I want to adopt my wife's children, but the kids farther does not want to give up his parental rights. He does nothing for them, he will only see them when its best for him. My wife put him on child support but he isn't even paying that. The state is giving her child support money for the kids not that we need it, I just felt if he's not going to be there for his kids willingly then he needs to be forced because he should be in there lives but I guess his children don't really matter to him. I can go on for days about my wife's kid farther but I'm not, my question is how can my wife and I get him to sign his rights over so where I can adopt the kids in the state of Texas is it really a hard process, I mean he does nothing for them. My youngest doesn't even know him really, he thinks I'm his farther and it hurts me when he has to go with his dad because he cries, screems, and runs to me because he doesn't want to go with him. Also what makes it hard is that I'm getting ready to deploy to iraq January 3,2009 which is in 8 days from today. That's why I want to know what steps can I or my wife take for him to give his rights up and let me adopt them.

I doubt if anything can be done before you deploy (good luck and god bless, btw). Its very difficult to get a TPR involuntarily. Even with as rotten a father as he is.

Probably your best bet is to try and get the child support order enforced. If he sees the kids are going to cost him, he may then decide to relinquish if the CS is stopped.

Hi, Scott- I hate to tell you but, at least in PA.. and likely in many other states, one can NOT 'voluntarily' relinquish your parental rights. This is 100% the case whenever public monies had been accepted in the form of welfare. Involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR), is an ongoing and lengthy court process, usually pursued jurisdictional Children, Youth and Family courts. I was the former Supervisor of a 15-bed pre-adolescent treatment facility in Pittsburgh (then went on to civil litigation, and now advocating for laborers... while varied, I feel a them with respect to 'advocating').

In PA, the courts have to implement dual-planning where they are simultaneously working towards reunification, with a contingency plan for TPR if the Family Service Plan is not properly complied with.

I can also suggest- and what can be done a little more simply, though not easily, is ask the courts to restrict visitation. If you can provide evidence- usually through psychiatric expert reports, or even children's information about maltreatment (age of the child matters in PA, too- 12 and up year old children are old enough to have an opinion on the topic with legal standing), then one can move to restrict overnight visits, eliminate unsupervised visits, or even more- insist on only supervised visits- often with a 3rd party at stake.

A word of caution- I don't know how long you have been with the children's mother. (and you and her are NOT going to like this). However, my former roommate was an Army sergeant, who'd done a few tours (2) in Iraq. Extremely "needy" and dependent women- often with children, were attracted to him, as the uniform represented a degree of stability otherwise absent in their lives. Once deployed, these women (and he's been married a few times), were unfaithful, vindictive, and were fully aware of how to manipulate the armed forces to create extremely unpleasant financial consequences for him- even though, they were not his children.

While it is not an answer (and since my previous work and life experience motivated me to chime in- on what is technically my 'first' reply), the best course of answer, that would truly help the children, who don't understand 'legal' parental rights in the form of adoption, would be to restrict the father's access while maintaining as strong, nurturing, and paternal an influence in their life as you can.

Good luck, and stay safe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cagedkitty

Hi, Scott- I hate to tell you but, at least in PA..and likely in many other states, one can NOT 'voluntarily' relinquish your parental rights.

---

Umm I hate to tell you this but ALL states do provide for voluntary relinquishment of rights, PA included (Termination of parental rights, who may terminate parental rights, voluntary termination, involuntary termination, what is termination of parental rights) But, like I said getting ANY TPR is difficult. Only a court can grant a TPR and courts will generally do so only to clear the way for an adoption or if the parent represents a danger to the child.

Proving a danger to the child is a multi-pronged process. Especially when parents advocates get involved. The courts, in their efforts to act in the interest of the child, frequently don't grant TPRs. In PA, that is a MINIMUM 18 month process- and that is the barest minimum.

And, perhaps a voluntary relinquishment is a possibility, in the event of infants, with an adoptive family waiting- such as that at birth, with a family waiting. However- once a parental relationship has been established, in any extent, removing that is not a mere signature on a court order. If that was the case, (as has happened recently), parents of unruly teens would sign off their kids in exasperation.

However- you are correct, only a court can grant an involuntary TPR, and usually that is not with merely proving that there is a danger but, only after, efforts to rectify the dangerous event have been fixed. Parents with anger management issues have been sent to classes. Parents with child molestation problems- YES... even these (ick, ick, ick), are sent to therapy, and the child, as well. Not only does a parent have to refuse to comply with court-ordered treatment and interventions in order to have a TPR granted but, the child must demonstrate a chronic deterioration, and dangerous behavior almost immediately following visitation. Children WITH adoptive families waiting for them, are languishing in care, often for years, becaues a parent won't "sign up" their rights, and is contesting adoptions.

First I see other errors in the original post, the state does not pay child support, they may collect it from the father and pay you from what they get from him, but they do not pay support, the may get welfare if you are low income, you may get some WIC or other government program for the kids, but no the state does not pay the fathers child support.

