< Back to Search

Role of IV-D Agency and Staff in Delivering Program Services

DCL-93-42

Published: September 21, 1993
Information About:
State/Local Child Support Agencies
Topics:
Case Management
Types:
Policy, Dear Colleague Letters (DCL)
Tags:
Administrative/Judicial Processes

TO ALL STATE IV-D DIRECTORS

Dear Colleague:

This is to bring your attention to several changes to OCSE-IM-93- 03, concerning the statutory information on Alabama, Colorado, and Texas, on the role of the IV-D agency and its staff in delivering program services.

Alabama has issued an ethics opinion, RO-87-57, which provides that the attorney represents the State where there is an assignment, but represents the IV-D client where no assignment is made and/or where it is no longer in effect. Alabama's State code no longer provides language explaining the role of the IV-D attorney. Alabama has also developed a "legal notice" it gives to applicants/recipients of IV-D services, informing parents whether the IV-D attorney represents them.

While the statutory cite which was included in the IM for Colorado is accurate, the State has requested that we use the following language for further clarity:

26-13-105(2), Colorado Revised Statutes, In any action brought pursuant to this article, or any action brought by a governmental agency, to establish, modify, or enforce a child support obligation to enforce a maintenance obligation as set forth in section 26-13-106, the prosecuting attorney represents the people of the State of Colorado. Nothing of this section shall be construed to modify statutory mandate, authority, or confidentiality required of any governmental agency, nor should representation by a prosecuting attorney be construed to create an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and any party, other than the people of the State of Colorado, or witness to the action; except that any district attorney or county attorney as contractual agency for a county department shall collect a fee pursuant to section 26-13-106(2).

Texas has recently amended its State statute. Effective September 1, 1993, its Human Resources Code will provide that "[a]n attorney employed by the attorney general or as otherwise provided by the chapter represents the interest of the state and not the interest of any other party." (to be codified at S 76.007(d) of the Human Resources Code).

Please make a note of these changes.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Harris

Office of Child Support Enforcement