**Child Support XML Standards:**

**General Overview and Background**

**DRAFT**

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

November 7, 2002

Table of Contents

**Executive Summary [1](#__RefHeading___Toc24253846)**

Purpose of this Document [2](#__RefHeading___Toc24253847)

1.0 Introduction [3](#introduction)

1.1 Overview of XML [3](#overview-of-xml)

1.2 Courts/Child Support Enforcement Work Group Background
[4](#courtschild-support-enforcement-work-group-background)

2.0 The Courts/CSE Work Group Process
[4](#the-courtscse-work-group-process)

2.1 The Electronic Court Filing Standard
[5](#the-electronic-court-filing-standard)

3.0 Relationship Between ECFS and the Draft Child Support XML
Specification
[6](#relationship-between-ecfs-and-the-draft-child-support-xml-specification)

3.1 Generic Data Elements [7](#generic-data-elements)

4.0 Review Process for Recommended Standards
[7](#review-process-for-recommended-standards)

5.0 Implementation Requirements for Child Support Agencies
[8](#implementation-requirements-for-child-support-agencies)

Appendix A: Courts/CSE Work Group Membership
[9](#appendix-a-courtscse-work-group-membership)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc24253846 .anchor}Executive Summary

Electronic filing is the term used by courts to refer to the use of
electronic rather than paper documents in the judicial process. It
encompasses not only the delivery of documents to the court in
electronic form, but their use by judges, court staff, lawyers, other
participants in the case, the public, and ultimately their electronic
archival storage.

The courts' movement toward electronic filing promises great benefits to
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies, in that this medium allows
caseworkers to submit petitions and pleadings to courts and to receive
court orders in electronic format. However, the proliferation of
electronic filing applications poses a major potential problem for CSE
agencies and other users who must communicate with multiple court
systems that use disparate electronic filing applications. The process
is further complicated by the fact that courts and CSE agencies use
differing, and often incompatible operating systems, software, and
database structures for storing and retrieving information.

A technology that has been developed for the World Wide Web called
eXtensible Markup Language (XML) offers significant promise for
addressing the issues presented by the migration to electronic filings
and lack of interoperability among systems. XML provides a data
structure that allows communication of data across diverse platforms
that otherwise are unable to communicate with one another. In its
ultimate form, XML would allow CSE agencies to send and receive both the
documents and the data to populate their databases. If an agreed upon
XML standard were established for data needed for electronic
transactions between courts and CSE agencies, and all electronic filing
systems used that standard, then each CSE agency could easily interact
with courts and other CSE agencies.

LegalXML, a legal community consortium that sought to promote standards
for interoperability between their community and Web products by
producing specifications, developed a standard to serve that purpose.
The proposed Electronic Court Filing Standard (ECFS) 1.0, developed by
the CourtFiling sub-group of LegalXML, was intended to define all the
data needed for electronic filing applications.

A work group of representatives from CSE agencies and courts was
convened by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to analyze the proposed
standard. The purpose of this effort was to determine if the proposed
standard could support the data needed for submission of court filings
by CSE agencies. The work group determined that the ECFS could generally
support the needs of CSE agencies, with the addition of some specific
elements needed to fully transmit child support orders. The elements
identified by the work group are contained in the *Draft Child Support
XML Specification for IV-D Agency Review*, which accompanies this
document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc24253847 .anchor}Purpose of this Document

The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the work
completed by the Courts/Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Work Group,
whose charter was to examine the use of eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
as a means to exchange information between IV-D CSE agencies and the
courts. This work group was jointly sponsored by the Federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC) and was funded by an OCSE Special Improvement Project
grant.

This document presents a brief overview of XML and background on the
formation of the work group, including its objectives and process. It
also contains information on the Electronic Court Filing Standard
(ECFS), which was used as a starting point for the work group's efforts,
and the relationship between the ECFS and the child support
specifications that were proposed by the Courts/CSE Work Group.

# Introduction

This section provides a brief overview of eXtensible Markup Language
(XML), which has been recommended as a method for use by Child Support
Enforcement (CSE) agencies to electronically communicate with court
systems. It also contains background on the appointment of the
Courts/CSE Work Group to study the applicability of this technology to
support child support endeavors.

## Overview of XML

XML provides a common language with which data can be transmitted to and
from systems with differing hardware and software. It has been developed
cooperatively by the computer and communications industries in
association with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which seeks to
promote interoperability between Web products by establishing standards.
These standards are developed by work groups that focus on areas of
specialized application for XML, such as the judicial system.

Using XML requires defining the data elements to be transmitted and the
"tags" by which they are to be identified. For example, Address is a
data element that comprises sub-elements like AddressLine, AddressCity,
and AddressState. An example of a tag for the AddressLine sub-element is
\<AddressLine\>3405 Grove Avenue\</AddressLine\>.

