89–115 

111TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–2 

HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY MAINTENANCE (TREATY DOC. 110–21) 

JANUARY 22, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. KERRY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany Treaty Doc. 110–21] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the 

Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support 

and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, adopted at The Hague on 

November 23, 2007 (Treaty Doc. 110–21), having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with two reservations and three 

declarations as indicated in the resolution of advice and consent, 

and recommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to 

ratification thereof, as set forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2 

III. Summary of Convention ................................................................................ 3 

IV. Entry Into Force ............................................................................................ 6 

V. Implementing Legislation ............................................................................. 6 

VI. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 7 

VII. Committee Recommendations and Comments ............................................ 7 

VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 9 

VIII. Annex I.—Transcript of October 6, 2009 Hearing ...................................... 11 

I. PURPOSE

The object of this Convention, as provided for in Article 1, is to 

‘‘ensure the effective international recovery of child support and 

other forms of family maintenance.’’ The Convention seeks to 

achieve this purpose by providing rules that will, for the first time 

on a worldwide scale, create uniform, simple, and inexpensive procedures for the establishment, recognition, and enforcement of child 

support and family maintenance obligations in international cases. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

1The United States has declared each of the following to be a ‘‘foreign reciprocating country:’’ 

Australia, certain Canadian provinces and territories, the Czech Republic, El Salvador, Finland, 

Hungary, Israel, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

II. BACKGROUND

A. DOMESTIC CHILD SUPPORT CASES

The current U.S. Child Support Enforcement (CSE) System, enacted in 1975, is a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social 

Security Act), administered by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). Its purpose is to help strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on a continuing basis, and by helping some families remain self-sufficient 

and off public assistance. The federal CSE program establishes a 

comprehensive set of requirements with which U.S. states must 

comply as a condition for receiving matching federal funds for a 

state’s CSE program. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands operate CSE programs. 

Under this system, U.S. states are required to enact and implement the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (‘‘UIFSA’’), which 

governs jurisdiction to hear interstate proceedings aimed at establishing, recognizing, enforcing, or modifying a child support order. 

Under UIFSA’s ‘‘one-order system,’’ only one state’s order governs, 

at any time, an obligor’s support obligation to any child. All U.S. 

states have implemented some form of this uniform act. 

B. FOREIGN CHILD SUPPORT CASES

Both the federal government and individual states have entered 

into arrangements with other nations to facilitate the recovery of 

child support owed to residents of the United States. Under section 

459A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C § 659A(a), the Secretary 

of State can declare another nation to be a ‘‘foreign reciprocating 

country’’ if it has ‘‘established, or undertakes to establish, procedures for the establishment and enforcement of child support owed 

to persons who are residents in the United States.’’ 1 Even if there 

is not a federal-level international agreement or arrangement for 

child support enforcement, there may be arrangements between 

U.S. states and countries that are authorized pursuant to UIFSA. 

There are also existing multilateral child support conventions 

that date back a number of years. However, the United States 

chose not to join those treaties principally because they contain jurisdictional provisions that are not consistent with U.S. law. As discussed further below, the jurisdictional provisions of this Convention have been drafted to avoid similar problems. 

The United States actively participated in the negotiation of the 

Convention, which was adopted unanimously by the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 23, 2007. These 

efforts resulted in an instrument that includes many procedures 

that are already the norm in the United States and that are largely 

consistent with existing U.S. law and practice in the child support 

enforcement area. 

A primary benefit of the Convention for the United States is reciprocity. While United States courts already enforce foreign child 

support orders in many cases regardless of whether the United 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

States has a child support agreement with the foreign country at 

issue, many countries do not do so in the absence of a treaty obligation. Accordingly, ratification would enable more U.S. children to 

receive the financial support they need from both parents, whether 

they reside in the United States or in a foreign country that is a 

party to the Convention. 

Because HHS and state child enforcement authorities already act 

in a manner consistent with the obligations of the Convention, the 

administration does not anticipate that the Convention will impose 

additional financial or administrative burdens on the federal or 

state governments. The Convention will not affect intrastate or 

interstate child support cases in the United States since it applies 

only to cases where the custodial parent and child live in one country and the non-custodial parent in another. 

The committee received statements of support for U.S. accession 

to the Convention from a broad range of concerned stakeholders in 

the United States, including the child support community, state organizations like the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the Uniform Law Commission and American Bar Association. 

III. SUMMARY OF CONVENTION

A. MAJOR PROVISIONS

A detailed article-by-article analysis of the Convention may be 

found in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the 

President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 110–21. 

A summary of the key provisions is set forth below. 

Intended to ensure the effective international recovery of child support payments 

Article 1 indicates that the Convention is intended to ensure the 

effective international recovery of child support payments and 

other forms of family maintenance primarily through: (1) establishing a comprehensive system of cooperation between the authorities of the States Parties; (2) making available applications for the 

establishment of maintenance decisions; (3) providing for the recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions; and (4) requiring effective measures for the prompt enforcement of maintenance 

decisions. 

Scope of the Convention 

Article 2 provides that the Convention—including its requirements that a country recognize and enforce certain foreign child 

support decisions—covers decisions relating to children under the 

age of 21, regardless of the parents’ marital status. Article 2(2) allows a State Party to reserve the right to limit the Convention’s application to individuals under the age of 18. The administration 

does not recommend that the United States make a reservation 

pursuant to Article 2(2) because many U.S. states recognize support obligations until age 21. Further, U.S. states, including those 

for which support obligations end at 18, will recognize and enforce 

a decision from another state for a child up to 21. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

Parties designate a Central Authority to facilitate implementation of 

the Convention 

The Convention will facilitate the coordination and enforcement 

of international child support cases between States Parties through 

the efforts of Central Authorities. Article 4 of the Convention provides that each State Party ‘‘shall designate a Central Authority to 

discharge the duties that are imposed by the Convention on such 

an authority.’’ The United States intends to designate HHS as its 

Central Authority. Article 5 lists the general, non-delegable functions of Central Authorities, which HHS cannot delegate to individual U.S. state child support agencies. Conversely, Article 6 lists 

the specific functions that Central Authorities must perform, although they may designate other ‘‘public bodies’’ to perform these 

tasks. HHS would delegate most of the Article 6 responsibilities to 

state child support agencies, which currently perform most of the 

day-to-day management of the child support caseload in the United 

States. 

The administration has indicated that the administrative cooperation requirements for Central Authorities under the Treaty 

are similar to those required for interstate child support agency activities performed under the existing domestic child support enforcement system. Accordingly, the administration informed the 

committee that the activities related to Central Authorities mandated under the Treaty would not measurably increase costs in the 

short term, and that it would not expect significant cost increases 

within the next decade. 

Effective access to Convention procedures and free legal assistance 

for child support applications 

Articles 14–17 address the cost of services, including legal assistance. Article 14 establishes the general standard for ‘‘effective access to procedures’’ under the Convention, with a special emphasis 

on ensuring ‘‘free legal assistance,’’ unless it is not required because the country has simple procedures and provides necessary 

services free of charge. The legal assistance ‘‘shall not be less than 

those available in equivalent domestic cases.’’ Article 15(1) specifically requires the requested State to provide free legal assistance 

with respect to child support applications made through Central 

Authorities. However, under Article 15(2), States Parties may 

refuse to provide free legal assistance if the application is on the 

merits ‘‘manifestly unfounded.’’ Article 16 provides an exception to 

Article 15(1) in that a State may make free legal assistance subject 

to a ‘‘test based on an assessment of the means of the child.’’ But 

under Article 16(3), the requested State may not look behind the 

applicant’s statement that the child meets the means test unless it 

reasonably believes that the statement is inaccurate. 

In the United States, state child support agencies and the federal 

government already provide all services mandated under the treaty, including provision of any necessary legal assistance in international cases, free of charge, as required under section 454(32) of 

the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 654(32). 

Recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions 

The Convention requires countries to recognize and enforce 

maintenance decisions from other countries under specified cirVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:59 Jan 23, 2010 Jkt 089115 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER002.XXX ER002

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

cumstances. Article 20(1) provides that a maintenance decision 

made in one State Party ‘‘shall be recognised and enforced in other 

Contracting States’’ if the first State’s jurisdiction was based on 

one of the grounds enumerated in the Article. Under Article 20(2), 

a State may make a reservation with respect to three of the bases 

of jurisdiction discussed in Article 20(1): creditor-based jurisdiction, 

jurisdiction based on written agreement, or jurisdiction based on a 

matter of personal status or parental responsibility. If a State 

makes such a reservation, it shall nevertheless, pursuant to Article 

20(3), ‘‘recognise and enforce a decision if its law would in similar 

factual circumstances confer or would have conferred jurisdiction 

on its authorities to make such a decision.’’ 

This opportunity to opt out of certain bases of jurisdiction allows 

a State Party to avoid assuming enforcement obligations that 

would be inconsistent with its domestic laws. The three bases of jurisdiction noted above, Article 20(1)(c), (e), and (f), are not consistent with relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the 

due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the 

committee and the executive branch recommend that the United 

States make a reservation with regard to these jurisdictional bases. 

Under Article 20(4), if a State Party cannot recognize a decision because of a reservation under Article 20, and the debtor is habitually resident in that country, the State Party must, with few exceptions, ‘‘take all appropriate measures to establish a decision for 

the benefit of the creditor.’’ 

Article 22 provides the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of a maintenance decision. One ground for refusing recognition under Article 22 is that such ‘‘recognition and enforcement 

of the decision is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of 

the State addressed.’’ The State Department’s submittal letter provides one example of a ground on which this public policy exception 

could be invoked: ‘‘a U.S. competent authority could decline to recognize and enforce a decision against a left-behind U.S. parent in 

an abduction case where the child had been wrongfully taken or retained, on the grounds that recognition and enforcement of such a 

decision would be manifestly incompatible with the U.S. public policy of discouraging international parental child abduction.’’ The 

procedure for an application for recognition and enforcement is outlined in Articles 23–26, which aim to provide a streamlined and 

uniform set of procedures for recognition and enforcement. 

The enforcement of maintenance obligations ‘‘shall take place in 

accordance with the law of the State’’ being requested to recognize 

the child support order, pursuant to Article 32. When a decision 

has been declared enforceable, it shall proceed ‘‘without the need 

for further action by the applicant.’’ This requirement is a significant benefit given that other states often require an additional proceeding before their authorities will takes steps to collect the debt 

owed to the applicant. The requested State under Article 33 must 

provide at least the ‘‘same range of enforcement methods for cases 

under the Convention as are available in domestic cases.’’ 

Confidentiality and disclosure of information 

Articles 38 through 40 set forth rules concerning the protection 

of personal information, confidentiality, and the disclosure of information. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

2The treaties replaced by the Convention are the United Nations Convention on the Recovery 

Abroad of Maintenance of 20 June 1956, the Hague Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations, and the Hague 

Convention of 15 April 1958 concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating 

to maintenance obligations towards children. The United States is not a party to these treaties. 

B. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Articles 48–52 provide a framework for the relationship between 

the Convention and other agreements and arrangements in this 

area. Pursuant to Articles 48 and 49 and subject to Article 56(2), 

as between States Parties, the Convention replaces three previous 

multilateral treaties in so far as their scope of application coincides 

with the scope of application of the Convention.2

Article 50 clarifies that the Convention does not affect the Hague 

Convention of 1 March 1954 on civil procedure, the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, and the 

Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence 

Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. 

Article 51 specifies that the Convention does not affect pre-existing international instruments to which Contracting States are Parties and which contain provisions on matters governed by the Convention. Similarly, the Convention does not preclude the negotiation of new instruments that may overlap in scope with the Convention so long as the instruments are consistent with the object 

and purpose of the Convention and do not affect application of the 

Convention with respect to other States Parties. Accordingly, the 

United States may continue to apply existing bilateral child enforcement instruments, and the United States may conclude additional instruments after joining the Convention. 

Finally, under Article 52, application of a bilateral or multilateral instrument that provides more effective recovery mechanisms 

than the Convention is permissible under certain circumstances. 

IV. ENTRY INTO FORCE

In accordance with Article 60, the Convention will enter into 

force ‘‘on the first day of the month following the expiration of 

three months after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval. . . . ’’ There have been no deposits to 

date. The administration has indicated that Canada, Australia, 

Norway, and all member states of the European Community support the Convention and are actively considering joining. 

V. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

As noted above, the Convention is largely consistent with current 

U.S. federal and state law and practice in the child support enforcement area. As a result, only minimal changes to U.S. law 

would be required to allow for implementation of the Convention. 

The requisite changes would be achieved through adoption of an 

amended version of UIFSA by states and other relevant jurisdictions, as well as through conforming amendments to Title IV of the 

Social Security Act. 

In July 2008, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) approved model state implementing 

legislation for the Convention through proposed amendments to the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

UIFSA, referred to as UIFSA 2008. The Bush administration submitted a legislative proposal to the 110th Congress to make the 

conforming amendments necessary for full implementation of the 

Convention, but no congressional action was taken on that proposal. The Obama administration re-submitted this proposal (with 

minor technical modifications) on October 1, 2009. The administration has informed the committee that it does not intend to deposit 

an instrument of ratification before all of the U.S. states have 

adopted UIFSA 2008. 

