
Originally Posted by
Jabbingjay
people I need yor help I am confused on what to do I have primary custody of my son she hasn't seen him in 5 months buts its been like this since I had my son with me since he was one but anyways the reason I need your help is because she called me on sat night saying to me she wants to sign over her rights and she said if I can drop all the back support the only reason she saying she wants to sign ovee her rights is because she must come up with 845 by dec 29 because we go in front of a judge jan 2 because she hasn't been paying her support order and she owes me 3300.00 and she tring to get out of it by signing over her rights im not sure what to do a big wants to say lets dp it so I can never speak to her again and her keeping hurting my son and a big part wants to say make her pay and sit in jail because income tax is right around the corner and what she owes comes to me please let me know what u think I should do thank you for reading my drama
Child custody and visitation/parent time, etc/ are different legal terms.She cannot sign over her rights to avoid child support payments. Termination of parental rights IS a very hard deal. /notwithstanding what artlady or misshair think:eek::eek::eek:/. For example-in Commonwealth of Kentucky TPR means termination of parental obligations,too./including child support/. That is the reason TPR-voluntary or involuntary to be considered in very rare cases.
Here is the legal base:
Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights
Parental rights may be terminated voluntarily with the written consent of a parent who for good cause desires termination. Even if both parents are in agreement that parental rights should be terminated, the Court must address whether the termination is occurring for good cause. "Good cause" is not defined in the statute.
In the case entitled In re Welfare of All, 304 Minn. 254, 230 N.W.2d 574 (1975), the Minnesota Supreme Court examined the purpose and intent of the statute to determine when good cause could be found. The purpose of the statute is:
First,
to enable the judicial system to legally remove a child from a destructive or unhealthy home environment without the consent of the natural parents, and,
Second,
to facilitate adoption procedures by providing a means by which existing parental rights may be voluntarily terminated.
In light of these purposes, the Minnesota Courts of Appeals have consistently ruled that a voluntary termination of parental rights for reasons other than to facilitate adoption works a substantial detrimental effect on a child, who will be forced to look solely to his custodial parent to meet all of his needs. See Matter of Welfare of J.D.N. 504 N.W.2d 54, 58 (Minn.App.1993).
The effect is that District Court Judges are extremely reluctant to terminate parent's rights voluntarily and certainly not where the termination is not agreed upon by the custodial parent. It is also clear under the law that a non-custodial parent cannot claim that the termination of parental rights is being requested in order to remove the child from a destructive or unhealthy home environment, since the petitioning party is not custodial parent. The likelihood of obtaining an order terminating parental rights is also reduced if the custodial parent is provided public assistance through the county. Obviously, the county does not want to financially support children when a parent who has that obligation is available. Even a non-custodial parent's lack of contact with a child and belief that the parent could not care for a child financially may insufficient to provide "good cause" for a voluntary termination of parental rights.
It is same in all states-for example IN RE: JAMES G. AND EMMETT M. L. III-SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA