Opinion ID: 2002508
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District of Columbia Law

Text: Pursuant to its legislative authority over the District of Columbia, U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 17; D.C.Code §§ 1-201(a), 1-206 (1988 Supp.), Congress passed the District of Columbia Judicial Efficiency and Improvement Act of 1986, supra (codified at D.C.Code § 11-1732 (1989 Repl.)). Congress made hearing commissioners a more permanent part of the D.C. court system and empowered them to hear cases involving child support and to issue final orders. See D.C.Code § 11-1732(j)(4)(A), quoted supra. These orders are appealable initially to the Superior Court. Id. § 11-1732(k). See 45 C.F.R. § 301.101 (1987). The original version of the bill, however, made no mention of guidelines, requiring only that the hearing commissioner shall conduct a hearing on support, make findings, and enter judgment. [8] H.R.Rep. No. 99-326, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (1985). It sought to conform with 42 U.S.C.A. § 666(a)(2)(A), which required procedures under which expedited processes (determined in accordance with regulations of the Secretary) are in effect for obtaining and enforcing support orders. Id. at 3. The granting of permanent authority to hearing commissioners only helped expedite orders; the original bill did not purport to comply with the 42 U.S.C.A. § 667 guidelines requirement. Thus, the main purpose of this bill was to expedite child support cases through establishment of a supplementary procedure outside the slow processes of the regular judiciary. [9] The final version of the legislation enacted by Congress containing the provision which requires guidelines specifies that the guidelines would be established by rule of the Superior Court and be binding on hearing commissioners. [10] D.C.Code § 11-1732(j)(4)(A). It does not specify their substantive contents, and there is no indication whatever that Congress disagreed with established case law or wanted certain changes to be made in developing calculations. On the contrary, the section specifies that the hearing commissioners would have to enter judgment as provided by law as well as in accordance with the guidelines established by court rule. The statutory scheme indicates that Congress sought to promote fairness in the District of Columbia by providing resolution of child support conflicts on an expedited basis through an intermediate tier of hearing commissioners who have ready formulae for calculating support orders. See, e.g., D.C.Code §§ 16-924(a), (f), 30-506(a) (1981, 1988 Repl.). In addition, Congress thought that the uniformity of awards would contribute to their overall fairness and encourage settlements through their predictability. [11] It authorized the Superior Court to achieve these goals by greater use of hearing commissioners and child support guidelines established by court rule, a term Congress had previously used in connection with the functions of the hearing commissioners and defined at the time it created the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. [12] The Report of the Superior Court Child Support Guideline Committee (Guideline Report) described the state of child support in the District of Columbia as a crisis, and indicated that Congress intended to confront this crisis directly, suggesting that Congress intended any guidelines to alter the status quo. Guideline Report at 9-10. We find no basis on which to conclude, however, that Congress granted the Superior Court authority to change the substantive law regarding child support awards. To assure higher awards and uniformity of awards did not necessarily require a new approach in the then-existing substantive child support law, but if it did, as the Child Support Guideline Committee concluded, then a legislative remedy was required. The Child Support Guideline Committee recognized that it was acting in a quasi-legislative capacity, but justified its action by stating that the legislature was silent on this particular issue, i.e., specific substantive standards for child support, and that since establishing child support guidelines has traditionally been the province of the judiciary, it would have authority to make significant changes, overturning existing case law whenever necessary. Guideline Report at 9-10. While formulation of support guidelines in the absence of legislation has been the province of the judiciary, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has been the final arbiter of the substantive District of Columbia child support law. See D.C.Code §§ 11-102 & 11-721 (1989 Repl.); Ferreira v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Services, 531 A.2d 651, 600 & n. 9 (D.C. 1987); Gillis v. United States, 400 A.2d 311, 313 (D.C.1979). To the extent that the Superior Court Board of Judges sought to overturn existing case law as developed by this court, it was granted no such power by Congress. The Child Support Guideline Committee (and the Board of Judges) cannot expand its authority on the basis of legislation which is silent regarding the authority to overrule existing case law. From the fact that Congress had authorized guidelines to be established by Superior Court rule, it would be an extraordinary reading of Congressional intent to conclude that Congress thereby authorized the Superior Court to act as the District's legislature, with powers otherwise delegated by Congress to the Council of the District of Columbia. [13] See District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, §§ 302, 404 of Pub.L. No. 93-198 (1973), 1 D.C.Code at 185-86. Nothing in the legislative history suggests Congress had any such intent, and none of the parties or amici has been able to locate such evidence. That Congress authorized the Board of Judges to promulgate guidelines by rule is fully consistent with the Congressional purpose to require that the District of Columbia, like the states, have child support guidelines. As the Child Support Guideline Committee itself recognized, a guideline could be based on the existing child support case law in the District of Columbia and still conform with the requirements of the federal statute. [14] Construing the reference in § 11-1732(j)(4)(A) to Superior Court rule in its ordinary meaning does not produce absurd results as would justify ignoring its plain meaning. See Peoples Drug Stores v. District of Columbia, supra, 470 A.2d at 754 (citations omitted). While there may be good arguments for promulgating the detailed formulation of child support guidelines by a court rule rather than statute (i.e., flexibility), absent explicit congressional or other legislative mandate, the exercise of such delegated authority is subject to existing law, both statutory and judicial. [15] Congress did not set out intelligible standards and statements of purpose defining such a mission for the Board of Judges or the Guidelines Committee. Cf. United States v. Ruiz-Villanueva, 680 F.Supp. 1411, 1417 (S.D. Cal.1988) (upholding sentencing guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission). Nor do we find persuasive, in the absence of any evidence of legislative intent, the argument that Congress intended only to refer to statutory law when it provided that the hearing commissioners shall make findings and enter judgments as provided by law. [16] Congress provided in its authorization for the appointment and work of hearing commissioners that the activities of the hearing commissioners would be limited by Superior Court rule, see D.C.Code § 11-1732(a) & (n), and there is nothing to suggest that in 1986 Congress intended to change the rulemaking authority of the Superior Court as it was defined by Congress in 1970. [17]