Louisiana House Bill HB104

Louisiana 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/16/15
• Refer: 3/16/15
• Refer: 4/13/15
• Report Pass: 5/4/15
• Engrossed: 5/11/15
• Refer: 5/12/15
• Report Pass: 5/25/15
• Enrolled: 5/28/15
• Chaptered: 6/19/15
• Passed: 6/19/15

Caption

Authorizes a support obligation fee in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District (EN +$45,200 LF RV See Note)

Impact

The introduction of this fee is expected to generate additional revenue for the Domestic Commissioner's Fund, enhancing the capacity of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District to manage and support its domestic case load. The fund will contribute towards programs that aim to intervene early in domestic disputes, potentially leading to improved outcomes for families involved in these cases. However, it is important to note that this fee will not apply in instances where the Department of Children and Family Services is involved in providing support enforcement services.

Summary

House Bill 104 aims to authorize a one-time support obligation fee within the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District of Louisiana. Specifically, the bill allows for the assessment of a fee not exceeding fifty dollars in all domestic filings, which will be channeled into the Domestic Commissioner's Fund. This fund is intended exclusively to support the costs associated with the Domestic Early Intervention Triage Program, reflecting a targeted investment in domestic relations support services.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 104 appears to be largely positive, particularly among those who advocate for better resources in the family law system. Proponents argue that the fee is a reasonable measure to ensure that the necessary financial support is available for effective domestic intervention programs. However, there may be concerns from individuals wary of additional costs associated with court-related processes, especially if they are already facing difficult personal circumstances.

Contention

One notable point of contention regarding HB 104 is the potential financial burden the added fee may impose on individuals filing domestic claims, particularly those who may already be struggling financially. There is a balance to be struck between generating necessary funds for critical programs and ensuring access to these programs does not become prohibitively expensive for the very families that need them most. The requirement for judges to approve the fee underscores the need for oversight of such measures, hinting at broader discussions about the implications of enforcing additional judicial fees.