If I have my baby's father's rights terminated, can I still get child support from him?

Yes, he will still have to pay.

Well if you "CAN" get the rights terminated, it is not very easy, in most states merely not seeing the child or paying support is enough, he will have to be proven a serious threat to the child, have a long term prison sentence and even then, often they still sometimes gets at least supervised visits if they fight.

Also if the rights are taken away to allow for an adoption, then no child support is paid after that.

Courts seldom take the rights of the father away, but will restrict them and visits

Like chuck said... you probably cannot get his rights terminated against his will. If it is willful, it is because someone else is adopting the child and then support will stop.

What is it that you are trying to accomplish?

I moved this to the Family Law forum where it belongs. If you look through the forum, you will find hundreds of threads dealing with this issue.

The basic facts are that courts are very reluctant to grant a Termination of Parental Rights. Generally they will only do so to clear the way for an adoption or if the parent represents a danger to the child.

Different stats have different laws on whether a TRP terminates BOTH rights and responsibilities. Some only terminate rights, others do both. So it depends on what state you are in whether both are terminated or not.

But the likelihood that you can get a TPR in the first place is very small.

If I have my baby's father's rights terminated, can I still get child support from him?Hello stella:

Nope - nor should you. But, you're not going to be successful at that... So, just take the money.

excon

Yes, he will still have to pay.


Maybe true in Canada. Most definitely not true in the US.

This same question came up back in Feb. 07. One of our experts answered it the same as I did. So, I don't understand why it doesn't apply here.

www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/termination-parental-rights-child-support

This same question came up back in Feb. 07. One of our experts answered it the same as I did. So, I dont understand why it doesnt apply here.

www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/termination-parental-rights-child-support (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/termination-parental-rights-child-support)

That link doesn't work. But this issue has been discussed many times. The consensus was originally that terminating rights didn't terminate responsibility. But one member from Texas claimed otherwise and after some research I found that not all areas treat this the same. I think its more than a third of US states that terminate both. And I've been saying that for several years now. In fact, I posted a sticky in this forum in August of 2007 that stated this.

I think this is the thread tickle was referring to:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/termination-parental-rights-child-support-61527.html

However, as it has been pointed out, child support will still be ordered in most cases unless another party adopts the child. I think that's where the whole confusion is.

That's why you can't just blanket everything with a yes or no, because there are so many varying circumstances that can flip the answer completely.

I think this is the thread tickle was referring to:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/termination-parental-rights-child-support-61527.html


I thnk the main issue here is that no court will terminate a parents rights just to let them out of paying support. So, in the states where both rights and responsibilities are terminated, its even harder to get a TPR.

But, in those states, IF a TPR is granted then support would end.

I thnk the main issue here is that no court will terminate a parents rights just to let them out of paying support. So, in the states where both rights and responsibilities are terminated, its even harder to get a TPR.

But, in those states, IF a TPR is granted then support would end.

I agree with you whole-heartedly about the courts terminating rights as an out for support payers. I just wanted to clarify for everyone else who may not fully understand the law why there was a misunderstanding because like tickle pointed out, some people said yes, then said no. It's all circumstantial.