Opinion ID: 2606532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Can The Income Assignment Order Be Used To Collect The Judgment For Back Child Support Accruing Before The Order Of Support Was Issued?

Text: The essence of Ralston's argument is that a judgment which orders a person to reimburse an obligee for support during a period when the obligor was not required to make support payments cannot be equated with a judgment representing delinquent periodic support payments ordered pursuant to an order of support. Ralston argues that support payments which must be in arrears in order for an IAO to take effect under AS 47.23.062(c) can only be interpreted as payments which must be established by an order of support, presumably, under AS 47.23.062(a). Ralston takes the position that only the $445 per month child support payments ordered by the superior court can be characterized as an order to provide support, so only arrearages as to those payments may be enforced under AS 47.23.062. He argues that the $17,800 judgment cannot be viewed as an arrearage or delinquent support payment since that amount accrued prior to the court's support order, and that to collect on the $17,800 judgment CSED should use the execution provisions of AS 09.35.010-.330 (which entitle him to execution exemptions not available under AS 47.23.062). In support of his contentions Ralston points both to the wording of the Judgment and Order of Support, which states that CSED shall maintain a record of support payments, and to the IAO, which states that income shall be assigned if child support payments become delinquent. Relying on AS 47.23.225, which states that [a] court order ordering a noncustodial parent obligor to make periodic child support payments ... is a judgment that becomes vested when each payment becomes due and unpaid, Ralston concludes that the judgments collectible under of AS 47.23.062 must be for unpaid, periodic, court-ordered child support payments. Ralston also contends that enforcement of the IAO would treat him unfairly  as if he had been previously ordered to make monthly support payments, had been apprised that an IAO could be entered against him if he failed to make them, and ultimately did fail to make them. Although Ralston's arguments are not without force, we conclude that Title 47 permits use of the IAO to enforce the judgment for back child support. As a general rule, provisions for custody and support of children are liberally applied for the welfare of the children. 3 C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 68.06, at 254 (4th ed. 1974). Courts have broadly interpreted statutes providing for income withholding to enforce child support in a variety of contexts, in order to best effectuate the legislative purpose to ensure that parents meet their obligations. See, e.g., Martin v. Tate, 492 A.2d 270 (D.C.App. 1985); In re Matt, 105 Ill.2d 330, 85 Ill.Dec. 505, 473 N.E.2d 1310 (1985). In amending Title 47 the legislature stated in part: The legislature finds that the effect on the general public of the failure of parents to support their children is vast and far reaching... . The purpose of the amendments in this Act is to enhance the efforts of those persons who seek to enforce the payment of child support obligations by noncustodial parents having the duty of support. Ch. 144, § 1, SLA 1984. Alaska Statute 47.23.900(3) provides in part that `duty of support' includes a duty of child support imposed or imposable by law, by a court order, decree or judgment, ... and includes the duty to pay arrearages of support past due and unpaid... . The judgment against Ralston to pay back child support of $445 per month from October 1981 to February 1985 arose from a duty imposable by law; that is, the father's primary and continuing duty to support his children. Cf. Houger v. Houger, 449 P.2d 766, 770 (Alaska 1969); Johansen v. State, 491 P.2d 759, 769 (Alaska 1971). Although the statute does not speak specifically to whether arrearages include amounts owed due to a judgment of back child support, [4] we conclude that the purposes behind the statute justify use of an IAO to collect accrued back child support. There is no language in Title 47 which explicitly prohibits such use. Use of the IAO in situations such as this will ensure that noncustodial parents meet their entire support obligations. AFFIRMED.