VI. COMMITTEE ACTION

The committee held a public hearing on the Convention on October 6, 2009. Testimony was received by Mr. Keith Loken, Assistant 

Legal Adviser for the Office of Private International Law at the Department of State; Ms. Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner in the Office 

of Child Support Enforcement at the Department of Health and 

Human Services; The Honorable Battle Robinson, Uniform Law 

Commissioner and Retired Judge in the Family Court of Delaware; 

and Ms. Alisha Griffin, Assistant Director of the Office of Child 

Support Services in the New Jersey Department of Human Services. A transcript of this hearing is included at Annex I of this report. 

On November 17, 2009, the committee considered the Convention, and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a 

quorum present and without objection. 

VII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Relations considers the Convention to 

be an important step in efforts to ensure that children in the 

United States receive the financial support they need from a parent 

living abroad. The administration has estimated that there are 

over 15 million child support cases in the United States, including 

150,000 international cases, and that the number of international 

cases is likely to increase. The Convention will serve as a useful 

tool in resolving these international cases: it will not add measurable financial burdens to HHS or state governments and will allow 

parents in the United States to benefit from the same streamlined 

procedures that are available to those living abroad and seeking to 

enforce child support decisions in this country. The committee believes that joining the Convention is beneficial to American children and families and urges the Senate to act promptly to give advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention, as set forth 

in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. Consistent with the executive branch’s stated intention, the 

Committee expects that the executive branch will not deposit an instrument of ratification for the Convention until all U.S. states and 

other relevant jurisdictions have adopted the necessary legislation 

to implement the Convention. 

A. RESOLUTION

The committee has included in the resolution of advice and consent two reservations and three declarations. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

Reservations 

The first proposed reservation ensures, pursuant to Articles 20 

and 62 of the Convention, that the United States will not be obligated to recognize and enforce maintenance obligation decisions 

when their jurisdictional bases would violate U.S. constitutional 

due process standards. Specifically, the United States would not 

recognize or enforce decisions rendered pursuant to any of the jurisdictional bases set forth in subparagraphs 1(c), 1(e), and 1(f) of 

Article 20. 

The second proposed reservation provides that, pursuant to Articles 44 and 62 of the Convention, the United States will not be obligated to accept communications in the French language from the 

central authorities of other nations to the U.S. Central Authority. 

Declarations 

The proposed declaration in Section 3 of the recommended resolution of advice and consent, clarifies that, for the United States, 

the Convention would apply only to the U.S. jurisdictions participating in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act: the fifty U.S. states, 

the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. The Convention would therefore not apply to American 

Samoa, the Northern Marianas, or other U.S. territories that do 

not participate in Title IV-D. The declaration would be made pursuant to Articles 61 and 63 of the Convention and would be included in the instrument of ratification. 

Section 4 of the recommended resolution of advice and consent 

includes two proposed declarations. The first proposed declaration 

relates to Article 55 of the Convention, which sets out procedures 

for the amendment of certain forms annexed to the Convention. 

The committee and the executive branch share the expectation that 

amendments to the forms would generally be technical and administrative in nature and would not, in the normal course, require the 

advice and consent of the Senate. If a proposed or adopted amendment were to go beyond a technical and administrative amendment, the administration has committed to consult with the committee in a timely manner regarding the question of whether advice and consent is warranted. Under such circumstances, the executive branch could make appropriate use of the ‘‘reservation’’ procedure described in Article 55(3) to prevent an amendment from entering into force for the United States before the conclusion of consultations with the committee. The proposed declaration clarifies 

that the executive branch may make such a reservation without 

the approval of the Senate. 

The second proposed declaration in Section 4 states that the Convention is not self-executing. In the past, the committee generally 

included such statements in the committee’s report, but in light of 

the Supreme Court decision in Medellı ́n v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 

(2008), the committee has determined that a clear statement in the 

Resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the committee’s 

views on this matter can be found in Section VIII of Executive Report 110–12. 

Neither of the proposed declarations in section 4 would be included in the instrument of ratification. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 

VIII. TEXT OF RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO

RATIFICATION

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO TWO RESERVATIONS AND THREE DECLARATIONS 

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Hague 

Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and 

Other Forms of Family Maintenance (the ‘‘Convention’’), adopted at 

The Hague on November 23, 2007 (Treaty Doc. 110–21), subject to 

the reservations of section 2, the declaration of section 3, and the 

declarations of section 4. 

SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following reservations, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification: 

(1) In accordance with Articles 20 and 62 of the Convention, 

the United States of America makes a reservation that it will 

not recognize or enforce maintenance obligation decisions rendered on the jurisdictional bases set forth in subparagraphs 

1(c), 1(e), and 1(f) of Article 20 of the Convention. 

(2) In accordance with Articles 44 and 62 of the Convention, 

the United States of America makes a reservation that it objects to the use of the French language in communications between the Central Authority of any other Contracting State 

and the Central Authority of the United States of America. 

SECTION 3. DECLARATION 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declaration, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification: 

The United States of America declares, in accordance with 

Articles 61 and 63 of the Convention, that for the United 

States of America the Convention shall extend only to the following: all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

SECTION 4. DECLARATIONS 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declarations: 

(1) Article 55 of the Convention sets forth a special procedure 

for the amendment of the forms annexed to the Convention. In 

the event that the United States of America does not want a 

particular amendment to the forms adopted in accordance with 

Article 55 to enter into force for the United States of America 

on the first day of the seventh calendar month after the date 

of its communication by the depositary to all parties, the Executive Branch may by notification in writing to the depositary 

make a reservation, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, with respect to that amendment and without the approval of the Senate. 

(2) This Convention is not self-executing. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(11) 

HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT 

AND OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY MAINTENANCE (TREATY DOC. 110–21) 

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin [presiding] and Risch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Welcome. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. 

I want to thank Senator Kerry for allowing me to chair this hearing. I consider this hearing to be a very important hearing as to 

whether the United States should join the 2007 Hague Convention 

on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms 

of Family Maintenance. 

We all know that many children in the United States and 

throughout the world are raised by a single parent. Often these 

parents struggle to make ends meet, to provide for their children. 

And the absence of child support from a noncustodial parent makes 

these challenges much, much greater. 

Thankfully, here in the United States we have a robust enforcement framework that helps ensure payment of child support obligations. That system and framework is carried out through our 

States and through the role of the Federal Government. 

The challenges in ensuring appropriate support for children are 

even greater when the noncustodial parent does not reside in the 

United States. Joining this Convention would help ensure that the 

mere fact of a parent living abroad does not prevent a child in the 

United States from receiving needed support. 

The Convention was adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 23, 2007, and was signed by 

the United States on the same day. It creates a set of uniform procedures for the establishment, recognition, and enforcement of child 

support decisions in international cases, and provides a framework 

for cooperation among the child support authorities in contracting 

States. It also requires that each party to the Convention designate 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

a central authority to discharge its duties under the Convention. 

While the Department of Health and Human Services would be the 

central authority for the United States, most responsibility under 

this treatment—treaty—would be delegated to State child enforcement authorities. 

A primary benefit of joining the Convention, for the United 

States, is reciprocity. Currently, U.S. courts and child support 

agencies often enforce foreign child support requests, regardless of 

whether the United States has a child support agreement with that 

foreign country. We try to do what’s right in the interests of the 

child, and we will enforce the orders if we believe it’s in the best 

interests of the child. In contrast, many countries will not enforce 

U.S. child support decisions absent a treaty obligation. The reciprocal obligations created by the Convention provide the fastest and 

most effective way to ensure the child support system works for our 

citizens seeking to support judgments abroad as well as those seeking to support judgments in the United States. 

Because the Convention builds upon and embraces existing U.S. 

child support enforcement practices, only minimal changes to U.S. 

law, both Federal and State, would be required before the U.S. 

could join the treaty. 

Further, while joining the Convention will enhance our viability 

to achieve positive results in international child support cases, it 

would not change our child support enforcement system in domestic cases. HHS has estimated that there are over 15 million child 

support cases in the United States, and a growing number of cases 

involve a parent who lives abroad. In my State of Maryland alone, 

there were over 255,000 pending child support cases in fiscal year 

2008. 

By providing advice and consent to this Convention, the Senate 

will help ensure that children in the United States receive the financial support they need to live healthy, excel in school, and pursue the American dream. That is why the Convention has widespread support from the child support communities, State organizations like the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of 

State Court Administrators, and the Uniform Law Commission and 

the American Bar Association. And that is why I strongly support 

Senate advice and consent for this Convention. 

We are fortunate today to have four witnesses that are very 

knowledgeable about the treaty and child support enforcement efforts. On the first panel, we have Keith Loken, assistant legal adviser in the Office of Private International Law at the State Department, and Vicki Turetsky, Commission of the Office of Child 

Support Enforcement at Health and Human Services. 

On the second panel, we have the Honorable Judge Battle Robinson, a former Delaware family court judge, who will testify on behalf of the Uniform Law Commission; and Alisha Griffin, the director of Child Support Enforcement Activities in New Jersey, who 

will give us an insight on how U.S. ratification of the Convention 

will help state child support efforts. 

I would like to welcome each of our guests today. And I thank 

you very much for making yourself available for this committee 

hearing. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 

We’ll operate with two panels. I’ve already introduced the first 

panel’s two guests. We’ll start with, Mr. Loken. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH LOKEN, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISOR, 

OFFICE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. LOKEN. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

I’m honored to testify today in support of the Hague Convention 

on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms 

of Family Maintenance. 

The Convention was negotiated over a period of several years in 

the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and the views 

of concerned domestic stakeholders were taken into account. The 

U.S. delegation to the negotiations included, in addition to representatives of the State Department and the Department of 

Health and Human Services, several experts in the field. Representatives of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, the International Bar Association, and other groups, participated in the negotiation as observers. In addition, throughout the 

negotiations, a number of public meetings were held to obtain 

views from the private sector and state-level officials. As a result, 

there is broad support for the Convention among public officials 

and private parties who are involved in the enforcement of child 

support orders in the United States. 

Why is this Convention needed? In an era of globalization and 

increased international movement of individuals, it is increasingly 

common to find a custodial parent and child in one country and the 

noncustodial parent in another. There are currently an estimated 

150,000 international child support cases in the United States. 

We’ve learned that it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce legal 

obligations abroad, relating to child support, without a treaty basis. 

There are existing multilateral child support conventions that 

date back a number of years, the most recent being more than 35 

years old. But, the United States is not a party to them, for various 

reasons, for example, because the jurisdictional provisions are inconsistent with U.S. law, or because we consider them ineffective, 

in that they did not require parties to establish new child support 

orders or to provide cost-free services. The new Convention remedies these deficiencies. 

Why is this Convention good for the United States? A major benefit is reciprocity. Although U.S. courts routinely, on the basis of 

comity or otherwise, recognize and enforce foreign child support orders, the same is typically not true of foreign courts. Many foreign 

countries will not process foreign child support requests in the absence of a treaty obligation. Under this Convention, more U.S. children will be able to obtain the financial support they need from a 

noncustodial parent located overseas. 

The United States obtained its key objectives in the negotiation 

of this Convention. 

First, scope: The Convention addresses maintenance obligations 

arising from a parent-child relationship and spousal support in a 

manner that is consistent with existing mechanisms under Federal 

and State law in the United States. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
14 

Second, jurisdiction: Jurisdictional rules in the U.S. differ from 

those in most other countries. The Convention sets forth various 

mandatory bases for assertion of jurisdiction over the debtor parent, but permits parties to take a reservation with respect to certain bases, including creditor-based jurisdiction. The executive 

branch recommends that should the U.S. ratify the Convention, it 

takes such a reservation, as this would be consistent with applicable U.S. jurisprudence. 

Third, establishment: The Convention not only addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign child support orders, but also 

the establishment of a new child support decision in the requested 

State, when that proves necessary. This obligation to establish a 

new decision includes an obligation to establish paternity, where 

needed. 

And fourth, costs: We anticipate that a majority of the requests 

under the Convention, will occur via the central authority mechanism. Because applicants who rely on government child support enforcement mechanisms generally have limited financial resources, 

it was vital to U.S. negotiators that the Convention require that assistance in cases processed through the central authorities generally be provided free of charge. 

How will this Convention be implemented in the United States? 

The Convention would be implemented through a combination of 

amendments to Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act and 

adoption by the States of amendments already approved by the 

Uniform Law Commission to the relevant uniform state law, the 

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. 

It is proposed that HHS would be the central authority under the 

Convention. Since 1975, HHS has operated a Federal Parent Locator Service that will facilitate locating noncustodial parents and referring foreign cases to the appropriate state agency, to provide 

services. Also, since 1996, HHS has acted as the central authority, 

under bilateral agreements, in arrangements with other countries 

on child support enforcement. It has the expertise, the established 

administrative processes, and close relations with child support enforcement officials in all of the states. The State Department and 

HHS have cooperated effectively for many years on international 

child support matters. 

Finally, will other countries join the Convention? We expect so. 

The member states of the European Community strongly support 

the Convention. The European Commission has tabled, with the 

European Council, a draft proposal to ratify the Convention. It is 

anticipated that all the member states, and the EC itself, will join 

together, perhaps, in 2011. Canada, also, is a strong supporter of 

the Convention, and we understand that the Federal Government 

there is working with the provinces and territories on implementation under Canada’s federal system. We understand that other 

countries, such as Norway and Australia, are actively considering 

joining. 