XML is implemented by creating a document type definition (DTD), similar
to a data dictionary, that contains the elements and tags that have been
agreed upon for use throughout the user community -- in this case
courts. A DTD is a highly stylized document designed to be processed by
computers, not users, to recognize and utilize the information being
submitted.

For a CSE or court system to recognize the contents of a DTD, the fields
in the system's database must be mapped to the relevant tags in the XML
DTD. For example, if a CSE's database uses the field name PhoneNum for
telephone number and the DTD uses the tag \<Telephone\>, the XML tag
must be mapped to the field name to ensure that the data is placed in
the proper database field. Once the mapping is completed, the sending
computer translates the data from its unique structure into the XML
structure for transmission, and the receiving computer accepts the data
in the XML structure and translates it to its respective software
format.

## Courts/Child Support Enforcement Work Group Background

Recognizing the need for efficient and timely communication between CSE
agencies and courts, OCSE joined with the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC) and the LegalXML CourtFiling Work Group to establish
standards for exchanging child support information electronically
between state IV-D agencies and their respective court systems. The
project was funded by OCSE through a Special Improvement Project (SIP)
grant.

A Courts/Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Work Group was formed to
recommend these standards. The objectives of this work group were to:

-   Develop XML documents to request and receive court information such
    as hearing dates, docket, and court orders;

-   Develop XML documents to initiate court actions, e.g., establishment
    of a new child support order, modification of a current order, or
    enforcement of an existing court order;

-   Establish general guidelines for electronic filing of judicial
    documents, recognizing that other groups are working on electronic
    filing standards; and

-   Generate and reach a consensus on a set of standard CSE data
    elements.

# The Courts/CSE Work Group Process

The Courts/CSE Work Group worked in tandem with the LegalXML CourtFiling
Work Group to assess the applicability of the proposed Electronic Court
Filing Standard (ECFS), developed by the CourtFiling group, for the
exchange of child support information with courts. The Courts/CSE Work
Group was composed of 32 members from 13 states, 20 of whom were from
CSE agencies and 6 of whom were from court systems. Other work group
members were from OCSE, NCSC, and Lockheed Martin Corporation, which
maintains the OCSE Network. (See Appendix A for a list of the work group
members.)

The group's work on the project spanned a 6-month period, from August
2001 to February 2002. Work group participants were asked to contribute
documents, offer information on local practices, discuss data exchange
processes, review related standards development efforts and XML
applications, and help formulate draft standards for data exchange using
XML.

The following outlines the steps in the work group's process:

-   Collected and distributed states' documentation;

-   Studied and reviewed the proposed ECFS for its utility and
    applicability to child support requirements;

-   Generated and reviewed a draft of additional child support
    requirements and data elements;

-   Reviewed and discussed the draft, agreed on scope and the remaining
    project schedule, planned for a review by IV-D Directors;

-   Reviewed and agreed upon proposed modifications to ECFS requirements
    and data elements;

-   Reviewed and concurred upon a draft child support DTD and
    specifications;

-   Prepared and delivered the final DTD and specifications (see *Draft
    Child Support XML Specification for IV-D Agency Review*);

## The Electronic Court Filing Standard

The proposed court filing standard enables CSE agencies to file
documents with the court and to receive confirmation of the filing. A
second standard, the Query and Response Standard, which is under
development, will provide CSE agencies the capability to receive orders
and order information from the court.

The ECFS 1.0[^1] was the starting point for the Courts/CSE Work Group to
develop a child support standard. In developing this standard, the work
group's objective was to include all information a court would need to
create a new case and docket number on its case management information
system.

The diagram below illustrates a conceptual model of the electronic
filing architecture.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.313194444444444in"
height="2.046527777777778in"}

-   The CSE agency develops a package of information in XML (referred to
    as a LegalEnvelope) for submission to the court.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The CSE agency sends the LegalEnvelope via the Internet to an
    Electronic Filing Service Provider (EFSP).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The EFSP electronically forwards the filing to the court via the
    Internet.

-   At the court, an Electronic Filing Manager accepts the XML filing
    from the EFSP, analyzes (parses) the XML data structure, and passes
    the data to the court's Case Management System (CMS) via a CMS
    Application Program Interface (API), which translates the XML data
    structure (and the data it contains) into one that is
    "understandable" to the CMS.

# Relationship Between ECFS and the Draft Child Support XML Specification

The basic umbrella structure for ECFS is the LegalEnvelope. This is
essentially an electronic envelope that contains information sent by the
CSE agency to the court. The LegalEnvelope contains information about
who is submitting the filing and to whom responses should be returned.
The diagram below shows the general structure of the LegalEnvelope and
describes the information to be included for child support filings.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.829166666666667in"
height="2.0076388888888888in"}

**Section A:** **FilingInformation**

This section contains basic data about the filing, including the court
to which the filing is directed and the actors (specific people or
organizations) involved in the filing. It also includes data that will
allow the case to be identified, such as the CSE agency case number.
This data is normally included on forms submitted by CSE agencies.

