California is not the only state whose structured settlement protection act (SSPA) contains an express recognition of the interests of a structured settlement payee's dependent children. In fact, most state SSPAs expressly require the judge who is reviewing, and deciding whether to approve or deny, a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights to consider the interests of the payee's dependents. Only the California SSPA, however, contains a statutory description of the information about child support orders, and similar obligations, that the judge shall consider when reviewing an SSPA request.
One other state's SSPA also has an express provision concerning child support orders. The Colorado SSPAsays that notice must be provided by the factoring company (meaning the purchasing company or "transferee", in the language of the SSPA) to interested parties that include, as per the statute's definition, a governmental "child support enforcement unit" where such a unit is "enforcing a payee's legal obligation to support his or her dependent children . . . ."
