Federal law requires each state to have a child support enforcement program that complies with federal requirements as a condition of receiving federal funds for child support enforcement and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, a family must assign its rights to child support to the state during the months the family receives the benefits. Assigned child support collections are retained by the state and the federal government as partial reimbursement for TANF assistance.
State law currently requires the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to pass through up to $50 each month for families on TANF with one child and up to $100 each month for families on TANF with more than one child. Any amount collected above those thresholds is retained by the state, and a portion of that is remitted to the federal government for its share.
Child support passed through may be considered income for determining TANF eligibility and benefit amount.
In 2024, ESHB 1652 modified child support pass through and income disregard as follows, effective January 1, 2026:
The child support pass through and income disregard are delayed by three and a half years, from January 1, 2026, to July 1, 2029.
CON: I strongly oppose HB 2039 because delaying child support pass-through until 2029 is simply wrong. I am an advocate on the poverty reduction work group and a mother who lived through this system. As a teen parent on TANF in 1998, I received both cash assistance and $200 of child support. The state took over $900 of my child's support last year, even though I hadn't been on TANF in four years.
If I were still on TANF over the next 54 months, my children would receive $5,000 while the state would take $33,000. This isn't support. It is a system that robs children. If it were your kids, this policy would be law already. Stop making struggling families wait.
I am with the statewide poverty action network and oppose HB 2039. Families living on low incomes make difficult choices every day. Do I pay for my internet bill, or car repairs, or cleaning supplies. There's an easy choice before you today. Should the Legislature continue taking money away from children living in deep poverty? No. Every dollar earmarked for your budget takes a dollar away from a family living in deep poverty.
By 2026, families will have waited two years since HB 1652's passage for this policy. Please consider the true cost to these families' lives, and I urge you to choose a more progressive revenue source instead.
I come with a story. Once upon a time, I was a working single mother for children with special needs, who survived domestic violence. I turned to TANF, and also had $175 a month in child support to help. From 2005 through 2016, the non-custodial parent made only one payment. I began getting tiny amounts, but TANF got the first cut. It felt like a slap in the face. Even after TANF discontinued, the garnishment continued.
I am the director of advocacy at Essentials First and oppose HB 2039. Our organization combats hygiene poverty in Washington by distributing essential goods, like soap and laundry detergent, to families in need. And our clients are low-income families, many of whom rely on TANF grants to meet basic needs. TANF grant amounts are already so low, typically only 8 to 11 percent of the needs standard, that there's no flexibility to cover hygiene expenses or others. We see firsthand every day the impact of limiting these financial resources for Washington families has.
I'm also a single mother with lived experience in poverty and its many consequent struggles. I'm here today because you have a rare opportunity before you to achieve justice swiftly and decisively for a huge number of families facing poverty.
The cost of raising children is skyrocketing and the constellation of policies and organizations designed to provide a reliable foundation for parents is not keeping up.
I am a policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Research and Policy Institute in D.C., and am in opposition. The bill uses child support dollars intended for children in property as a revenue source to address the state's budget deficit. Research shows that child support is an especially valuable income source for families in poverty. It's typically 41 to 65 percent of total income for a family living below the poverty line. Three years is a significant amount of time in a child's life to go without sufficient resources and parents who turn to TANF to make ends meet need more income now to afford their children's basic needs.
I am a member of the 2023 child support schedule work group and also the chair of the Washington State affiliate of national parents organization. The impacts would be too great in part because what was mentioned earlier about the federal portion from a couple weeks ago when this bill was discussed, it was 54 million for four years. That means another 108 million is taken out of Washington State and sent back to the feds.
I am a concerned parent who is currently utilizing TANF assistance. In 2020, I sought TANF assistance as my children and I exited a domestic violence situation, suffering extreme levels of PTSD after surviving near-death experiences. My children were enrolled in wraparound services. Since that time, my children's father has been ordered to pay child support and spousal support. He refuses to pay spousal support. Therefore, my children receive only the $100 pass-through for his partial child support payment.
If there is a delay in implementation, that means my children continue to go without soccer. The cheapest team I can sign them up for at this time is $90 per child. Soccer is one of the activities that would greatly assist his mental physical and emotional health. Also, my nine-year-old daughter uses art as her therapy tool. Art supplies aren't cheap.
The fiscal note probably looks really appealing. There's not really any cost to the state. Yet, it really has bothered me a lot listening to the hearing today and listening to people ask more questions about fishing licenses or extracurricular activities for school, which are all important, while this issue is important. What we are talking about with HB 2039 is money that should be going to children. And that we can't really get anywhere further in life without that money. How can anyone stand in the way of that? I just really, really ask you to stop and really take a moment to think about what it is that you're discussing here.