Once a bank account is located CSS may attempt to levy funds owed for child support this may be done by either an Administrative Enforcement in Interstate Cases (AEI) or traditional two state enforcement actions.
A State IV-D agency has the authority to send electronic files to another State’s IV-D agency for matching against asset data to which the other IV-D agency has access for the purpose of enforcing a case. AEI allows an Initiating State to send data regarding NCPs who presumably have a connection to the Responding State. Once the AEI case data are received by the Responding State, the Responding State IV-D agency matches the data against its in-state databases with the same regularity as it would with in-state cases.
If there is a match indicating assets or property in the Responding State, then the Responding State freezes the property and seizes it.
A key provision of AEI is that the Assisting State cannot open up an official case, but must track its collection efforts for reporting purposes.
There are a few states that allow direct levies to financial institutions. Always check to see what the requirements are for the state. One place to look is the Quest article Direct Levy States.
TWO STATE ENFORCEMENT
A two-state enforcement action is taken when there is a traditional IV-D interstate case established or opened using the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). In this traditional IV-D interstate case, the initiating state case has been transferred to another state for all appropriate IV-D activities. In this traditional type arrangement it is important to avoid duplication of actions by both states on the same assets. It is also important for both states to be informed of enforcement actions and their outcomes. This is necessary since responsibility for taking all appropriate actions is being transferred between two states.
The responding state, upon learning of the existence or identification of an asset of which the NCP is the owner, takes the appropriate action to obtain the asset from the identified financial institution by whatever methods it uses in enforcing its local cases. If on the other hand, the initiating state learns of an asset of which the NCP is the owner, it should be in contact with the responding state to avoid any duplication of effort by the responding state.
56 O.S. §§ 240.22-240.22G
45 CFR §§ 666(a)(17)
669A; 42 USC Chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part A