The international community is waiting to see what the United 

States does. U.S. ratification would send a strong signal to others. 

Thank you, Senator Cardin, for the opportunity to present our 

views on this important treaty. We urge that the committee give 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
15 

the Convention prompt and favorable consideration, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loken follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH LOKEN

Senator Cardin and Members of the Committee: I am honored to testify today in 

support of the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support 

and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (‘‘Child Support Convention’’). The Convention was negotiated over a period of several years in the Hague Conference on 

Private International Law, the source also of the Hague Child Abduction and Child 

Adoption Conventions to which the United States is a party. The views of concerned 

domestic stakeholders were taken into account. The U.S. delegation to the negotiations included, in addition to representatives of the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), several experts in the field. Representatives of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, the International Bar Association, and other groups participated in the negotiations as observers. In addition, throughout the negotiations, a number of public meetings were 

held to obtain views from the private sector and state level officials. As a result, 

there is broad support for the Convention among public officials and private parties 

who are involved in the enforcement of child support orders in the United States. 

Why is this Convention needed? In an era of globalization and increased international movement of individuals, it is increasingly common to find the custodial 

parent and child in one country and the non-custodial parent in another. There are 

currently an estimated 150,000 international child support cases in the United 

States. We have learned that it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce legal obligations abroad relating to child support without a treaty basis. There are existing multilateral child support conventions that date back a number of years (the most recent is more than 35 years old), but the United States is not a party to them for 

various reasons, for example, because the jurisdictional provisions were not consistent with U.S. law, or because we considered them ineffective in that they did 

not require parties to establish new child support orders or to provide cost-free services. The new Convention remedies these deficiencies. 

Why is this Convention good for the United States? A major benefit is reciprocity. 

Although U.S. courts routinely, on the basis of comity or otherwise, recognize and 

enforce foreign child support orders, the same is typically not true of foreign courts. 

Many foreign countries will not process foreign child support requests in the absence of a treaty obligation. The United States has entered into bilateral agreements 

and arrangements with several countries. These instruments will remain in effect. 

This Convention expands upon the provisions of such instruments and includes several procedural improvements that should simplify the process of implementing 

child support decisions across borders. Under this Convention, more U.S. children 

would be able to obtain the financial support they need from a non-custodial parent 

located overseas. The United States obtained its key objectives in the negotiation 

of the Convention: 

• Scope of the Convention: The Convention addresses maintenance obligations 

arising from a parent-child relationship and spousal support in a manner that 

is consistent with existing mechanisms under federal and state law in the 

United States. 

• Jurisdiction: Jurisdictional rules in the United States differ from those in most 

other countries. The Convention sets forth various mandatory bases for assertion of jurisdiction over the debtor parent, but permits parties to take a reservation with respect to creditor-based jurisdiction, jurisdiction based on a written 

agreement, or jurisdiction based on a matter of personal status or parental responsibility. The Executive Branchrecommends that, should the United States 

ratify the Convention, it take such a reservation, as this would be consistent 

with applicable U.S. jurisprudence. 

• Establishment: The Convention not only addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign child support orders, but also the establishment of a new child 

support decision in the requested State where that is necessary, for example, 

where the requested State does not recognize the jurisdictional basis of a child 

support order issued in the requesting State. This obligation to establish a new 

decision includes an obligation to establish paternity, where necessary. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
16 

• Costs: While the Convention provides a mechanism available to foreign applicants who want to approach directly the relevant court or other authority, we 

anticipate that a majority of the requests will occur via the Central Authorities. 

Because applicants who rely on government child support enforcement mechanisms generally have limited financial resources, it was vital to U.S. negotiators 

that the Convention require that assistance in cases processed through Central 

Authorities generally be provided free of charge. 

How will this Convention be implemented in the United States? The Convention 

would be implemented through a combination of amendments to part D of title IV 

of the Social Security Act and adoption by the states of amendments, already approved by the Uniform Law Commission, to the relevant uniform state law, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). It is proposed that HHS would be the 

Central Authority under the Convention. Since 1975, HHS has operated a Federal 

Parent Locator Service that will facilitate locating non-custodial parents and referring foreign cases to the appropriate state agency to provide services. Also, since 

1996, HHS has acted as the Central Authority under bilateral agreements and arrangements with other countries on child support enforcement. It has the expertise, 

established administrative processes, and close relations with child support enforcement officials in all of the states. The State Department and HHS have cooperated 

effectively for many years on international child support matters. 

Will other countries join the Convention? We expect so. The member states of the 

European Community (EC) strongly support the Convention. The European Commission has tabled with the European Council a draft proposal to ratify the Convention. We understand that the substance of the Convention presents a situation of 

mixed competency for the EC, in that the Commission has exclusive competency 

over some matters covered by the Convention, and the member states have competency over others. Thus, it is anticipated that all the member states and the EC 

would join together, perhaps in 2011. Canada also is a strong supporter of the Convention and we understand that the federal government there is working with the 

provinces and territories on implementation under Canada’s federal system. We understand that other countries such as Norway and Australia are actively considering 

joining. The international community is waiting to see what the United States does; 

U.S. ratification would send a strong signal to others. The first post-adoption conference of the potential parties, known as a Special Commission of the Hague Conference, will be held in November to discuss ways to make implementation of the 

Convention more efficient. We will use that opportunity to urge other countries to 

sign and ratify the Convention. 

Thank you, Senator Cardin and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity 

to present our views on this important treaty. We urge that the Committee give the 

Convention prompt and favorable consideration. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Turetsky? 

STATEMENT OF VICKI TURETSKY, COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. TURETSKY. Senator Cardin, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child 

Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. This Convention 

establishes a new and more effective international system for ensuring the receipt of child support. 

In 2008, the Child Support Enforcement Program served 15 million cases, or 17 million children, and collected over $26 billion in 

support payments. Ratification of the Convention will mean that 

more children living in the United States will receive the financial 

support they need and deserve from their parents, even when one 

of their parents lives in another country. 

The United States actively participated in the development of the 

Convention from the beginning of negotiations in 2003. The United 

States worked to ensure that a treaty would be compatible with our 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
17 

system of jurisprudence and patterned closely after the best procedures available in the United States, as well as other countries 

with advanced child support enforcement procedures. The goal was 

a convention process that was comprehensive, consistent, simple, 

expedited, essentially cost-free, and fair. The final text of the 

Hague Convention creates just such a system. 

We do not anticipate an increase in the costs of the program as 

a result of the Convention, because the United States already provides extensive services in international cases. And we’ll handle 

such actions using the extensive automated data processing systems that already are in place. However, we anticipate a significant 

improvement in the level of assistance by other countries when the 

Convention is fully implemented, resulting in more child support 

paid to custodial parents and their children living in the United 

States. 

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the responsibility, as the United States central authority, to facilitate support 

enforcement in these cases. And we are fully prepared and committed to continue providing oversight, assistance, and coordination 

of such activities under the new Convention. 

International child support enforcement under the Convention 

will operate in a manner very similar to existing interstate processes in the United States. The Convention establishes procedures 

for administrative cooperation which will greatly improve the efficiency of processing in coming international cases and, we anticipate, also will open many new avenues for American citizens seeking enforcement of their child support orders abroad. 

Compliance with our obligations under the Convention will require minimal changes to existing Federal and State law. Most 

cases under the Convention will be handled in the United States 

according to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, UIFSA, 

which establishes procedures for processing interstate and international child support cases, and is enforced in all States. 

Proposed implementing legislation recently transmitted to the 

Congress by the Secretary of HHS would ensure all current support 

services are available to cases covered by the Convention. States 

will be required to enact conforming legislation as a condition of 

continued Federal funding of their child support programs. 

As head of the Federal Child Support Enforcement Program, I 

believe this Convention fulfills the needs of the United States, is 

widely supported throughout the country by all interested groups, 

and will greatly enhance procedures in international cases, to the 

benefit of all of those American citizens seeking support from noncustodial parents residing in other Convention countries, as well as 

foreign citizens seeking support from noncustodial parents living 

here. 

On behalf of the administration, I urge the committee to take 

prompt and favorable action on the Convention. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Turetsky follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 

STATEMENT OF VICKI TURETSKY

Senator Cardin, thank you and Chairman Kerry and Senator Lugar, for the opportunity to testify on the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child 

Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. 

This Hague Convention establishes a new and more effective international system 

for ensuring the receipt of child support in cases where the custodial parent and 

child live in one country and the non-custodial parent in another. Ratification of the 

Convention will mean that more children living in the United States will receive the 

financial support they need and deserve from their parents, even when one of their 

parents lives in another country. Currently, the United States recognizes certain 

foreign orders requiring child support. This Convention would require other countries that are parties to the Treaty to reciprocate. 

The Convention builds upon existing United States law and practice to establish 

uniform, simple, fast, and inexpensive procedures for processing international child 

support cases. The Convention can be fully implemented with minimal changes to 

existing United States law and will not impose additional financial or administrative burdens on the Federal or state governments. 

The Department of Health and Human Services supports the State Department’s 

efforts to secure ratification of this Convention by the United States. State child 

support programs and judges, other United States child support interests, the American Bar Association, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State 

Laws (NCCUSL), the National Center for State Courts, and the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) have expressed unequivocal support for the 

Convention. 

BACKGROUND: THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

In 1975, Congress established a federally-supervised and state-administered program for the enforcement of family support cases under title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is charged 

with oversight of the Child Support Enforcement program. All states and territories 

administer a child support program, usually located within the state’s human services agency, revenue department, or Attorney General’s office, with the help of prosecuting attorneys and the courts. In addition, 36 tribes operate comprehensive child 

support programs. States receive Federal matching funds covering approximately 

two-thirds of the costs of administering the child support program. Successful state 

child support programs also receive incentive payments for their performance. 

In 2008, the Child Support Enforcement program served 17 million children and 

collected $26.6 billion in support payments. Services are available to all children living apart from one of their parents, regardless of family income or residence. Services are provided automatically, and free of charge, to families receiving assistance 

under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, and Foster Care programs. Other families may apply for services at a nominal cost.Extensive Federal 

and state child support data exchanges allow state child support programs to locate 

parents and assets across state lines. Cases in which parents and their children live 

in different states comprise about one-fourth of the child support caseload. In such 

interstate cases, states may either seek the assistance of another state in securing 

parental support or take action directly across state lines when jurisdiction to do 

so exists. For example, a state may initiate an income withholding order directed 

to an employer in another state. 

We estimate that, currently, a small percentage (perhaps one percent) of state 

child support enforcement cases are international in nature, with the majority of 

those cases flowing between the United States and its neighbors in Canada and 

Central America, and between the United States and those European Union countries with which the United States has bi-lateral arrangements to cooperate in enforcing child support. However, we anticipate that the percentage of international 

cases received and initiated by the Child Support Enforcement program will increase over the next ten years, particularly given the increasing emphasis on international child support cooperation. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONVENTION

The Convention was unanimously adopted at the Twenty-First Diplomatic Session 

of the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 23, 2007. The 

United States was one of two countries that signed it the same day it was adopted. 

As head of the Federal Child Support Enforcement program, I believe that this Convention fulfills the needs of the United States, is widely supported throughout the 

country by all interested groups, and will greatly enhance procedures in interVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:59 Jan 23, 2010 Jkt 089115 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\ER002.XXX ER002

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
19 

national cases to the benefit of all of those American citizens seeking support from 

non-custodial parents residing in other Convention countries as well as foreign citizens seeking support from non-custodial parents living in the United States. 

The United States actively participated in the development of the Convention 

from the beginning of negotiations in 2003. The U.S. worked to ensure that a treaty 

would be compatible with our system of jurisprudence and patterned closely after 

the best procedures available in the United States and other countries with advanced child support enforcement procedures. The goal was a Convention process 

that was comprehensive, consistent, simple, expedited, essentially cost-free and fair. 

The final text of the Hague Convention creates just such a system. 

IMPACT OF THE CONVENTION

Ratification of the Convention will serve the interests of U.S. families by providing for international enforcement of support orders issued in the United States. 

More American children will receive the financial support they need from both of 

their parents, even when one parent lives in another country. The Convention will 

not affect intrastate or interstate child support cases in the United States. It will 

only apply to cases where the custodial parent and child live in one country and 

the non-custodial parent lives in another. 

The Convention could help a Florida mother who wrote to my office: 

Hello!! My son is 14 years old and my daughter is 9 years old, their father lives in Peru and I never collect child support. Is there anyway that 

you guys can help me with some information about this issue? Thank you. 

A mother from New Mexico shared: 

I have been trying for almost 4 years to figure out how I can get a Child 

Support Order enforced in Montreal, Quebec Canada. I understand it is not 

a reciprocating province and the state, in which I live, New Mexico, does 

not have an agreement on a state level either. Isn’t there some way to get 

the order enforced? Or some sort of consequence for non payment? He owes 

me over $20,000 so far. 

It could provide answers to a child support worker trying to help a family: 

I have a Georgia Divorce order dated 2004. It was never made payable 

through a Child Support Office. The non-custodial parent moved to the 

Philippines. Not working as far as we know. Not supporting the 8 year old 

child on the order. The Philippines is not one of the UIFSA [Uniform Act] 

countries. The custodial parent wants to apply for services but is wondering 

what type of support enforcement could be done? 