**Section B:** **LeadDocument**

This section includes the CSE agency cover sheet, its petition,
affidavits, and any actual documents it files with the court. It also
contains specific data describing the court action requested, details of
the order request, payees, duration of the order, etc., about the child
support filings as detailed in the attached *Draft Child Support XML
Specification for IV-D Agency Review*.

**Section C:** **Actors**

The CSE agency will submit data describing and relating all persons,
organizations, and businesses related to the case. This area will
include children, custodial parents, attorneys, the CSE agency,
employers, and other general information that is now provided on forms
when a child support action is filed. The relationships of the people
and organizations to the case are identified, so it is possible to
indicate that a particular request for an order modification applies
only to one child, all children, or specific payees.

## Generic Data Elements

The ECFS is designed to contain generic data elements to minimize the
necessity of numerous specific coded values and terminologies. The
specific values required by a court or CSE are addressed in other
portions of the electronic filing architecture so that the standard DTD
can be used by many courts and CSE agencies.

An excellent example of the value of using a generic data element rather
than extensive lists of elements is the generic "actor" element. A
person's (or organization's) name appears in this data element. It can
be used in conjunction with the "role" data element, which contains
identifying criteria, to indicate whether the named actor is a custodial
parent, noncustodial parent (NCP), defendant, plaintiff, etc. Because
the generic data element allows for a wide range of identifying criteria
needed for child support information, it provides a high degree of
flexibility not currently possible with other data structures for
communication among disparate applications and entities.

# Review Process for Recommended Standards

The proposed child support standard for court filing is first being
distributed to IV-D agencies for review before submission to the
LegalXML CourtFiling Work Group[^2]. After vetting and consensus within
this group, the XML standards are submitted for formal review through
the court community. A portion of the review process includes test sites
and interoperability testing between actual courts and involved
agencies. The standard proceeds through a series of formal comment and
revision periods prior to acceptance as a "Recommended Standard."
However, throughout the review and comment process, CSE agencies and
courts may choose to experiment with using the emerging standards,
understanding that changes may be needed as the standards change.

# Implementation Requirements for Child Support Agencies

To ensure that multiple CSE agencies and courts can effectively use the
child support XML DTD for exchanging information, it will be necessary
to undertake further analysis to develop standard codes to ensure
compatibility. This work will be conducted by the LegalXML CourtFiling
Work Group, the Courts/CSE Work Group, and OCSE.

# Appendix A: Courts/CSE Work Group Membership {#appendix-a-courtscse-work-group-membership .unnumbered}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Courts/CSE Work Group                   
  ---------------------- ---------------- -------------------------------
  Member                 Courts/CSE       State

  Greg Arnold            Courts           Georgia

  Howard Baldwin         CSE              Texas

  Maurice Bedford        Lockheed Martin  Contractor to OCSE

  Terrie Bousquin        Consultant       New Mexico

  Pauline Burton         CSE              Colorado

  Jeffrey Cohen          CSE              Vermont

  John Davenport         Courts           Pennsylvania

  Judge David T. Emerson Courts           Georgia

  Jerry Garland          Courts           Georgia

  Robin Gibson           Courts           Missouri

  Woody Gill             CSE              Texas

  Amy B. Gober           OCSE             Office of Child Support
                                          Enforcement

  Craig Goellner         CSE              Colorado

  Alisha A. Griffin      CSE              New Jersey

  Sharon Grose           CSE              Minnesota

  Phil Herndon           CSE              New Mexico

  Theresa Kaiser         CSE              Maryland

  Dale Kasparek          NCSC             National Center for State
                                          Courts

  George Laufert         OCSE             Office of Child Support
                                          Enforcement

  Janis Mahaney          CSE              Texas

  Cindy Moss             CSE              Georgia

  Frank Murray           CSE              New Mexico

  Debra Nesbit           CSE              Georgia

  Daniel Richard         CSE              Pennsylvania

  Robert Roper           Courts           Colorado

  Ben Silva              CSE              New Mexico

  Helen Smith            OCSE             Office of Child Support
                                          Enforcement

  Nancy Smith            CSE              Texas

  Meg Sollenberger       CSE              Washington

  Marie Thiesen          CSE              Iowa

  Carl Tiller            CSE              Washington

  Diana Williamson       CSE              Texas
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[^1]: The current version (1.1) is available on the LegalXML CourtFiling
    web page at
    <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalxml-courtfiling/>

[^2]: Since this paper was originally drafted, LegalXML's structure has
    changed. The organizational framework for formal agreement on
    standards is in flux. The information set forth here should be
    understood as the general steps necessary for acceptance of an XML
    standard.