My sister has a one month old baby by a man she dated for just a few months. He is willing to terminate his parental rights. I have been reading through a number of threads on this issue, and would like to clarify something. First, let me provide a few details. My sister is not opposed to the father being a part of his son's life. Her concern is that it be on her terms. As long as he has rights, there is a possibility he could flit in and out of the boy's life wreaking uncontrolled havoc. Basically, my family is encouraging my sister to pursue voluntary termination of his rights so that any involvement he has with the child is on her terms. My secondary concern is that my sister is known to exercise questionable judgement, and I think it would be best if my parents were in a position to step in if she can't take care of the child. It seems to me they would be in a much better position to do this if the child's father did not have any rights. My question is why a court would not support the termination of his rights under these circumstances, especially if he is willing to give them up knowing he is still responsible for child support? In the interest of creating as stable of an environment as possible for the child, it seems like the best thing to do.

... My question is why a court would not support the termination of his rights under these circumstances, especially if he is willing to give them up knowing he is still responsible for child support? In the interest of creating as stable of an environment as possible for the child, it seems like the best thing to do.

If, as you suggest, a court would not be inclined to terminate his rights while enforcing child support, look at it from the father's point of view once he has thought about it for a few months, or years. He will have been paying child support monthly with no right to see the child or even know about him.

I suspect that many judges will realize that sooner or later a dad in such a position will become resentful of the situation and, at the very least, be extremely reluctant to continue with child support.

My sister has a one month old baby by a man she dated for just a few months. He is willing to terminate his parental rights. I have been reading through a number of threads on this issue, and would like to clarify something. First, let me provide a few details. My sister is not opposed to the father being a part of his son's life. Her concern is that it be on her terms. As long as he has rights, there is a possibility he could flit in and out of the boy's life wreaking uncontrolled havoc. Basically, my family is encouraging my sister to pursue voluntary termination of his rights so that any involvement he has with the child is on her terms. My secondary concern is that my sister is known to excercise questionable judgement, and I think it would be best if my parents were in a position to step in if she can't take care of the child. It seems to me they would be in a much better position to do this if the child's father did not have any rights. My question is why a court would not support the termination of his rights under these circumstances, especially if he is willing to give them up knowing he is still responsible for child support? In the interest of creating as stable of an environment as possible for the child, it seems like the best thing to do.

As you're already aware, the courts will not allow a parent to terminate their rights unless someone else is willing to adopt the child. The court isn't looking at it from only the standpoint of the child receiving financial aid - they're looking at it from the standpoint of a child needing a stable environment and having two parents who will love and care for the child.