Long-standing arrangements permit the Child Support Enforcement program to 

cooperate with a few countries to collect child support payments. Current law authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of HHS, to 

enter into a bi-lateral agreement or declare any country a ‘‘foreign reciprocating 

country,’’ if it enforces family support obligations in a manner substantially similar 

to the process in the United States. Currently there are 25 such arrangements in 

place, including those with 11 Canadian Provinces. Despite these arrangements, enforcement procedures vary from country-to-country and many barriers remain - such 

as lack of standard forms, wide variations in the ability of other countries to establish paternity or support orders, limited enforcement remedies, translation issues, 

and problems with currency exchange. In 7addition, many countries do not enforce 

our orders and are unlikely to cooperate in the absence of a treaty obligation. 

While the United States will maintain its bi-lateral arrangements with these 

countries, the new Convention will operate in many of our on-going cases to greatly 

streamline operations and serve to provide new means of communication and administrative cooperation between countries. The Convention provides for cooperation 

between the child support authorities of Contracting States, that is, those countries 

that are party to the Convention. The Convention requires cooperation in establishing paternity and support orders, establishes procedures for the recognition of 

child support orders, and requires effective measures for prompt enforcement. (Details of the Convention, including specific and necessary U.S. reservations and declarations, were included in the President’s September 2008 transmittal package to 

the Senate.) 

We do not anticipate an increase in costs as a result of the Convention because 

the United States already provides extensive services in international cases and will 

handle such actions using the expansive automated processing systems which are 

in place to handle the huge volume of domestic cases. However, we anticipate a sigVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:59 Jan 23, 2010 Jkt 089115 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\ER002.XXX ER002

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 

nificant improvement in the level of assistance by other countries when the Convention is fully implemented, resulting in more child support paid to custodial parents 

and their children living in the United States when the non-custodial parents lives 

in another country. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the responsibility, as the United States Central Authority, to facilitate support enforcement in 

these cases and we are fully prepared and committed to continue providing oversight, assistance and coordination of such activities under the new Convention. 

International support enforcement under the Convention will operate in a manner 

very similar to existing interstate processes. The Convention establishes procedures 

for administrative cooperation which will greatly improve the efficiency of processing incoming international cases, and we anticipate it also will open many new 

avenues for American citizens seeking enforcement of their child support orders 

abroad in countries which do not currently have well-established systems. 

U.S. TREATY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONVENTION

Compliance with our obligations under the Convention will require minimal 

changes to existing Federal and state law. This is because the Convention is largely 

modeled after our laws and child support enforcement system. Most cases under the 

Convention will be handled in the United States in accordance with the Uniform 

Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which establishes procedures for processing 

interstate and international child support cases and is in force in all states. In July 

2008, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), 

working collaboratively with federal and state child support experts from around the 

country, adopted changes to UIFSA needed to ensure compliance with the Convention. 

Proposed implementing legislation, recently transmitted by the Secretary of HHS 

to the Congress, would make minimal changes to existing law to ensure all current 

child support enforcement services are available to cases covered by the Convention. 

The legislation would mandate that all states enact the 2008 version of UIFSA, and 

would make other technical changes to title IV-D of the Social Security Act, for example, to include specific reference to treaty cases. States will be required to enact 

those changes expeditiously as a condition of continued Federal funding under title 

IV-D of the Social Security Act. 

The Convention will not have a major impact on states, as all states operate federally-regulated child support programs and routinely provide child support services 

in international cases. In order to ensure that the United States is fully able to comply with its obligations under the Convention, the U.S. will not deposit the instrument of ratification for the Convention until all the necessary changes in federal law 

have been enacted and the UIFSA amendments have been adopted by all states. 

CONCLUSION

On behalf of the Administration, I urge the Committee to take prompt and favorable action on the Convention. The Convention recognizes that children need the 

support of two parents, even when one of the parents lives in another country.I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee in support of this historic 

and important step forward for children and families and would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Senator CARDIN. And thank you for your testimony. 

Let me, if I might, start on the cost issue. You both have indicated that you don’t anticipate any significant increase in cost. Ms. 

Turetsky, you indicated that you’re doing some of the services 

today. So, if a single parent living in the United States has a support order that that individual is trying to enforce in another country, currently what does that parent do as it relates to interacting 

either with HHS or with the local support agency? Are there services currently available that they are receiving? 

Ms. TURETSKY. Yes, but not consistently. Depending upon the 

country in which the other parent lives, the State may have a bilateral agreement with that country. But, our inquiries to our office 

from custodial parents living in the States suggests that those procedures are unpredictable. Parents are uncertain about whether 

procedures are available under bilateral agreements or not, in how 

to go about pursuing child support. And States, too, have a lot of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
21 

questions. So, the Convention will help us standardize and provide 

a set of administrative procedures that all States can use with any 

of the countries that ratify the Convention. 

Senator CARDIN. As I indicated in my introductory remarks, I 

support the ratification of the Convention. I believe it will significantly improve child support collections in the United States and 

where orders are attempted to be enforced outside of the United 

States. But, it seems to me that, with a more efficient system and 

with your agency’s clear responsibility to help single parents in the 

United States, this is bound to increase the workload in your agency. 

Ms. TURETSKY. Well, because we already work on supporting 

States in international cases where we do have a bilateral agreement, our workload burden, so to speak, is already built in. In addition, we provide services, through the States, to cases coming into 

the United States. Where we have—where we struggle, is when we 

don’t have a bilateral agreement, when the custodial parent lives 

in our country and is seeking to enforce abroad. 

Senator CARDIN. I just want to make sure we’re realistic as to 

what you’re going to need. I also assume that some of this currently is being done at the State level with a clear international 

path for enforcing child support orders, working through HHS as 

the principal agency in the United States. I think it also is going 

to probably increase the amount of volume in your office. 

Ms. TURETSKY. You know, this is a situation where we expect the 

number of cases to be a small part of our caseload for the foreseeable future. We expect it to grow over time, but we’re starting with 

about 1 percent of our cases. We have the structure already in 

place to process international cases. States do the primary enforcement of cases, and they are already set up to enforce both interstate and international cases. 

Senator CARDIN. And, Mr. Loken, how does this operate through 

the State Department? What role do you all play if this treaty is 

ratified? 

Mr. LOKEN. Senator, I would answer that in a couple of ways. 

First, as I mentioned, the State Department has a long history of 

cooperation with HHS in the matter of—in child support enforcement, internationally, and we would continue that. In terms of the 

Hague Conference itself, the practice there is to periodically convene meetings in The Hague of potential parties or parties to the 

Convention, to discuss its implementation and investigate ways to 

improve the operation of the Convention. And we would expect to 

be participating actively in those kinds of meetings. 

Senator CARDIN. I believe you indicated that, to be in compliance 

with this obligation, we would have to amend Part D, Title IV, of 

the Social Security Act and that some States would have to comply 

with what they’ve already indicated they will, the uniform statutes. 

What is the status here? Have there been bills prepared? Are 

States moving to conform? How much more work would there need 

to be done if this Convention is ratified? 

Ms. TURETSKY. In terms of the legislation, the legislation has 

been conveyed to the authorizing committees. It was conveyed both 

in the prior administration and, most recently, in our administration. It will require minimal changes to existing child support law, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
22 

including a requirement that States pass an updated version of 

UIFSA. So, all States have UIFSA laws in place; this would require 

them to amend those laws, as they periodically do, to accommodate 

international enforcement. 

Senator CARDIN. Is it fair to say that what the States need to do 

is more a technical update than substantive change? 

Ms. TURETSKY. That’s right. 

Senator CARDIN. And the Federal requirements to have our laws 

comply with the technical aspects of international child support, as 

a practical matter, we’re enforcing these orders today? 

Ms. TURETSKY. Well, the law would be amended in a couple of 

significant ways. First—not significant in the sense of IV-D, but 

distinguished ways. First, the Federal law that we’re proposing to 

the Congress would contain a IV-D requirement that States pass 

the UIFSA 2008 version. But, secondly, it would require my secretary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to use all 

Federal and State enforcement mechanisms to comply with the 

treaty and to cut off funding to States if States were not in compliance. 

Senator CARDIN. The funding you’re talking about is child support? 

Ms. TURETSKY. I’m sorry? 

Senator CARDIN. What type of funding would be cut off? 

Ms. TURETSKY. The child support funding is a 66-percent matching fund. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. That’s the number that you’re using for 

the States to comply with the Convention. 

Ms. TURETSKY. Right, the regular funding. And that’s about—— 

Senator CARDIN. If this were ratified by the United States Senate 

this year, is there a time requirement for the States to comply their 

laws? 

Ms. TURETSKY. I’m going to have to ask for technical assistance 

on that. 

Senator CARDIN. Because, you know, many legislatures don’t 

meet every year, or they don’t have—— 

Ms. TURETSKY. Yes. Two years. 

Senator CARDIN. Two years. 

Ms. TURETSKY. Two-year period. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

The reservation that you talked about, Mr. Loken, on jurisdiction? 

Mr. LOKEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to make sure that we are comfortable 

with the legal status here. If I understood your testimony, you were 

talking about debtor statute jurisdiction. 

Mr. LOKEN. Right. 

Senator CARDIN. Is the concern that, without that reservation, 

we might be subjecting U.S. citizens to the jurisdiction of other 

courts, broader than just child support enforcement, which would 

be inconsistent with our position, as it relates to U.S. citizens? 

Mr. LOKEN. Yes, Senator, the issue that we faced in this negotiation was that many other countries recognize jurisdiction in child 

support enforcement matters based upon the residence of the creditor parent, the parent that is seeking to obtain the child support. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
23 

But, to satisfy U.S. constitutional due process requirements, there 

must be sufficient contacts between the debtor parent and the 

forum, under our law. 

The leading case on this that has to do with child support enforcement is Kulko v. Superior Court, a Supreme Court case from 

1978. 

Article 20 from the Convention sets forth six different bases of 

jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions. Three of those bases do not comport with our due process 

requirements; notably, jurisdiction based upon the residence of the 

creditor alone. The reservation proposed by the executive branch 

would cover all three of these bases of jurisdiction which are not 

consistent with our law. The remaining bases of jurisdiction under 

article 20 are consistent with U.S. law. 

Senator CARDIN. And you’re satisfied, then, that we’re protecting 

the constitutional issue here? 

Mr. LOKEN. We are. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Risch? 

Senator RISCH. Excuse me if you’ve been asked this earlier. How 

many parties to the Convention have ratified, so far? How many 

parties to the Convention have ratified, so far? 

Mr. LOKEN. None have, to date, sir. No. The Convention was just 

concluded recently. And, in fact, the U.S. is in the forefront, here, 

of efforts to move towards ratification. 

Senator RISCH. And what—how many potential countries are 

there involved in ratification, eventually. 

Mr. LOKEN. Well, we would hope, quite a number. The Hague 

Conference in which the negotiation took place, I believe, consisted 

of 60 or 70 members. Many of those were actively involved in the 

negotiation. We know that the European Community and its member states and Canada, among others, are actively pursuing ratification. Several other countries, that we’re aware of, are also quite 

interested in moving towards joining the Convention. We really 

think that, in this case, what the U.S. does will be quite persuasive, in terms of the reaction of other states to joining the Convention, and we hope that, in the next several years, that we will find 

a number of countries joining it. 

Senator RISCH. How many bilateral agreements do we have right 

now? 

Ms. TURETSKY. We have about 15. 

Senator RISCH. And is it impossible to enforce one of these orders 

if you don’t have a bilateral agreement? 

Ms. TURETSKY. It’s very difficult, yes. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

You didn’t mention Mexico. Can you tell us the level of interest 

in Mexico? 

Mr. LOKEN. Well, I can tell you that Mexico did participate actively in the negotiations, and was supportive of the Convention as 

adopted. I do not have current information about domestic activity 

within the—within Mexico to pursue ratification. 

Senator CARDIN. I’m going to ask that you try to supplement that 

to this committee, give us the best information you have, as to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
24 

Mexico. I think we are particularly interested in Mexico and Canada, and would want to know the interest level in Canada. 

[The information referred to above follows:] 

Mr. LOKEN. With regard to Canada: The Secretary of State, with the concurrence 

of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may declare any country (or political subdivision thereof) to be a foreign reciprocating country if the foreign country 

(or political subdivision thereof) has established, or undertakes to establish, adequate procedures for the establishment and enforcement of duties of support owed 

to residents of the United States. To date, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, 

New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon have been declared to be ‘‘foreign reciprocating 

countries’’ for this purpose. 

There is an excellent, long-standing history of cooperation in child support enforcement matters between the United States and the provinces and territories, as 

well as the federal government, of Canada. 

Canada is a strong supporter of the Convention. We understand that the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials—Family Justice, a committee comprised of officials from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, has established a 

working group to consider the implementation of the Convention within Canada. 

The working group is open to officials from the federal, provincial and territorial 

governments. 

With regard to Mexico: The United States has had less success with Mexico. Mexico has not been declared to be a foreign reciprocating country. Although courts and 

other authorities in the United States have recognized and enforced child support 

orders from Mexico as a matter of comity, there has been little or no reciprocity. 

It is our hope that that this situation would improve if the United States and Mexico become parties to the Convention. 

Mexico participated actively in the negotiation of the Convention and supported 

its adoption. So far as we know, the Government of Mexico has not taken steps to 

become a party to the Convention. Ratification of the Convention by the United 

States, however, would put the United States in a stronger position to encourage 

Mexico to take such action. 

