The Bradley Amendment: A 1986 amendment to Title IV of the Social Security Act
Amendment: |
The Bradley AmendmentLanguage of the The Bradley Amendment was contained in S.2706, the Sixth Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1986. The Bradley Amendment is an amendment to Title IV of the Social Security Act. |
Bill number: |
Public Law 99–509, S. 2706, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c)(1986) |
Bill info: |
Senate bill S. 2404, the Interstate Child Support Act, was introduced May 5, 1996 by Senator Bradley and Senator Russell Long; While this was not voted upon, the amendment language appeared in bill, S. 2706. The Sixth Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1986: H.R. 5300, incorporated S. 2706 as an amendment. Initially, the House bill did not contain a provision regarding retroactive child support modifications and the Senate bill language of S.2706 was added. |
Bill content: |
This Amendment currently:
Prohibits the retroactive modification of child support arrearages. “Procedures which require that any payment or installment of support under any child support order, whether ordered through the State judicial system or through the expedited processes required by paragraph (2) is (on and after the date it is due):1. A judgment by operation of law, with the full force, effect, and attributes of a judgment of the State, including the ability to be enforced.2. Entitled as a judgment to full faith and credit in such State and in any other State.3. Not subject to retroactive modification by such State or by any other State; Except that such procedures may permit modification with respect to any period during which there is pending a petition for modification, but only from the date that notice of such petition has been given, either directly or through the appropriate agent, to the obligee or (where the obligee is the petitioner) to the other obligor.” |
Sponsor: |
S.2706 (99th Congress): (Short title) Sixth Omnibus Reconciliation Act, 1986:
Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico (R) Language of bill derived from (S.2404: Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey (D)) |
Date: |
Introduced:7/31/1986: Passed Senate: 9/25/1986.
President in office: Ronald Reagan |
Enforcement date: |
Fiscal year 1987: Accounting period from October 1, 1986-September 30, 1987. |
Law states: |
“Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve the effectiveness of child support enforcement. Pursuant to the Bradley Amendment, a child support payment becomes a judgment by operation of law when it becomes due and unpaid, and it is entitled to full faith and credit” (in the originating state and in any other state) and enforced as any other judgment of the initiating state. |
Purpose: |
The Report language further states that “if the noncustodial parent’s financial circumstances change because of unemployment, illness, or other reasons, the Amendment puts the burden on the noncustodial parent to notify the custodial parent and the court or entity which issued the child support order of the noncustodial parent’s changed financial circumstances and the noncustodial parent’s intention to have his/her child support order.” |
Summary of bill: |
“The Bradley Amendment prohibits the retroactive State modification of child support arrearages. Under current law, no matter what the circumstances, a State cannot modify delinquent child support obligations.”
Child support arrearage is viewed as a past due, unpaid, child support obligation. “The basic purpose of the Bradley Amendment is to prevent those who are tasked with child support payments from having debts retroactively reduced or removed after failure to pay them creates a large debt.” The law overrides any state’s statute of limitations. Disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges. |
Implications to parent: |
Automatically triggers a non-expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.
Requires the payments be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor). Non-custodial parent is to document changed circumstances and notify the courts re: making a change to child support payments. The obligee may forgive what is owed to them. Exception: When past-due child support is owed to a state as a result of welfare paid out, the state is free to forgive some or all of it under what’s known as an offer in compromise. |
Application: |
Several cases have been cited to argue that the Bradley Amendment is unfair and destructive.
1. Clarence Bradley, who was arrested and convicted of a murder he did not commit in 1980. After being exonerated and released from jail in 1990, he filed a lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment. However, at this time the state of Texas charged that under the Bradley Amendment, Clarence Brandley had a debt totaling nearly $50,000, largely composed of interest, as his original 1980 debt had been roughly $70,000. While the debt of Clarence Brandley remains an issue, his experiences led the state of Texas to pass a bill designed to modify the more severe consequences of the Bradley Amendment. In 2007, the Texas state legislature passed a bill stating that in cases of wrongful imprisonment, the state of Texas would be responsible for making payments required by the Bradley Amendment that an incarcerated person was incapable of making. 2. 1992, Taron Grant James was named as the father of the child of Tami Burton while he was serving in the Navy. The child was not his and Taron Grant James was not aware that he had been named as the father on the birth certificate. In 1994, James was served with a complaint addressed to Teodoro Alfonso Martinez. Believing he had received the complaint in error, he ignored it. Subsequently he was ordered to make child payments of $121 a month. In 2001, Taron Grant James established via a DNA test that he was not the father of the child. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit to recover the money made for payments totaling over $12,000 compelled by the Bradley Amendment for a child which was not his. However, he was denied reimbursement for these erroneous payments because California state law contains language that lacks clarity on whether or not public agencies can refund such erroneous payments. |
Efforts to repeal: |
“The Amendment has come under criticism by noncustodial parent advocacy groups because of the inflexibility of its application. Supporters of the Amendment argue that it prevents affluent parents from avoiding delinquent child support obligations. Pending legislation in the 106th Congress, while not repealing the Amendment, would have the effect of modifying the application of the Amendment under certain circumstances.” |
Changes: |
2007: Texas government is responsible for making payments required by the Bradley Amendment that an incarcerated person was incapable of making. |
The Bradley Amendment presented challenges to parents who were already behind in child support payments and had child support orders in place they could not afford, accumulating debt. The program intended to eliminate the process of a parent having some or all of the back child support payments removed. While this is a crucial point to consider, some parents were put in a position of accumulating debt.
Realistically, as the debt grows, there is the possibility of creating a constant circle of debt and non-payment. A parent is unable to pay the current child support payments because of money is used toward the arrearages. This becomes a stressful and no-win situation for everyone.
Several attempts have been made repealing this amendment to no avail.
END
.