So please check into what the money really is, and get back to us.

But in truth, if he will not sign over his rights, there is nothing you can do. She can get child enforcement after him for support, and back support, I would assume she had a child support order from the day she separated from him.

So if he does not pay, get the state to do what they can, take his drivers license, put him in jail or what ever is allowed in your state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cagedkitty

And, perhaps a voluntary relinquishment is a possiblity, in the event of infants, with an adoptive family waiting-

---

Not "perhaps" but its in the law. And not only for an infant adoption, but also for a step-parent adoption.

The tone of your responses have been that you seem to be disagreeing with what I have posted. But, in actuality, you are backing up what I have said.

The bottomline is a court has to grant a TPR (voluntary or involuntary). And the courts are very reluctant to do so. So it becomes a very difficult task to get a TPR for any reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

the state does not pay child support, they may collect it from the father and pay you from what they get from him, but they do not pay support, the may get welfare if you are low income, you may get some WIC or other government program for the kids, but no the state does not pay the fathers child support.

---

I noticed that anomaly also and was going to pursue it if the OP returned. If the state is paying something for support of the children, then they are probably getting it from the father. Since the OP states they don't need the money, then its unlikely they are getting public assistance.

[QUOTE][The tone of your responses have been that you seem to be disagreeing with what I have posted. But, in actuality, you are backing up what I have said.
/QUOTE]
You're correct, I don't at all disagree with the fact that it is not a simple but, an arduous and lengthy, weighty court process as any process ultimately involving the welfare of children should be. You're also correct that I had a bit of a 'tone'... that was not with your facts but, in that I read in your statement the implication that ANY parent could just sign away his/her rights to their children... and that, patently is not the case. Perhaps, and this is outside my personal background and experience, there does exist a legal mechanism that allows this... whereby a "birth" parent can sign their rights away to a willing, and waiting would-be adopting, or step-parent.

As I read your post, I'd framed it within my own body of not-insignificant experience within the heavily battled field of the Family court system- not as a parent, but as a court-appointed custodian of children ripped from their birth parents for their own personal safety in their very young years. The children I worked with were emotionally scarred, and required intensive therapy before they were deemed to be 'ready' for a pre-adoptive placement.

I guess to correct any potential 'dispute' it would be more correct to stipulate as to when a voluntary relinquishment, however rare that may be, would occur. Earlier I'd referenced the attempt to relinquish rights on behalf of economically troubled or overwhelmed parents (recently well-played out in the media through the Safe Haven Law in Nebraska, with dire consequences. Clearly, one can't just 'relinquish' their right to parent. Parenting, when one has created a child, is an innate responsibility by definition, not a 'right'. However, yes... the issue I was contemplating is well outside the scope of the original question (where a willing, waiting adoptive parent was waiting in the wings).

Yes... any form of TPR is not a good "short' solution, in any matter, as you'd said.

Perhaps, as I'd implied previously, the 'best' answer... is not to immediately puruse the adoptive course but, to pursue a separation, or restriction of the birth parents visitation rights. The courts are much more sympathetic to these requests, especially when the slimmest of evidence as to the safety of the child is presented. That way- the ultimate goal, of preventing confusion on behalf of the children as to their caregivers, can be effectively achieved.

Whatever, you elect... GOOD LUCK, these are never easy issues, and it does take a village to raise a child. Too many interested, caring adults, no matter how much the adults may disliked each other... has never hurt a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cagedkitty

You're also correct that I had a bit of a 'tone'...that was not with your facts but, in that I read in your statement the implication that ANY parent could just sign away his/her rights to their children...and that, patently is not the case.

---

I am a bit non-plussed at this. I have been trying to disabuse people of the notion that getting a TPR is easy for a long time. In fact I authored a sticky note at the top of this forum that says that very thing. I just reread my note. I said its "very difficult to get a TPR involuntarily". Did you think that by specifying "involuntarily" I was saying it was easy to get a voluntary one? I only specified "involuntarily" because the OP specified that the father didn't want to give up rights.

Whether it's easy to get a TPR, something I'd like to point out from the original question is that the bio-father is TRYING to be a part of his kids' lives. He has visitation, and pays support.

Why SHOULD he give up his rights? If he does, the OP and his wife will never let him see his kids again!

The issue here really isn't getting a TPR to adopt. The issue here is getting some counseling on how kids can have more than one kind of parent, and that they shouldn't be turned against their biological parent just because they don't live with that person.

As far as only seeing them when "it's best for him"--really? Are you being honest about that? Or have you and your wife made it difficult for him to have regular visitation? Does he REALLY just pop in out of the blue at random times, or does he try to have the kids more often and is turned down because of YOUR schedule?

I work a very strange schedule compared to most of the world. It would be extremely difficult for me to have a "Wednesday afternoon and every other weekend" visitation like I hear a lot of non-custodial parents have. I would really have to set up my afternoon day every week, and I'd have to switch weekends occasionally for my job. Is that his situation?