We understand that the Government of Mexico, like the Government of Canada, 

intends to participate in the Special Commission of the Hague Conference in November on the implementation of the Convention, and we will consult with Mexico 

there on its plans for ratification of the Convention. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just go through the logistics, here, just 

to make sure I understand what is likely to happen if the Convention gets ratified by a significant number of countries. 

Currently, if the appropriate order is presented to a U.S. court 

to enforce child support by a non-U.S. resident against a U.S. resident, what will be done by a typical State court? 

Ms. TURETSKY. Typically, that order would be enforced if the 

noncustodial parent is in the United States. 

Senator CARDIN. So, the custodial parent would get legal assistance here in some form—private attorney—and present the court 

order and the appropriate certifications to the U.S. court in a State, 

and that State would most likely enforce the order, unless there 

was a legitimate contest to its legitimacy? 

Ms. TURETSKY. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. And if you are a U.S. citizen and have custody 

of a child and a valid U.S. child support order, and the other parent is not in the United States, and you attempt to enforce it, what 

is the likelihood of enforcement today, without the Convention? 

And, if you could, be somewhat specific in identifying countries. 

Some countries we have good relationship with. Obviously, the closer of interest are Canada and Mexico, but also there’s significant 

interest in Europe. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
25 

Ms. TURETSKY. Right. Well, we have bilateral agreements in 

place with a set of countries, and I can list those for you, Senator: 

Australia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, 

Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, 

Switzerland, and the U.K., as well as Canadian provinces. 

Senator CARDIN. We don’t with Mexico? 

Ms. TURETSKY. We do not with Mexico. 

Senator CARDIN. And we do not with African countries? 

Ms. TURETSKY. We don’t have any bilateral agreements with African countries. 

Senator CARDIN. You mentioned some in the Middle East; are 

there any in Asia? 

Ms. TURETSKY. No, we don’t have a current bilateral agreement 

with Asian countries. 

Senator CARDIN. Okay. Does the likelihood of ease and success 

of enforcement depend upon a bilateral agreement? 

Ms. TURETSKY. Well, the—yes. I mean, I think it’s very difficult 

to enforce a—for a parent living here, to enforce a child support 

case, when there’s no bilateral agreement and no mechanism to enforce, internationally. 

Senator CARDIN. How will this Convention affect the 15 countries 

we have bilateral agreements with? Will it be comparable, harder, 

or easier to deal with these countries? 

Ms. TURETSKY. It will be easier, because the Convention would 

set up a—an administrative structure and a streamlined structure 

that would resolve jurisdictional barriers and create a system that 

is modeled after the United States so that parents will know that, 

when they seek assistance, that the support order will be enforced 

in a—in an efficient way, and one—and a way in which that they’re 

accustomed to in the United States. 

Senator CARDIN. I have one last question for either or both of 

you, and that is: How much is this needed in the United States? 

Do you have any documentation as to the level of child support 

that goes uncollected and may very well be collected if the Convention is widely ratified? Or is this just your gut? I mean, do we have 

any documentation of what may be involved, here? 

Ms. TURETSKY. Senator, we don’t have a hard projection of dollars. We estimate about 1 percent of our caseload is international, 

in the sense that one parent lives in a different country. What we 

do have is anecdotal information from parents who have written to 

us, who say, you know, ‘‘I’m living here. I have a support order. 

My—the parent of my child lives in another country. I don’t know 

what to do. I understand there’s no agreement with that country. 

What can I do?’’ And so, we know that there are a number of families that are going to be affected by a fully ratified treaty. We don’t 

know how that caseload will grow over time. 

But, we’re—you know, we’re sensible of the fact that we’re, you 

know, an increasingly global world, and that parents do move 

around. And in our caseload, where parents are living apart, the 

likelihood of one parent living in one country and another parent 

living in our country is likely to grow over time. So, we’re really 

planning for the future, here. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Risch, anything further? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 

Senator RISCH. No, thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you both very much for your testimony. 

I will be mentioning, at the end of this hearing, that the record 

will remain open for 2 days, so there may be some additional questions asked by members of the committee. 

But, thank you very much for your work on this. Good work. 

Ms. TURETSKY. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. LOKEN. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Our second panel consists of Judge Battle Robinson from the Uniform Law Commission, and Alisha Griffin, from 

the New Jersey Department of Human Services. [Pause.] 

Senator CARDIN. Judge Robinson, we’ll be glad to hear from you. 

I should point out that all of the witnesses’ full testimonies will 

be included in our record, without objection. 

And you may proceed as you see fit. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BATTLE ROBINSON, UNIFORM LAW COMMISSIONER, JUDGE, FAMILY COURT OF DELAWARE (RET.), 

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you, Senator Cardin, and good afternoon, 

to you and to the members of the committee. 

I’m appearing today on behalf of the National Conference of 

Commissioners on Uniform States Laws, also known as the Uniform Law Commission. The Commission is a national organization 

of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars. Its purpose is to provide the 

States with nonpartisan, well-drafted legislation in areas of the law 

where uniformity is desirable. Some of its more notable achievements include the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Child 

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, which I will be speaking about today. 

The purpose of my testimony is twofold: first, to convey the support of the Commission for the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family 

Maintenance, and to urge its ratification; and second, to support 

and explain the method of implementation of the Convention which 

is being proposed. 

The past century has witnessed the growth of family support enforcement from criminal proceedings to civil ones, from modest 

county-based programs to the creation of a nationwide FederalState partnership under the Title IV-D Program, to the development of legal rules and procedures that facilitate the establishment 

and enforcement of support orders when parties live in different 

States. 

In an age of globalization, the international expansion of consistent rules for enforcement of child support seems a natural development. Further, the Convention will provide a much-needed 

mechanism whereby support orders of tribunals of the United 

States will be recognized and enforced in other countries. Although 

tribunals in the United States, as a general matter, already recognize and enforce the orders of foreign tribunals, the reverse is often 

not the case. The Commission believes that the effect of other nations acceding to obligations imposed by the Convention, the development of standard administrative protocols and forms, and the 

adoption of clear rules pertaining to the recognition and enforceVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:59 Jan 23, 2010 Jkt 089115 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER002.XXX ER002

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
27 

ment of support orders will assure acceptance of this country’s orders in foreign lands. For these reasons, the Commission urges approval of the Convention by the Senate. 

The Commission also supports the implementation of the Convention through a method of cooperation between the Federal and 

State governments. This method will implement important segments of the Convention through a uniform State law, rather than 

by Federal legislation. Specifically, implementation will come about 

through changes in the existing Uniform Interstate Family Support 

Act, known as UIFSA. UIFSA serves as the basis for interstate establishment and enforcement of support obligations within the 

United States, and it’s already the law in all States. It is used daily 

in the thousands of interstate cases which are processed through 

the child support system in the country, and is familiar to attorneys, court personnel, and support caseworkers in all States. 

Beginning in 2007, a drafting committee of the Uniform Law 

Commission worked to develop amendments to UIFSA which are 

designed to implement the Convention. The amended version of 

UIFSA was approved by the full Commission in July 2008 and is 

ready to be introduced in, and approved by, States’ legislatures. It 

will be known as UIFSA 2008. Indeed, Maine, Nevada, and North 

Dakota have already passed the amendments, which take effect 

when the Convention is ratified and the United States instrument 

of ratification is deposited at The Hague. 

Briefly, UIFSA 2008 is concerned primarily with the recognition 

and enforcement of support orders under the Convention. The familiar provisions of UIFSA applicable to domestic support orders 

remain largely unchanged. A new Article 7 is the heart of the effort 

to integrate the Convention into State law. That Article contains 

the special rules which pertain to cases brought under the Convention. 

The Commission recognizes that attempting to implement the 

Convention by asking 50 separate jurisdictions to enact timely and 

substantially similar legislation poses substantial practical difficulties. Thus, in order to assure the widespread enactment of UIFSA 

2008, it is necessary for the Congress to assist in the process of obtaining these enactments. In the case of this particular treaty, the 

extensive Federal funding of the child support program provides an 

ideal vehicle for that Federal assistance. 

The Department of Health and Human Services has recently 

submitted to the Congress Federal implementing legislation that 

requires that all States, as a prerequisite to continued receipt of 

Federal child support funds, adopt UIFSA 2008 by a date certain. 

Such a requirement is not new in the area of child support. In the 

1996 Welfare Reform Act, Congress made the enactment of UIFSA 

a condition of State eligibility for the Federal subsidy. A similar 

mandate by the Congress in its legislation pertaining to the Maintenance Convention would virtually assure that UIFSA 2008 will 

be adopted by all States in an expeditious and uniform fashion. 

Finally, I want to emphasize the cooperative relationship between the Federal officials and the Uniform Law Commission in 

the development of the Convention and its implementing legislation. The experience has suggested an interesting course for the future. With the expansion of global relationships, there will surely 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

be other instances where integrating international legal developments into familiar State law may be appropriate. I believe adoption by the Congress of the proposal, whereby implementation of 

the Maintenance Convention will come about through adoption of 

a uniform state law, will provide an important precedent and a 

guide for future actions, and I commend it to you. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BATTLE R. ROBINSON

Senator Cardin, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the Committee, good 

morning. 

My name is Battle Robinson and I am a retired Family Court Judge of the State 

of Delaware, having served 14 years in that capacity. Since 1980, I have been a 

Delaware Commissioner of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 

State Laws, also known as the Uniform Law Commission, and it is on behalf of that 

organization that I am appearing today. 

The Uniform Law Commission is a national organization of lawyers, judges, and 

legal scholars that has existed since 1892. Its purpose is to provide the states with 

non-partisan, well-drafted legislation and to work for the enactment of that legislation. The Commission’s efforts support the federal system, facilitating both the 

movement of individuals and the functioning of business organizations across state 

lines through the enactment of statutes that are uniform throughout the nation. 

During its history the Commission developed such notable state legislation as the 

Uniform Commercial Code, and has been a leader in drafting important uniform 

state legislation which involves children’s issues, including the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the Act which brings us to 

this hearing today—Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). I chaired the 

Uniform Law Commission’s committees that revised UIFSA in 1996 and 2001. I 

then attended the sessions at the Hague at which the Family Maintenance Convention was developed, and I chaired the ULC Drafting Committee that revised UIFSA 

during 2007–08 in order to implement the Convention. 

The purpose of my testimony is two-fold: first to convey the support of the Commission for the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support 

and Other Forms of Family Maintenance and to urge its ratification; and second to 

support and explain the method of implementation of the Convention which is being 

proposed. 

The past century has witnessed the growth of family support enforcement from 

criminal proceedings to civil, from modest county-based programs to the establishment of the federal IV-D program in the 1970s, which created a federal-state partnership concerning child support, and the development of legal rules and procedures 

for the establishment and enforcement of support orders across state lines. In the 

Family Support Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–485), Congress established the U.S. 

Commission on Interstate Child Support (Interstate Commission). The purpose of 

the Interstate Commission, of which I was a member, was to identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of interstate child support enforcement. After 

a number of hearings across the country, the Interstate Commission submitted a report to Congress in 1992 with recommendations for improving interstate establishment and enforcement of child support, and for revising an existing uniform act 

dealing with child support—the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act 

(URESA). The drafting of this revision was spearheaded by the Uniform Law Commission, and this revision became UIFSA, the first version of which was adopted 

by the Uniform Law Commission in 1992. 

UIFSA serves as the basis for interstate establishment and enforcement of support obligations within the United States and has been enacted in all States, the 

District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. UIFSA provides universal and uniform rules for the enforcement of family support orders, sets basic jurisdictional standards for state courts by determining the basis for a state to exercise continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a child support proceeding, establishes 

rules for determining which state issues the controlling order in the event proceedings are initiated in multiple jurisdictions, and provides rules for modifying or 

refusing to modify another state’s child support order. 

In an age of globalization, the international expansion of consistent rules for enforcement of child support, such as those provided under UIFSA, seems a natural 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

development and one which the Uniform Law Commission believes will be advantageous to the United States. The Hague Convention will provide a mechanism 

whereby support orders of tribunals of the United States will be recognized and enforced in other countries. Although tribunals in the United States, as a general matter, already recognize and enforce the orders of foreign tribunals, the reverse is 

often not the case. In at least some instances this is due to limitations in foreign 

laws. The Commission believes that the effect of other nations acceding to the obligations imposed by the Convention, the development of standard administrative protocols and forms, and the adoption of clear rules pertaining to the recognition and 

enforcement of support orders, will assure acceptance of this country’s orders in 

other lands. No longer will persons in the United States have to re-litigate support 

matters in a distant country or forego support altogether. For these reasons, the 

Uniform Law Commission believes the Convention will facilitate the international 

enforcement of child support and urges its approval by the Senate. 

