Kunz, Greg CO 2nd Subject: Fivd: UIFSA 2008 Amendmen: Requirement Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Turetky, Vici (NC]" Viki Turotky ACE Hhe ove Date: April 11,2015 at 3:37:24 PM MOT To: "YearseKi@dhwt idaho zor” Subject: Re: UIFSA 2008 Amendment Requirement (0, 4:05 itis, ay blackberry phone nos 202.567.1148. 1 there acl inno, or wil you call me? Vick From: Yeasley, Kandace ~CO 2nd {mato YearseKbdh idaho. coy] Sent: Saturday, Apr 14, 2015 05:10 PM “To: Turetsky, Vek (ACF) Subject: Re: UIFSA 2008 Amendment Requirement Viki, ‘That wll work fine, We wil lan on 4:05. you think that's to0 soon et me know and we can make it later. fm trying to coordinateas my boss also in California, ‘Tanks: Kandee Sent from my iPhone (On Apr 14,2015, at 3:03 PM, "Turtsky, Vick [ACF] wrote: Kandee, lam in the middle of soccer fel but wil be back to the house in about an hour. Ok? From: Yearsley, Kanface ~CO 2nd [malo Yearsekttchw cano.cov) Sent: Saturday, Ap 11, 2015 04:59 FM “To: Turetsky, Vieu (ACF) ‘Subject: Re UIFSA 2008 Amendment Requirement ‘Vicky thanks for your quick response. we ae definitely interested in talking with you on Monday morning at 6AM Pacific ime. ‘Would you be wiling to get on the phone with me and my division administrator for jst about 10 minutes today to just talk about where we are at ths point? if that's possible, could you end mea phone number and we will give you a cal at your convenience.‘Thanks! Kandee Sent from my iPhone ‘on Apr 24, 2015, at 242 PM, “Turetshy, Vicki (ACF) wrote: kandee We regret thatthe legislature didnot pass the UIFSA legislation. | arm in Calferaia now. (on Monday canbe available fora cll rom 6:00 am until about 10:00 pacific coast tme (2:00 to 1:00pm east coast time), and then late inthe afternoon (6 95 pt), but tht would be harder for the folks in DC. Iemight also be feasible for met yup to Idaho Wed or Thurs, and have others paone in |We are working on response to your eral ow. Vie From: Years, Kandace - CO 2nd [mailto Yearsek@ahw.daho.cov) ‘Sent: Saturday, Apri 11,2015 02:57 PM. “To: Tuetsky, Vid (ACF); Bonar, Donna (ACF; Miler, Anne (ACF); Matieson, Nancy (ACF) Ce: Aimstrony, Richard - DIRECTOR ; Barron, Russell S.~ CO 10th ; Taylor, David N.=CO 10th ; Shanahan, Thomas -CO 10th «; Frbing-Or, Ni = CO 20th ‘; Wolf, Loi A ~ CO 2nd “Wolfs dao. go>; Hammon, Jule - CO 2nd ; Kunz, Greg - OO 2nd Subject: UIFSA 2008 Amendment Requirement ‘Commissioner Tretsy, ‘The Idaho Legislature's 201 session ended at 136 a.m. this morning ‘without passhg the 2008 amendments to UIFSA. Through deta anc lengthy conversation with many partes, the Idaho Department of Heath and Welfare provided background, perspective, intent, and consequences related to this legislation. At this time we need to fully and concretely understand funding and timing details related to Idaho's failure to pas this legislation. This wll be critica to understand and plan for next steps in idaho. ‘Can you arrange an immediate conversation with OSCE leadership? We need toknow:+ How wil child Suppor funding be impacted and on what schedile? ‘+ How ill ther funding, tied to Child Supports funding, be impacted? “+ How wl specific federal tools, databases, and processes be Impacted and on what schedule? “+ What additonal impacts may result from our current state? ‘We need specific and tangible consequences documented so we can accurately dliseminate information, continue our discussions with lavumakers, asd simultaneously plan fr how to operate the Child Support Progam in Idaho. The Offic of Child Support Enforcement ‘communication related to these impacts ae essential for any next steps In idaho. tis imperative that we have an inital cussion as soon a possible, We respectuly request a meeting on Monday April 13 and could be availabe as exly a 9:00 am Eastern time. f yu can provide posible ‘meeting tres, we wil confirm a meeting time and logistics to ensure the appropiate individuals wil participate herein idaho. Thanks for your suppor, Kandee Yeasey Idaho 1-0 Director NOTICE: THS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIWIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE, IF YOU [ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS (OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU. RECEIVED. NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USEOF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(ES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION 15 PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC ‘TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIEY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC IESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE ‘CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT AKY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION Is PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC ‘TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED, NOTICE: THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE TRANSMISSION CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUT ON, OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER, [AND DELETE THE COPY YOU RECEIVED.