With an open DCFS case and a court hearing, and the father is willing to sign over his parental rights at court to the mother so that they may close this case, will they be able to marry if they choose do so later and if so will they be breaking the law?

What an odd question. For one he can't just sign his rights away. Also why would someone want to marry a scumbag who wants to throw away their child. No it won't be illegal but he won't have any rights to the child married or not. That's going to look pretty stupid on school and doctor forms.

If a father is willing to terminated his parental rights and allow the mother of his child to gain full custody and the only reason for doing so is because DCFS stated that if he did, it would close the case with child services which is open... He is willing to do so in order to close the case and he trust that he will still be able to father his child even though his rights were voluntarily terminated.. is this so. He just wants his child out of the system and solely in that custody of his baby's mother. He will support her financially and still wants to marry his baby's mother.. is this possible and is it underminding the system? The real purpose is to relieve the state of California the responsibility by giving up his right so that California is not liable, and at the same time he loves his family and just wants the nightmare of social workers and all to end. Is this breaking the law?

<threads merged>

First your thread makes no sense, you need this time to give more details

First what is the case about.

Second the father can give the mother full custody, can give the mother full legal and phsycial custody, but he can not just "sign over his rights" he always retains the right to go back after these at a latter time unless he signs over his rights to be married.

I suspect something is being lost in the translation here. I can't see any DCFS agency advocating termination of parental rights. It makes NO sense whatsoever. One, because a court will not grant a TPR in such a circumstance and two, because DCFS will generally want a 2 parent family for the child.

So you really need to use the Answer This Question options and add a follow-up giving more background about what the DCFS case is about and why it needs closing.

If a father is willing to terminated his parental rights and allow the mother of his child to gain full custody and the only reason for doing so is because DCFS stated that if he did, it would close the case with child services which is open...He is willing to do so in order to close the case and he trust that he will still be able to father his child even though his rights were voluntarily terminated..is this so. he just wants his child out of the sytem and solely in that custody of his babys mother. He will support her financially and still wants to marry his babys mother..is this possible and is it underminding the sytem? The real purpose is to relieve the state of California the responsibility by giving up his right so that California is not liable, and at the same time he loves his family and just wants the nightmare of social workers and all to end. Is this breaking the law?

What you are talking about doing is not permitted. The law in California on the subject is as follows:


"A court cannot enter a judgment terminating parental rights based solely upon the parties' stipulation that the child's mother or father relinquishes those rights. (Kristine M. v. David P. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 783, 791 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 748] [“the public policies favoring creation of a father-child relationship as a source of emotional and financial support … trump any policy that would favor private ordering of parenthood after the birth of a child”]"

So the answer is forget it. You cannot terminate your parental rights by stipulation (agreement). You may marry the child's mom as many times over as you like but you cannot give up your parental rights unless someone else is waiting to adopt.

You wrote: "The real purpose is to relieve the state of California the responsibility by giving up his right so that California is not liable, and at the same time."

This sentence does not make any sense.
__________________