The Commission also supports the implementation of the Convention through a 

method of cooperation between the federal and state governments. This method, 

supported in this instance by the U.S. Departments of State and Health and Human 

Services, will implement important segments of the Convention—namely those dealing with the recognition and enforcement of foreign orders—through a uniform state 

law, rather than by federal legislation. Specifically, implementation will come about 

through changes to the existing Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. That Act 

is used daily in the thousands of interstate cases which are processed through the 

child support system in this country and is familiar to, attorneys, court personnel 

and support case workers in all states. Beginning in 2007 a drafting committee of 

the Commission, which I chaired, worked to develop amendments to UIFSA designed implement the Convention. The committee worked closely with representatives of the federal government—both HHS and State—and child support organizations to draft uniform state legislation that facilitates accession to the treaty without imposing burdensome changes to existing state practices. The amended version 

of UIFSA, known as ‘‘UIFSA 2008,’’ was approved by the full Commission in July 

2008 and is ready to be introduced and approved by state legislatures. Recognizing 

the importance of the changes for international child support orders, Maine, Nevada, and North Dakota have already passed the amendments, which take effect 

when the Convention is ratified and the United States’ instrument of ratification is 

deposited at The Hague. 

When the Commission undertook this project, the drafting committee considered 

a number of possible means of implementation and concluded that there were many 

advantages to implementing this particular Convention by a combination of uniform 

state law and federal legislation. First, family support has always been primarily 

the domain of state law, albeit in recent years with very significant financial contribution and regulatory guidance from the federal government. Second, UIFSA, and 

the laws that preceded it, have been the basis for the establishment, enforcement, 

and modification of support orders across state lines for almost sixty years. Because 

UIFSA is in force in all states, and thanks to the frequency of its use and the extensive training offered under the auspices of OCSE and national child support enforcement organizations, there is a well trained cadre of judges, lawyers, and child support workers who are familiar with the Act. Incorporating foreign orders into a similar statutory framework is the best approach for all parties. The Commission was 

well positioned to execute this consensus approach to the Convention because of its 

experience with the subject matter and its mission of fostering uniformity in state 

law. 

UIFSA 2008 can be described very briefly as follows: 

• the legislation is addressed to the recognition and enforcement of court orders; 

• it does not deal with the provisions in the treaty which are deemed fundamentally administrative and which are left to the child support agencies, such as 

designing forms and transmitting information between support agencies; 

• except for a very few instances where amendments were necessitated, the familiar provisions of UIFSA applicable to domestic support orders remain unchanged. 

UIFSA 2008 features a new Article that integrates the Convention into state law. 

Article 7 addresses the greatest obstacle to recognition and enforcement of foreign 

orders by American tribunals: the divergent jurisdictional bases for support orders 

in the United States and in virtually all other countries. In the United States there 

must be some personal connection between the support obligor and the state tribunal that issues the order. In contrast, other counties follow what is known as 

‘‘child based’’ jurisdiction under which a tribunal in the country where the child 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

lives may issue a support order even though the obligor has had no contact whatsoever with the country. Accordingly, there may be instances where American courts 

cannot recognize a foreign order because there would be no jurisdiction under American law. In that situation, UIFSA 2008 directs an American tribunal to determine 

if there is any other basis, consistent with American law, under which the foreign 

tribunal could have exercised jurisdiction. If so, the U.S. court may proceed to recognize and enforce the foreign tribunal’s order. If not, the U.S. court must provide opportunity for a new support action to be filed. 

Because of the participation of the United States delegation in the negotiations 

leading to the Convention, the Convention adopts many procedures that are already 

part of American law. Thus, the new Article 7 will be readily recognized by American bench and bar, and by the state IV-D agencies that constitute the heart of child 

support enforcement in this country. For instance, the Convention basically adopts 

the procedure used in interstate cases in the United States whereby support orders 

from other countries are registered in an appropriate tribunal and enforced by that 

tribunal, subject, of course, to the respondent’s opportunity to challenge the order. 

Consistent with the Convention, Article 7 provides only limited grounds on which 

a tribunal may deny recognition and enforcement of a Convention support order. 

The Article also provides, as does the Convention, that international child support 

proceedings may be conducted by private attorneys, as well as by support agencies. 

The Commission recognizes that attempting to implement the Convention by asking fifty separate jurisdictions to enact timely and substantially similar legislation 

poses substantial practical difficulties. Thus, in order to ensure the widespread enactment of UIFSA 2008 that will be necessary in order to implement the Convention 

effectively in the United States, and to permit the United States to ratify the Convention, it is necessary for Congress to assist the process of obtaining enactment of 

UIFSA 2008 by the States, thereby allowing the timely deposit of the instrument 

of ratification with the Hague. 

In the case of this particular treaty, the extensive federal funding of the child support program provides an ideal vehicle for that federal assistance. The Department 

of Health and Human Services has recently submitted to the Congress federal implementing legislation—the ‘‘Multilateral Child Support Convention Implementation 

Act of 2009’’—that both provides guidance concerning the administrative aspects of 

implementing the Convention and requires that all states, as a prerequisite to continued receipt of federal child support funds, adopt the UIFSA 2008 amendments 

by a date certain. 

Such a requirement is not new in the area of child support. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, also known as PRWORA, made major changes to welfare programs. In 

that Act Congress made the enactment of UIFSA a condition of state eligibility for 

the federal subsidy for child support enforcement. The federal mandate required 

‘‘each State to have in effect the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as approved by the American Bar Association on February 9, 1993, together with any 

amendments officially adopted before January 1, 1998 by the NCCUSL.’’ 28 U.S.C 

666(f) In conformity with this mandate, all states had adopted UIFSA by 1998. A 

similar mandate by the Congress in its legislation pertaining to the Maintenance 

Convention would virtually assure that UIFSA 2008 would be adopted by all states 

in an expeditious and uniform fashion. 

Finally, I want to emphasize the cooperative relationship between the federal officials and the Uniform Law Commission in the development of the Convention and 

its implementing legislation. The experience has suggested an interesting course for 

the future. With the expansion of global relationships, there will surely be other instances where integrating international legal developments into familiar state law 

may be appropriate. I believe adoption by the Congress of the proposal whereby implementation of the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and 

Other Forms of Family Maintenance will come about through adoption of a uniform 

state law will provide an important precedent and guide for future actions, and I 

commend it to you. 

In closing, the Uniform Law Commission urges that the Senate give its advice and 

consent to the Hague Maintenance Convention, and the ULC also supports the implementation of that Convention by the combination of state and federal legislation 

that I and others testifying before the Committee describe today. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Griffin? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

STATEMENT OF ALISHA GRIFFIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Cardin and 

Senator Risch. 

I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and speak regarding the importance of approving the Hague Convention on the 

International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. 

As a child support director in the—for the State of New Jersey, 

I’ve been in that position for 12 years and have had the privilege, 

during the last 7, of working side by side, along with my colleagues, here, from the Office of Child Support Enforcement and 

HHS, the State Department, and other child support and family 

law experts in this country, as well as in those 67 other countries 

and nongovernmental organizations, to develop this treaty that 

provides a significant new framework for the international establishment of enforcement and child support orders. I appear before 

you to urge the adoption and your approval of United States participation in this Convention. 

Child support is a critical family service program, one that research has shown lifts families out of poverty. The child support 

program, since welfare reform, has made substantial improvement 

in our performance. Today, we collect, nationally and in New Jersey, over 65 percent of all the child support due children. Unfortunately, that still means that there’s about 35 percent that don’t receive all they deserve and need to get by. 

The child support community has been committed to doing better 

to improve their performance and to make child support a more reliable source of income. This treaty will assist us in that quest. 

In 1996, along with the child—the welfare reform legislation, 

Congress passed, as you’ve heard, the Uniform Interstate Family 

Support Act, UIFSA, which paved the way for significant improvement of cooperation and enforcement across all U.S. States and territories. Like UIFSA, the Hague Convention contained procedures 

for processing cases that will be uniform, simple, efficient, accessible, and inexpensive for us to implement. It will also improve our 

opportunities for obtaining reciprocity with other contracting countries. 

I just returned, this morning, from a reciprocity meeting with 

provincial directors in Canada, where we had the opportunity to 

discuss our continuing case concerns. And while the U.S. has, as 

you have heard, good relationships with Canada and bilateral 

agreements in place, our colleagues in Canada and our State directors feel very strongly that this will improve the processing of our 

cases, even with our close neighbor, Canada. 

In addition, the Convention will give us the ability to coordinate 

and effectively communicate through a central authority structure, 

and to effectively address some of those jurisdictional boundaries 

and barriers that you’ve heard about earlier, as well as providing 

access to cost- free services for U.S. citizens needing assistance in 

other countries. 

But, there is nothing more critical in all of this than the benefit 

that children and families will receive and the health and safety 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

and stability that they may see in having a reliable source of income. This certainly has been demonstrated by the current economic downturn facing our nation, that we need to do everything 

possible to ensure that children grow up in safe, stable homes, and 

that are afforded the best chances possible to grow healthy and 

strong. Child support is a critical component to that stability and 

provides—and helps parents provide the best they possibly can, 

particularly when times are tough. 

We know that the job markets have changed and we’ve become 

a global community. More children are living in countries different 

from their parents than ever before. They deserve the best we can 

give them in establishment and enforcement of orders to ensure 

they have support from both of their parents. 

In New Jersey alone, our international caseload is now over 3100 

cases and has been growing every year. We are just one of the 54 

States and jurisdictions operating a child support program. And so, 

the impact and benefit from this Convention will be significant to 

the children and families we serve. 

Just as Congress did with the passage of UIFSA when it provided for reciprocity across States and territories, it must do so 

now with this new opportunity worldwide. Therefore, I urge the 

Senate to promptly grant its advice and consent to the ratification 

by the President of this Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak, and I’m willing to 

answer some questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Griffin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALISHA GRIFFIN

Senator Cardin, Senator Lugar, and members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify regarding the importance of approving the Hague Convention 

on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. I am Alisha Griffin, Assistant Director in the Division of Family Development responsible for the Office of Child Support Services within the New Jersey Department of Human Services. I have been the child support director for over twelve 

years, prior to which I served over 20 years in Child Welfare and Child Protection 

and as a practicing Family Psychologist. During the past seven years, I have had 

the privilege of working side by side with colleagues from this country as well as 

67 other countries to develop this treaty document that provides a significant new 

framework for the international establishment and enforcement of support orders. 

I appear before you today to urge your approval of the United States’ participation 

in this convention. 

Child support is a critical family service program, one that research has shown 

lifts families out of poverty. It has made substantial improvements in performance 

over the last twelve years, and today, both nationally and in New Jersey, we collect 

65% of child support due. Unfortunately, 35% of the families we serve do not yet 

get what they deserve and need. The child support community is committed to doing 

better to make child support a reliable source of income for all families. In 1996 

Congress passed legislation mandating that all states adopt the Uniform Interstate 

Family Support Act (UIFSA), which paved the way for significant improvement of 

cooperation and enforcement across all US states and territories. 

Like UIFSA, the Hague Convention contains procedures for processing international child support cases that are uniform, simple, efficient, accessible, and inexpensive. It is founded on the agreement of contracting countries to recognize and 

enforce each other’s support orders. It is based on a system of administrative cooperation among central authorities of contracting countries to facilitate the transfer 

of documents and case information—using electronic technology where feasible—so 

that the necessary information is available for expeditious resolution of international child support matters. Similar procedures are already in place in the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

United States for processing interstate child support cases. Indeed, many provisions 

of the Convention were drawn from the US experience with UIFSA. 

The major benefit to the United States from joining this Convention will be obtaining reciprocity from other contracting countries. For many international cases, 

US courts and state Title IV-D child support enforcement agencies already recognize 

and enforce child support obligations, whether or not the United States has a reciprocal agreement with the other country. However, many foreign countries will not 

enforce US support orders in the absence of a treaty obligation. Ratification of the 

Convention by the United States will mean that more children residing in the 

United States will receive financial support from their parents residing in countries 

that are also signatories to the Convention. 

Another significant benefit to joining the Convention will be the ability to effectively coordinate the enforcement of international child support cases with contracting countries through communication with central authorities designated to receive and transmit applications for services and to facilitate case processing. In addition, the ability to use uniform forms for transmitting information and uniform 

protocols for transferring child support payments in different currencies will minimize delays in enforcing orders and delivering payments, while reducing transaction 

costs for both parents. 

The Convention effectively addresses jurisdictional barriers that have prohibited 

the United States from joining other child support conventions. Existing maintenance conventions base jurisdiction to order support on the habitual residence of the 

creditor (i.e., the custodial parent or child) rather than on minimum contacts with 

the debtor (the non-custodial parent), as required by US constitutional standards of 

due process. The Convention provides flexibility for a court of the United States 

having jurisdiction over the non-custodial parent to establish a new order in circumstances where U.S. jurisdictional requirements were not met in the country 

issuing the initial order that is sought to be enforced. 

The Convention also provides for access to cost-free services for US citizens needing assistance with child support enforcement in a contracting country, an important element of reciprocity for US citizens. The small number of countries that may 

be required by their own internal procedures to assess fees must use a means test 

based on the income of the child, not the parents, with the result that any fees will 

be minimal as compared to current practice where custodial parents must often retain local private counsel in order to establish or enforce a support order. 

The Convention does not affect substantive child support law, which is generally 

left to the individual states. Its primary focus is on uniform procedures for enforcement of decisions and for cooperation among countries. There is nothing more critical to the benefit of children than the health, safety and stability of the family. 

That has certainly been demonstrated by the current economic downturn facing this 

nation. We need to do everything possible to ensure children grow up in safe stable 

homes and are afforded the best chances possible to grow healthy and strong. Child 

support is a critical component and ensuring that parents provide the best they can 

for their children, particularly during tough economic times. 

As we know, job markets have changed and we have become a global community. 

