Establishment – Per CFR Title 45 §303.4 and §303.5 – 75% Compliance level
Establishing an order or completing service of process necessary to commence proceedings to establish a support order, or if applicable, paternity, within 90 days of locating the non-custodial parent, or documenting unsuccessful attempts to serve process in accordance with the State’s guidelines defining diligent efforts.
During audit establishment, the auditors are not necessarily looking to see if an order (regardless of paternity) has been established. The auditors are looking to see if the necessary steps or processes are taking place to establish an order. In other words, has the district office provided the necessary services to facilitate the establishment of an order during the audit period? The following is a list of “actions” the auditor is looking for.
ESTABLISHMENT ACTIONS
- NCP located within 90 days of the end of the audit period.
- The State must Serve the alleged father or non-custodial parent or document diligent effort to serve within 90 days of locating the person. Therefore, if the person is located within 90 days of the end of the audit period this is considered an action case.
- All appropriate locate action.
- The State Performed the minimum required quarterly locate search of state workforce files, which include data maintained by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC). Accessing OESC files requires the case to be in Priority 5.
- Served the NCP within 90 days of being located.
- The State served the NCP within 90 days of locate. The State has not yet obtained an order.
- Conducted Genetic Testing.
- The State has conducted genetic testing and is waiting for the results or waiting on a hearing date outside of the audit period.
- Obtained an Order during the audit period.
- The State established a current support order during the audit period.
- Dismissed a pleading.
- The State had filed establishment pleadings and later dismissed the action because the alleged father was excluded through genetic testing or there is a pending private action in District Court.(e.g. divorce, paternity/establishment etc).
- Referred the CP for non-cooperation to IV-A.
- The State referred the CP for non-cooperation to IV-A. The CP’s cooperation is essential to take the next step in establishing an order.
- Service of Process.
- The State was unable to serve the NCP and documented attempts per CSS policy and practices.
- Filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the State.
- The State filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the State for reimbursement of TANF and/or medical support (usually in divorce proceedings).
- Referred the case to the NCP’s residential State (UIFSA).
- The State located the NCP in another State, sent a UIFSA packet to the other State.
- Took all appropriate action to establish an Order.
- The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State has taken all the proper steps to establish a current support order.
- No locate activity.
- The State did not access any locate sources.
- Not all appropriate locate activity.
- The State conducted some locate activities, by assessing certain sources, however, it failed to utilize all available locate sources. Specifically
- The State did not perform the minimum required quarterly locate search of state workforce files, which include data maintained by OESC.
- Accessing OESC files, which include data maintained by OESC.
- Served outside time frames.
- The State was able to serve the NCP or alleged father, but did not take any steps to establish a current support order.
- No establishment activity after locate.
- The State had located the NCP or alleged father, but did not take any steps to establish a current support order.
- Did not document Service of Process.
- The State did not document service attempts using CSS policy and practices on process service.
- Did not refer to IV-A for non-cooperation.
- The CP is not cooperating with the State and the CP’s cooperation is essential to take the next step in establishing an order and the State did not inform IV-A of the non-cooperation.
- Did not refer to NCP’s residential State.
- The State located the NCP or alleged father in another State, long arm does not apply or has failed and the State did not send a UIFSA packet to the other State.
- Did not take all appropriate action to establish an order.
- The case does not fall into one of the categories above, but the State had not taken all the proper steps to establish an order.
Some helpful links:
Paternity Establishment and Basic Checklists
Paternity and Establishment At-a-Glance Reference Guide