1

Court and AdministrativeChild Support Exchanges

AKA: Non-Standard Exchanges Using

GJXDM

2006 Global Justice XML Data Model User’s Conference

September 2006

2

AGENDA

• Why is the NCSC working on non-criminal activities?

• What have we done?

• Where are we going?

3

Why Try to Apply GJXDM to Non-Criminal Cases?

• Court Workloads Nationally– State Trial Courts - approximately 66.8 million

incoming cases in 2003– Traffic cases - for 54.6% of all incoming cases

in State Trial Courts in 2003

4

Overall . . .Total Incoming Cases to State Courts,

by Court Jurisdiction, 2003 (in millions)

Case Type

General Jurisdiction & Unified Courts

Percentage of Non-Traffic

Incoming Cases

Limited Jurisdiction

Courts

Percentage of Non-Traffic

Incoming Cases

Civil 7.6 39% 9.4 36%

Domestic 4.1 21% 1.6 6%

Juvenile 1.4 7% 0.5 2%

Criminal 6.2 32% 14.4 56%

Non-Traffic Total

19.3 100% 25.9 100%

68% 44%

5

Why Child Support?• They were interested before there was a

GJXDM

• HHS/NCSC collaboration in late 2001 and early 2002– To determine if the Electronic Court Filing 1.0

DTD could handle child support cases– Showed that the ECF DTD could model the

complexities of child support cases, albeit not for sophisticated financial calculations

6

Why is Child Support Challenging?

• Complexity– Familial relationships– Legislation and regulations governing case

types, incentives, and case flow– Administrative and non-administrative

remedies

7

Why is Child Support Challenging?

• Complexity– Custody and financial orders

• Arrangements for regular payments, arrearages, medical care, and education

• When do they end?• Who gets paid?• Do payments change as visitation arrangements

change?

– Medical and insurance information

8

What Makes It Easier Than Some Other Efforts at Exchange . . .

• The child support enforcement community has a 30 year history of sharing increasing information– Parent Locator System– Federal and state tax intercepts– Employer notifications

9

What Might the Justice Community Learn from the Child

Support Community?

• Authoritative definitions

• Local/state/federal continuum

• Big carrot and big stick

10

What Have We Done?

• 2002 Child Support DTD in conformance with the ECF 1.0 Standard– Used successfully in New York since then– NY is the only state out of the 54 states and

territories that can currently differentiate in their annual court caseload statistics the different types of support cases:

• IV-D Intrastate• IV-D UIFSA• Private Support

11

Most Recent Activity

• IEPDs and XML schema for intrastate (not interstate) cases (single case and mass submissions):– Request for Remedy

• submission by the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) units (or private parties)

– Administrative bodies– Courts for modifications– Courts via petition

– Court Orders• Submission back to the Child Support Enforcement units or private

parties– Financial support arrangements– Custodial and visitation arrangements– Paternity determinations

12

Joint Workgroup

• Court and CSE representatives from the same states:– California– Colorado– Delaware– Georgia– Iowa– Michigan– New York– Oklahoma– Vermont– Virginia– Washington State

13

Current Status

• Completing the final changes to documentation

• Will enter into the Joint Technology Committee standards review process for the court community and a similar process in the child support enforcement community

• Will be added to the Clearinghouse and to the NCSC website during the review process for use

14

What Were Our Problems Using GJXDM for This Non-Standard

Justice Exchange?

• Terminology– Obligor, obligee, custodial and non-custodial parents

• Areas that were the right stuff but not the right context– Medical insurance details for children, not for

automobile accidents

• Broadness and appropriateness of definitions– Greater precision and more clear authority for child

support community

15

Where are We Going?

• Encouraging broad use in the courts and child support communities

• International interest and treaty and conventions inclusion

• Application to Interstate cases

• Document and forms creation

16

Where is the NCSC Going with Non-Standard Justice Models?

• Expansion to other non-traditional justice arenas– Child welfare– Child protection orders– Conservatorships & Guardianships

17

Where is the NCSC Going Generally Beyond IEPDs?

• Have developed proof of concept open source federated Registry/Repository for IEPDs– Human searchable and readable – Machine searchable and readable

• Registration and notification of updates after registration

18

Excellent results fromGJXDM for a non-standard

justice purpose and an excellent partnership across

traditional boundaries

19

Contact Info

• Terrie BousquinDirector of Technology Services

Tbousquin@ncsc.dni.us

• Moira RowleyBusiness Integration Expert

Mrowley@ncsc.dni.us