More children are living in countries different from their parents. Nonetheless, they 

deserve the best we can give them in establishment and enforcement of orders to 

ensure that they have support from both parents. In New Jersey alone, our international caseload is over 3,000 cases and has been growing every year. We are just 

one of 54 states and territories operating Title IV-D programs, so the impact and 

benefit will be significant. 

Just as Congress did with the passage of UIFSA when it provided for reciprocity 

across states and territories, it must do so now with this new opportunity, worldwide. Therefore, I urge the Senate to promptly grant its advice and consent to the 

ratification by the President of The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for your consideration 

of this important international convention which is critical to the well-being of children and families. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for your testimony. 

I think it’s fair to say that most States believe that they have 

laws—strong laws—to meet the needs of their citizens as it relates 

to child support enforcement. So, my first question—and I’ll ask 

this to each of you—do you agree with the characterization on the 

last panel that the changes that we are requesting the States to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

make in their child support enforcement laws—are basically technical? 

Judge Robinson? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, there are definitely—— 

Senator CARDIN. Microphone. 

Ms. ROBINSON. There are provisions in UIFSA 2008 which are 

complex and which are difficult. I don’t know if I would say they 

are purely technical. 

Senator CARDIN. I guess my question is: Are they more in technical compliance to the international treaties, and will have minimal impact on the current collection proceedings that are operating 

in the 54 jurisdictions that you refer to? 

Ms. ROBINSON. As far as the domestic orders are concerned, it 

will have very little impact. It should speed up and help the processing of the international cases, because there will be standard 

procedures to be followed. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand it’ll affect the international orders, 

but, as far as the domestic support order enforcement, do you envision any significant change as a result of the required amendments 

of the local laws? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I do not. 

Senator CARDIN. And the second question is, Do you believe it’s 

reasonable to require the States to conform to these requirements 

within 2 years? I believe that’s the requirement if we were to ratify 

the Convention. Is that a reasonable period? 

Ms. ROBINSON. It’s going to be a tight period, Senator. There will 

be a lot of work that has to be done to see that 50 different jurisdictions enact this. But, I think there is a lot of momentum out 

there, and I think that the States will follow and do this. Last 

night, I had an email from the head of the Title IV office—IV-D office in Delaware, saying, ‘‘We fully support the treaty, and we’re 

ready to go.’’ So, I think there will be a lot of support in getting 

this legislation through the State legislatures. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, the consequences here are pretty dramatic: loss of Federal child support funds. It would be devastating 

for any State to lose those funds. So, I want to make sure this is 

doable. I know how local politics can be. This doesn’t always get 

to be the first order up. Some legislatures work on a 2-year cycle, 

and when we take up this ratification, Congress is unlikely to give 

much attention to the requirements on the States. So, is it reasonable to expect that if there’s a 2-year window, every State will have 

ample time to get the amendments ratified? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, of course it’s been done, as I pointed out in 

the earlier—— 

Senator CARDIN. Yeah. 

Ms. ROBINSON. In 1996, the States were required to adopt 

UIFSA, and they did so. Really, I think this is a question that 

probably HHS should answer, because they are the ones who have 

included that date in their legislation. 

Senator CARDIN. No, I don’t think so. I’m a former State legislator, and I think I knew better than the Federal Government did 

as to how long it would take, in Maryland, to change our statutes. 

Our political structure is different than the Federal, and when 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

you’re counting the territories that are impacted, it’s an issue that 

I think we’re going to need to look at. 

Ms. Griffin, let me ask you both of those questions. First, do you 

agree that these changes would not have any significant impact on 

States’ ability to collect child support and enforce child support 

judgments in regard to in-country enforcement? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. No, it will not have any impact on it. We’ve already 

looked at that, and we actually, in New Jersey, are positioned to 

move the UIFSA 2008 forward in the next legislative session, or as 

soon as this implementing legislation is passed. I do think that a 

number of States, as you heard, already—Nevada, North Dakota, 

Maine—already moved the legislation forward. So, States are positioned and have looked at the current legislative package that has 

been put forward by the Uniform Commission. 

Senator CARDIN. Now, you’re from New Jersey, but I would like 

this to be broader. The second question I asked Judge Robinson, Do 

you believe a 2-year period is a reasonable period for all States to 

be able to conform to the requirements of this Convention, once 

ratified by the United States Senate? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. I do believe it is, because, as Judge Robinson said, 

we did it in 1996. I was here then. We did it in 1996. My colleagues 

did it then. I’ve served as the president of the National Council of 

Child Support Directors. I know that they’re fully behind this treaty and the need to move international cases forward. 

The new legislation really is fairly simple. There are not a lot of 

domestic changes to the body of UIFSA. It sets out a new chapter 

that will give us very specific guidance around international cases. 

So, I think that that will be, really, much easier, in some respects, 

for State legislators to understand it and to follow it and to help 

it through that process. 

Senator CARDIN. And I understand that you were part of the negotiations that took place on this Convention. So, my last question 

deals with the issue of federalism and as to whether you’re satisfied, as a State official, that we have the right balance here, utilizing a Federal agency because of the international aspects to the 

enforcement that would be impossible at the State level. But, do we 

respect the integrity and independence of our States as being principally responsible to collect child support for their citizens? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. I do. I think it’s a very effective balance. Currently, 

even in the bilaterals that we now have with all of the countries, 

that you heard from Commissioner Turetsky, we play that—we 

work that through now, and we have our—each of our States has 

our own family law construct, and we have the ability to work 

within that State’s family law construct, our individual enforcement techniques and tools. But, we also benefit from the support 

and assistance of HHS in other areas crossing territories between 

States and within the United States, but also in those bilaterals. 

And I think that that’s a balance that we’ve shown has been very 

effective to date. And I think this will just further that balance. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Risch? 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Well, first of all, let me say to Senator Cardin, I don’t have a concern necessarily, particularly regarding the 2-year matter. I—cerVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:59 Jan 23, 2010 Jkt 089115 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER002.XXX ER002

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

tainly, it’s a concern if States can’t get it done in 2 years. But, 

even—in Idaho, that’s probably the low-water mark, as far as not 

wanting to be bridled and led by the Federal Government. I think 

this could probably easily be done in 2 years. And not only that, 

but with the Uniform Law Commissioners—Commission behind 

this, they have been—they have tremendous credibility in the 

States, and I think that this can probably get done. And I guess, 

at the end of the day, if it had—if 48 States have done it, and there 

were two that hadn’t, it could be extended for another year, or 

what have you. 

But, this is not something that becomes political or controversial 

or anything. I think most States understand that it is in everyone’s 

best interest to do what can be done to collect child support, because it comes out of—unpaid child support comes out of every citizen’s pocket, and—so, I think that probably the States will jump 

onboard with this very quickly. 

I share your concern, obviously, you—we don’t want any States 

to be—to lose, simply because they didn’t meet an artificial timetable, but I suspect that this timetable would probably be probably 

be legitimate. And I’m like you, I come out of a State legislative 

background. 

So, thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. No, I appreciate that comment. I certainly agree 

with you that sometime concerns in State legislatures are the urgent issues that they have to deal with and these types of amendments sort of get put on a calendar that are always preempted by 

something else, until you get right near the deadline and the finance officer comes in and says, ‘‘You know, you’re jeopardizing 

Federal funds.’’ And all of a sudden, they start to take it up. I 

mean, I think you have to have the deadline, and I think you have 

to have the consequences; otherwise, it may get delayed, not because of opposition, but just because of the priority of legislative 

calendars. 

So, I agree, though, with your point. I think 2 years is a reasonable expectation with due notice. 

I think the greatest concern here, right now, is the other countries also moving forward with this. If this is going to work effectively, then we do need to see a significant number of countries 

enter into the Convention and ratify it. The United States is not 

the problem. The United States currently is enforcing child support 

orders from other countries. I expect that the United States will 

see this as a very positive change to help our citizens. We just hope 

that other countries will move quickly to consider ratification of the 

Convention. 

If there are no further questions, let me thank our witnesses. 

And as I indicated earlier, the record will remain open for 2 days. 

We may have some additional questions asked on the record. 

And I want to thank you again for your testimony, but, more importantly, thank you for what you do, Ms. Griffin, in helping the 

family issues in your State, and, Judge Robinson, for being involved in the Uniform Law Commission. 

I actually had some involvement in the Uniform Law Commission when I was in the State legislature, and I know the work that 

you do, and it’s very important work. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

Thank you all very much. 

With that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(39) 

APPENDIX I 

CONFERENCE OF STATE 

COURT ADMINISTRATORS 

RESOLUTION 2

IN SUPPORT OF RATIFICATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL

RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY MAINTENANCE AND

IN SUPPORT OF CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT

WHEREAS, the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) recognizes that 

international child support enforcement is increasingly more common and important in this global society; 

WHEREAS, on November 23, 2007, after four years of deliberation, the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of 

Family Maintenance was adopted at the conclusion of the Twenty-First Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law at The 

Hague, The Netherlands; 

WHEREAS, this Convention contains procedures for processing international child 

support cases that are uniform, simple, efficient, accessible, and inexpensive; 

WHEREAS, this Convention is founded on the agreement by contracting countries 

to recognize and enforce each other’s support obligations and is based on a system of administrative cooperation among the contracting countries to facilitate 

the transfer of documents and case information—using electronic technology 

where feasible—so that the necessary information is available for expeditious 

resolution of international child support matters; 

WHEREAS, similar procedures are already in place in the United States (US) for 

processing interstate child support cases, as many of the provisions of the Convention were drawn from the US experience with the Uniform Interstate Family 

Support Act (UIFSA); 

WHEREAS, state courts and state child support enforcement agencies in the US already recognize and enforce child support obligations, whether or not the US 

has a reciprocal agreement with the other country, so the major benefit for the 

US in joining this Convention will be obtaining child support enforcement services from other contracting countries for US citizens; 

WHEREAS, this Convention effectively addresses jurisdictional barriers that have 

prohibited the US from joining other international child support conventions by 

providing flexibility for a US court having jurisdiction over the noncustodial 

parent to establish a new order in circumstances where US jurisdictional requirements were not met in the country issuing the initial order that is sought 

to be enforced; 

WHEREAS, the Convention and the conforming amendments to the UIFSA will not 

affect intrastate or interstate cases in the U.S. and will apply only to cases 

where the custodial parent and child live in one contracting country and the 

noncustodial parent lives in another contracting country; 

WHEREAS, the Convention does not affect substantive child support law, which is 

generally left to the individual states, as its primary focus is on uniform procedures for enforcement of decisions and for cooperation among countries; and 

WHEREAS, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) worked closely with the U.S. Departments of State and Health and Human Services and a wide variety of orgaVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:59 Jan 23, 2010 Jkt 089115 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\ER002.XXX ER002

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
40 

nizations with expertise in child support enforcement to develop the 2008 

amendments to UIFSA to ensure that state law will conform to the requirements of the Convention. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference urges the President to 

submit to the United States Senate a resolution seeking its advice and consent 

to ratify the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support 

and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, adopted by The Hague Conference on 

Private International Law on November 23, 2007; 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conference urges the United States Senate 

to promptly grant its advice and consent to ratify the Hague Convention on the 

International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conference urges the Congress to act 

promptly to amend the Social Security Act as necessary to comply with the provisions of the Convention, including an amendment to section 466(f) of the Social Security Act to require every state to enact the 2008 version of the Uniform 

Interstate Family Support Act as a condition of receiving federal funding for the 

state’s Title IV-D child support enforcement program. 

Adopted as proposed by the Courts, Children, and Families Committee at the 2008 

Midyear Meeting on December 4, 2008 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(41) 

APPENDIX II 

CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES 

RESOLUTION 5

IN SUPPORT OF RATIFICATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL

RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY MAINTENANCE AND

IN SUPPORT OF CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUP- PORT ACT

WHEREAS, the Conference of Chief Justices (the Conference) recognizes that international child support enforcement is increasingly more common and important 

in this global society; and 

WHEREAS, on November 23, 2007, after four years of deliberation, the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of 

Family Maintenance (the Convention) was adopted at the conclusion of the 

Twenty-First Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law at The Hague, The Netherlands; and 

WHEREAS, the Convention contains procedures for processing international child 

support cases that are uniform, simple, efficient, accessible, and inexpensive; 

and 

WHEREAS, the Convention is founded on the agreement of contracting countries to 

recognize and enforce support obligations ordered by other contracting countries 

and is based on a system of administrative cooperation among the contracting 

countries to facilitate the transfer of documents and case information (using 

electronic technology when feasible) so the necessary information is available 

for expeditious resolution of international child support matters; and 

WHEREAS, similar procedures are already in place in the United States for processing interstate child support cases, as many of the provisions of the Convention were drawn from the U.S. experience with the Uniform Interstate Family 

Support Act (UIFSA); and 

WHEREAS, the Uniform Law Commission worked closely with the U.S. Departments of State and Health and Human Services and a wide variety of organizations with expertise in child support enforcement to develop the 2008 amendments to UIFSA to ensure that state law will conform to the requirements of 

the Convention; and 

WHEREAS, state courts and state child support enforcement agencies in the U.S. 

already recognize and enforce foreign child support obligations, whether or not 

the U.S. has a reciprocal agreement with the other country, so the major benefit 

for the U.S. in joining the Convention will be obtaining child support enforcement services from other contracting countries for U.S. citizens; and 

WHEREAS, the Convention effectively addresses jurisdictional barriers that have 

prohibited the U.S. from joining other international child support conventions 

by providing flexibility for a U.S. court having jurisdiction over the noncustodial 

parent to establish a new order in circumstances where U.S. jurisdictional requirements were not met in the country issuing the initial order that is sought 

to be enforced; and 

WHEREAS, the Convention and the conforming amendments to the UIFSA will not 

affect intrastate or interstate cases in the U.S. and will apply only to cases 

where one of the parties lives in a foreign contracting country; and 

WHEREAS, the Convention does not affect substantive child support law as its primary focus is on uniform procedures for the enforcement of decisions and for 

cooperation among countries; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
42 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference urges the President 

to submit to the United States Senate a resolution seeking its advice and consent to ratify the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 23, 2007; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conference urges the United States Senate 

to promptly grant its advice and consent to ratify the Hague Convention on the 

International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conference urges the Congress to act 

promptly to amend the Social Security Act as necessary to comply with the provisions of the Convention. 