I just want to kind of get the FULL story. I've seen several situations where a step-parent wants to adopt so that it's just "easier" on the kids not to have to "deal" with bio-parent visitation. And then I see those same "kids" years down the road posting on these boards trying to find information about biological parents.

THAT is why the court thinks long and hard before allowing TPR. YOUR side of the story isn't the only one there is, and having a biological parent that is TRYING to be involved in a child's life is better for the child in the long run.

OK maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in my question sorry about that. The kids farther does not have a job, no money and only sees the kids when he feels the need to want to see them which is almost every six months. When asked why hasn't he called or come pick up his kids, his response is that doesn't have money. I told him many of times you do not need money to spend time with your children besides he still lives with his parents. Also when he does come and pick his kids up, he brings them to his parents home and then he leaves and go clubs at night or to play softball. So like I said in the beginning, he does nothing for his kids. So where is the money coming from if he isn't working?

The court will order a min support if he is not working, most states have punishments if he will not pay ( find a job to pay) such as losing his license, or even going to jail.

OK I know what I have to do now thanks for all the opinons and advice...

All this is correct. Unless the biological father beats the children, or otherwise has a SERIOUS drug and alcohol problem, what he does in his time not with his children, is not anyone's concern. I think "Synnen" raised some very valid points. And, often, the attempt to secure a TPR is to make the 'new' step-parent feel safe, and not to allow children to enjoy the full loving embrace of many adults. What child has ever felt threatened from too many people that care about them? Even when that caring is limited, and time restricted, it is rarely to their detriment.

Indeed, the hardest portion, is for adults to resist children's attempts to manipulate the adults conflicts to their own personal benefit. Adults have their own needs and feelings, which are often hard to isolate from the child's needs.

EXAMPLE: Child: Boy, Step-Parent 1 and Mom got me a Wii (sp?) game thing for Christmas
Step-Parent 2: That's nice. Um, me and your Dad were wondering if you'd like to take a trip to Venice or Egypt over spring-break?

Now, obviously, that's an exaggerated example but, all too often happens when adults allow their own insecurities about the children to interfere with their interests.

And- Scott G.- I was somewhat non-plussed at your initial response to my statements as to the voluntary TPR (for reasons I later stated). I do believe our experience is likely similar and my inner alarms were raised, and I became defensive, something I don't often do. However, being a BRAND new person on this particular site, and a common contributor on some other sites, I was a bit offended a what I perceived to be "e-bullying" when you took a blank objection. So... perhaps we can start over, and rather than attack (from your lofty "expert" standing) a newcomer, perhaps try a more welcoming approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cagedkitty

And- Scott G.- I was somewhat non-plussed at your initial response to my statements as to the voluntary TPR (for reasons I later stated). I do believe our experience is likely similar and my inner alarms were raised, and I became defensive, something I don't often do. However, being a BRAND new person on this particular site, and a common contributor on some other sites, I was a bit offended a what I perceived to be "e-bullying" when you took a blank objection. So...perhaps we can start over, and rather than attack (from your lofty "expert" standing) a newcomer, perhaps try a more welcoming approach.

---

I would take this to PMs but you are not eligible for them yet. I do want to welcome you to this site, because you do seem to have a good deal of experience to contribute.

But I must suggest that you review this thread. I responded to the OP with a factually correct response. Your first response was to tell me my response was factually incorrect. My response was to show you that you were incorrect. While you have admitted your error it was in an offhand way and you never apologized for saying I was wrong (not that I'm asking you to at this point). I really did not attack you, if anything, just the opposite. So I really think you need to review your perceptions since they were off base so that we CAN start over.

Scott- Ok, I'll back down. My intent was not to assault your facts.. in ANY way but, to perhaps request a clarification of what I had interpreted as an overbroad statement from a legal standpoint- and that was with respect to the rare issue of a 'voluntary' TPR.

If I offended... that is never my intent but... sometimes it happens. For that, I apologize.

I interpreted your statement with respect to voluntary TPR's, as being overbroad. They are outside my realm of functional experience, as I only dealt with kids taken against their parents will by the court system. (granted... [Iusually[/I] for good reason).

My later reactions, (based on a last-ditch attempt to defend my response), was a response to my first answer. Granted, perhaps a voluntary TPR is occasionally a legitimate legal outcome- albeit outside my personal experience. However, when I- perhaps incorrectly- stated that they don't exist, I guess I was reaching for clarification as to just what terms might apply where one could relinquish one's rights. I wasn't expecting a direct-counter-attack. That was how I interpreted it. If I was wrong in that perception, I apologize, again. Not only to you, but to any other viewers inadvertently offended by my over statements.


But, I'll start over, perhaps on a few other threads, that were my intent to chime in on originally.

Enjoy the holiday season... to you, and everyone else!

This thread is two years old.

Closed.