It is often difficult, if not impossible, to enforce child support obligations in cases where the custodial parent and child live in one country and the noncustodial parent lives in another. International cases are often challenging and very time consuming for CSE workers because there are no agreed upon standards of proof, uniform procedures or methods of communication. The United States has not ratified a multilateral child support enforcement treaty dealing with this issue. This report provides an overview of the current Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system, including a discussion of how international CSE cases are handled. It provides a summary of the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance and contains current status information on the Convention/Treaty. It also provides a section-by-section summary of H.R. 1896 , a bill in the 113 th Congress that includes provisions to implement the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and several other unrelated child support provisions. H.R. 1896 was introduced by Representative David Reichert and nine co-sponsors on May 8, 2012. Nearly identical legislation ( H.R. 4282 ) passed the House by voice vote in the 112 th Congress on June 5, 2012. Proponents of ratification of the Hague Convention provisions related to child support and family maintenance note that many Americans who live abroad may owe child support and that, in addition, there are thousands of foreigners with children who live in the United States for whom child support should be provided. They contend that a noncustodial parent's residence in a foreign country should not negate his or her children from receiving the child support to which they are entitled. The CSE program was enacted in 1975 ( P.L. 93-647 ) as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). Its purpose is to help strengthen families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families remain self-sufficient and off public assistance. The CSE program has evolved over time from a "welfare cost-recovery" program into a "family-first" program that seeks to enhance the well-being of families by making child support a more reliable source of income. Child support orders require noncustodial parents to fulfill their financial responsibility to their children by contributing to the payment of childrearing costs. The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) parent location, (2) paternity establishment, (3) establishment of child support orders, (4) review and modification of child support orders, (5) collection of child support payments, (6) distribution of child support payments, and (7) establishment and enforcement of medical support. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) operate CSE programs and are entitled to federal matching funds. The federal government reimburses each state (and the jurisdictions listed above) 66% of the cost of operating its CSE program. In addition, the federal government pays states (and jurisdictions) an incentive payment to encourage them to operate effective programs. State CSE programs are usually operated at the county-level of government in the human services department, department of revenue, or the State Attorney General's office. States must comply with a comprehensive set of requirements as a condition for receiving federal funds for operating state CSE programs. The CSE program is administered at the federal level by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). State CSE programs have authority to use a vast array of methods/tools to collect/enforce the payment of child support. Collection methods used by CSE agencies include income withholding, intercept of federal and state income tax refunds, intercept of unemployment compensation, liens against property, security bonds, and reporting of child support obligations to credit bureaus. All states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands also have civil or criminal contempt-of-court procedures and criminal nonsupport laws. Moreover, the 1996 welfare reform law ( P.L. 104-193 ), officially known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), required states to implement expedited procedures to allow them to secure assets to satisfy an arrearage by intercepting or seizing unemployment and workers' compensation; lottery winnings; awards, judgments, or settlements; and assets of the debtor parent held in public or private retirement funds and financial institutions. It required states to implement procedures to withhold, suspend, or restrict use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of persons who owe past-due support or who fail to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support proceedings. In addition, the 1996 law authorized the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or restrict passports of debtor parents. Many CSE administrators contend that the most difficult child support orders to enforce are interstate cases. Family law traditionally has been under the jurisdiction of state and local governments, and citizens fall under the jurisdiction of the courts where they live. Thus, although federal CSE law requires states to cooperate in interstate child support enforcement, problems often arise because of the autonomy of local courts. P.L. 104-193 required states to enact and implement the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). UIFSA was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and approved by the Commissioners in August 1992. The NCCUSL revised the act in 1996, 2001, and again in 2008. UIFSA limits the jurisdiction that can properly establish and modify child support orders and addresses the enforcement of child support obligations within the United States. When multiple states are involved in establishing, enforcing, or modifying a child or spousal support order, UIFSA is used to resolve jurisdictional issues of the courts in the different states. UIFSA also establishes which state's law will be applied in proceedings under UIFSA, an important factor as support laws vary greatly among the states. UIFSA is designed to deal with desertion and nonsupport by instituting uniform laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The core of UIFSA is limiting control of a child support case to a single state, thereby ensuring that only one child support order from one court or child support agency is in effect at any given time. It follows that the controlling state will be able to effectively pursue interstate cases, primarily through the use of long arm statutes, because its jurisdiction is undisputed. UIFSA provides procedural and jurisdictional rules for three types of interstate child support proceedings to (1) establish a child support order; (2) enforce a child support order; and (3) modify a child support order. UIFSA implements the "one-order system." This means that only one state's order governs, at any given time, an obligor's support obligation to any child. Further, only one state has continuing jurisdiction to modify a child support order. This requires all other states to recognize the order and to refrain from modifying it unless the first state has lost jurisdiction. P.L. 104-193 required that the 1996 version of UIFSA be adopted. It has been adopted in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As mentioned above, the NCCUSL approved additional amendments to UIFSA in August 2001. However, there is no federal mandate for states to enact the 2001 amendments. To date (almost 12 years later), only 21 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the 2001 amendments to UIFSA. In July 2008, the NCCUSL approved amendments to the 2001 UIFSA (referred to as UIFSA 2008), to integrate the appropriate provisions of the Convention, which were adopted at the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 23, 2007. Similarly, there is no federal mandate for states to enact UIFSA 2008. To date, 11 states have adopted the 2008 amendments to UIFSA. States that have adopted UIFSA 2008 now stand ready to immediately implement the Convention if it is ratified. Before 1996, there was no mandate, direct or indirect, for the states or the federal government to become involved in international arrangements for child support. Prior to P.L. 104-193 , states used the system that they had developed for interstate child support cases to collect child support on behalf of children whose noncustodial parent lived abroad. According to various CSE documents, the arrangements developed between the individual states and various foreign countries to enforce child support obligations were based on the principles of comity—the voluntary recognition and respect given to the acts of another nation's government—as well as formal statements of reciprocity. P.L. 104-193 established procedures for international enforcement of child support. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.