Adopted as proposed by the CCJ/COSCA Courts, Children, and Families Committee 

at the CCJ/COSCA Annual Meeting in August 2009. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(43) 

APPENDIX III 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED

BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

SUBMITTED TO KEITH LOKEN BY SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY

Question. The State Department’s letter of submittal states that 

the Convention ‘‘will be implemented through a combination of existing law and practice and certain necessary conforming amendments to federal legislation and relevant uniform state law (the 

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)).’’ The letter further provides that it is not expected that the United States would 

deposit its instrument of ratification until the necessary changes to 

federal law have been enacted and all states have adopted the 

amendments to UIFSA. 

Are there any factors that would lead the Executive Branch to 

conclude that U.S. ratification of the Convention would be advisable prior to the adoption of amendments to UIFSA by all states? 

Answer. The Executive Branch does not contemplate any situation in which it would deposit an instrument of ratification before 

all of the states have adopted the 2008 amendments to UIFSA, 

which will ensure that the states implement fully the United 

States’ obligations under the Convention. 

Question. The State Department’s letter of submittal states that 

the Convention ‘‘will be implemented through a combination of existing law and practice and certain necessary conforming amendments to federal legislation and relevant uniform state law (the 

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)).’’ The letter further provides that it is not expected that the United States would 

deposit its instrument of ratification until the necessary changes to 

federal law have been enacted and all states have adopted the 

amendments to UIFSA. 

What options would be available to the Executive Branch to ensure full implementation of the Convention if a state (or states), 

subsequent to U.S. ratification, amended its law in a manner that 

was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention? 

Answer. In light of state compliance with similar federal requirements in the child support enforcement area since 1975, it is unlikely that a state would amend its law in a manner inconsistent 

with the requirements of the proposed Multilateral Child Support 

Convention Implementation Act of 2009 or the 2008 version of the 

Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). Should a state 

take such action, it would risk the loss of substantial federal fundVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:59 Jan 23, 2010 Jkt 089115 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\ER002.XXX ER002

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
44 

ing for child support enforcement (over $4 billion annually) as well 

as for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs (approximately $16.5 billion annually) pursuant to titles IVD and IV-A, respectively, of the Social Security Act. 

In the unlikely event that a state did enact inconsistent legislation, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would 

ask that state to take action to bring its laws into compliance with 

the Convention. The proposed Multilateral Child Support Convention Implementation Act of 2009 would authorize HHS to take such 

steps as are necessary within existing HHS authorities to ensure 

compliance with the Convention. One such step could include cutting off the funding referred to above. The Department of State and 

HHS would then consult to discuss what other steps might be 

needed to ensure USG compliance with the Convention, possibly including new federal legislation. 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

SUBMITTED TO KEITH LOKEN BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. In its 2008 decision in Medellı ́n v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 

1346 (2008), the Supreme Court concluded that the United States 

lacked the authority in U.S. law to give effect to a judgment of the 

International Court of Justice relating to U.S. obligations under the 

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Foreign Relations 

Committee has previously stressed its view that it is important 

that the United States comply with its treaty obligations, and has 

observed that the Committee generally does not recommend that 

the Senate give advice and consent to treaties unless it is satisfied 

that the United States has sufficient domestic legal authority to 

implement them. With these considerations in mind, please indicate what authorities federal and state governments will rely on to 

implement the various obligations the United States would assume 

upon becoming party to the Convention. 

Answer. On October 1, 2009, the Department of Health and 

Human Services sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate the Administration’s draft 

bill, the ‘‘Multilateral Child Support Convention Implementation 

Act of 2009.’’ That bill would, among other things, require that as 

a condition for receiving certain federal funds, states enact the July 

2008 amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act 

(UIFSA). The funds at issue are substantial federal funding for 

child support enforcement programs as well as funding for the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The 

July 2008 amendments were adopted by the Uniform Law Commission to bring the provisions of UIFSA into conformity with the obligations of the United States under the Convention. As stated in the 

testimony of Battle R. Robinson, Uniform Law Commissioner, Delaware, three states (Maine, Nevada and North Dakota) have adopted the amendments. We understand that the Uniform Law Commission maintains on its website (www.nccusl.org) a list of states 

that have adopted these amendments. 

Should the Senate provide its advice and consent to ratification 

of the Convention, enactment by Congress of the Multilateral Child 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
45 

Support Convention Implementation Act of 2009 and enactment by 

the states of the July 2008 version of UIFSA would together enable 

the United States to comply with its treaty obligations. The United 

States would not deposit its instrument of ratification until both of 

these actions were completed. 

Question. Article 55 of the Convention envisions the possibility 

that parties to the Convention may agree to amend the forms annexed to the Convention for use in processing applications and 

cases under the Convention. What process does the Executive 

Branch intend to follow with respect to considering any such proposed amendments? Does the Executive Branch intend to submit 

any such amendments to the Senate for advice and consent? If not, 

will the Executive Branch commit to consulting with state governments and with the Senate before agreeing to any amendments to 

these forms? 

Answer. Article 55 of the Convention provides that amendments 

to the forms annexed to the Convention may be adopted by the 

Contracting States present at a Special Commission to which all 

Contracting States are invited. Article 55 further provides that 

such adopted amendments shall enter into force for all Contracting 

States on the first day of the seventh calendar month after the date 

of their communication by the depositary to all Contracting States, 

except for those Contracting States that make a reservation with 

respect to that amendment before the end of the stated period. 

The forms contain check lists of information that must be provided by the Central Authorities in submitting or acknowledging 

receipt of an application. The forms are aimed at facilitating and 

harmonizing the transmission of such information in order to expedite processing of applications in implementation of the Convention. The forms repeat verbatim the confidentiality provisions of 

the Convention to remind the Central Authorities of those obligations and provide a standardized way for the Central Authorities 

to indicate whether they have made a determination under Article 

40(1) of the Convention regarding confidentiality. Based on the intended purpose of the forms, our expectation is that any amendments to the forms would be technical and administrative in nature and would not, in the normal course, require the advice and 

consent of the Senate. If, however, a proposed or adopted amendment were to go beyond a technical and administrative amendment 

aimed at facilitating implementation of the Convention, the Executive Branch would consult with the committee in a timely manner 

regarding the question of whether advice and consent is warranted. 

Under such circumstances, the Executive Branch could make appropriate use of the ‘‘reservation’’ procedure described in Article 

55(3) to prevent an amendment from entering into force for the 

United States before the conclusion of consultations with the Committee. 

During the negotiation of the Convention, the Department of 

State and the Department of Health and Human Services worked 

closely and consulted extensively with a variety of domestic stakeholders, including representatives of state child support enforcement agencies and the Uniform Law Commission, to ensure that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
46 

their views were taken into account. We would expect to do the 

same with regard to any proposed amendments to these forms. 

Because Article 55 requires parties to ‘‘make a reservation’’ in 

the event that a State does not wish to be bound by a particular 

amendment to the forms, we recommend that language be included 

in the Senate’s Resolution of advice and consent along the following 

lines: 

Article 55 of the Convention sets forth a special procedure 

for the amendment of the forms annexed to the Convention. 

In the event that the United States does not want a particular amendment to the forms adopted in accordance with 

Article 55(2) to enter into force for the United States on the 

first day of the seventh calendar month after the date of its 

communication by the depositary to all parties, the Executive Branch may by notification in writing to the depositary 

make a reservation, in accordance with Article 62 of the 

Convention, with respect to that amendment and without 

the approval of the Senate. 

Question. The Convention does not establish procedures for 

amendments to the Convention’s text (as distinct from amendments 

to the forms attached to the Convention addressed by Article 55). 

What procedures would apply for the adoption of any amendments 

to the Convention’s text? Does the Executive Branch intend to submit any amendments to the Convention’s text to the Senate for its 

advice and consent? 

Answer. Like other Conventions developed under the auspices of 

the Hague Conference on Private International Law to which the 

United States is a party (such as the 1993 Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International 

Child Abduction, the 1970 Convention on the Taking of Evidence 

Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, and the 1965 Convention 

on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in 

Civil or Commercial Matters), this Convention’s text is silent on 

the procedures for amending the text of the Convention itself (other 

than to the forms annexed to the Convention that are subject to a 

special amendment process). 

In such cases of silence, customary international law rules regarding the amendment of multilateral treaties, as reflected in Article 40 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, would 

apply. The Executive Branch would ordinarily expect such amendments to this Convention to be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. 

Question. Currently, only one other country—Burkina Faso—has 

signed the Convention. What steps does the Administration plan to 

take to encourage other countries to become parties to the Convention? 

Answer. Should the United States become a party to the Convention, we intend to take every opportunity to encourage other States 

to take similar action. In the meantime, we have been monitoring 

the progress of other countries’ ratification efforts and in fact, a 

number of countries are taking steps to become parties to the Convention. The member states of the European Community (EC) 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
47 

strongly support the Convention. It is anticipated that all the member states and the EC would join together, perhaps in 2011. Canada also is a strong supporter of the Convention and we understand that the federal government there is working with the provinces and territories on implementation under Canada’s federal 

system. We understand that other countries such as Norway and 

Australia are actively considering becoming parties. 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

SUBMITTED TO VICKI TURETSKY BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. Articles 4 through 8 of the Convention address functions that Central Authorities are obligated to perform under the 

Convention. Please indicate what costs federal and state governments are expected to incur to implement these obligations. Please 

also indicate to what extent, if any, these costs would be additional 

to costs federal and state governments already incur as part of existing federal and state programs. 

Answer. The administrative cooperation requirements for Central 

Authorities under the Treaty are similar to those required for 

interstate child support agency activities as performed under the 

existing title IV-D program. Therefore, none of the activities mandated under the Treaty would measurably increase costs in the 

short term as the federal and state governments already incur 

these expenses as part of existing federal and state programs. 

Currently, less than one percent of the existing 15 million cases 

in the title IV-D caseload involve a parent living in another country. Even over the next 10 years, as more countries ratify and implement the Treaty, costs are not expected to increase significantly. 

Those countries expected to be the first to ratify the Treaty are, for 

the most part, the countries with the most developed child support 

systems that are working already with State child support agencies 

under our existing Federal bi-lateral or State-level arrangements. 

While we expect that the international caseload will continue to increase over the long term, the added efficiencies (uniform forms, 

standard operating procedures) of the treaty and future anticipated 

enhancements in communication and technology are expected to 

greatly reduce the cost-per-case. 

Question. Article 15 of the Convention requires state parties to 

provide free legal assistance in connection with applications concerning maintenance obligations. Please indicate what costs federal 

and state governments are expected to incur to implement this obligation. Please also indicate to what extent, if any, these costs 

would be additional to costs federal and state governments already 

incur as part of existing federal and state programs. 

Answer. State child support agencies and the Federal government already provide all services mandated under the treaty, including provision of any necessary legal assistance, in international 

cases free of charge, as required under sections 454(32) of the Social Security Act. Since we are currently providing services in international cases, and do not anticipate an imminent substantial increase in cases coming into this country, we do not anticipate 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
48 

measurably increased costs to federal or state governments in the 

foreseeable future. 

Treaty countries are not required to provide free legal services ‘‘if 

and to the extent that the procedures of that State enable the applicant to make the case without the need for such assistance and 

the Central Authority provides such services as are necessary free 

of charge.’’ Most child support activities under the IV-D program 

in the United States are conducted without the need for a lawyer 

or other legal assistance. A majority of international cases already 

have orders which we expect can be routinely recognized and enforced without significant cost because most enforcement activities 

are automated and do not involve individual case processing. Moreover, at least half the States rely extensively on administrative, 

rather than court-based, procedures to establish orders when required. 

Even in those cases requiring establishment or modification of an 

order, the Convention provides many procedures which will greatly 

simplify and reduce costs, in existing cases as well as future expenses. For instance an ‘‘abstract or extract of the decision drawn 

up by the competent authority’’ may in some instances be substituted for the complete order, greatly reducing translation costs 

of extraneous passages in a divorce decree. The possibility of electronic transmission of many ‘‘documents’’ also is contemplated in 

the treaty and it is expected that other innovations in presentation 

of witness testimony and corroborating evidence will similarly be 

utilized. A basic premise of the Convention is that it should ‘‘take 

advantage of advances in technologies and create a flexible system 

which can continue to evolve as needs change and further advances 

in technology create new opportunities.’’ 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING