[vickiemires]

I gave up my rights. Now the courts want me to pay child support. I don't think i should have too. I gave up all rights. In california when you give up rights you don't have to pay.

[stevetcg]

To whom did you give up your rights to?

[ScottGem]

First its not a good idea to piggyback your question on someone else's. This can lead to confusion. You should start a new thread. So I've moved your question to its own thread.

Second, please don't shout (type in all caps).

Why do you think you gave up your rights? Generally a person can't give up their rights a court has to terminate their rights. And courts are very reluctant to do so.

I couldn't find after a brief search whether its true that termination of rights also terminates support obligations. But we have some people very knowledgeable about CA family law to answer that for you.

[cdad]

First we need to know what you either signed or received from the courts so we can tell what's really going on.

[ScottGem]

First we need to know what you either signed or recieved from the courts so we can tell whats really going on.

Well we do need to know that to advise how to proceed. Don't know whether you read my post or not, but part of the question is whether a TPR in CA terminates BOTH rights and obligations. If that part is correct, then we need to know whether the OP did, in fact get her rights terminated (something I doubt actually happened). But if the law doesn't terminate the obligation then that part may be moot since, they would still be liable for support whether they got a TPR or not.

[cadillac59]

I always thought that in a TPR the support obligation went away but I recall reading an appellate court case once involving a second parent adoption where the justice writing the opinion mentioned, in dictum, that terminating parental rights did not result in a termination of the support obligation. If I can recall the case I'll cite a reference to it and quote the passage.

[cadillac59]

A termination of parental rights does terminate the duty to pay support. County of Ventura v. Gonzales (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 1120.

Briefly quoting the case,

"Appellant Ramon Gonzales was ordered to pay child support after his parental rights were terminated under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (hereafter section 366.26). We conclude that an order terminating parental rights completely severs the parent-child relationship and deprives the court of the authority to make an award of child support.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant and Dawn F. are the biological parents of Jonathan F., who was born in 1984. Jonathan began receiving welfare benefits from respondent Ventura County in 1994. The county filed a complaint on Jonathan's behalf to establish appellant's paternity and obtain child support. (Former Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11350 et seq., now Fam. Code, § 17400 et seq.; Stats. 1999, ch. 478, § 1.)

Meanwhile, Jonathan was declared a dependent child of the juvenile court and removed from Dawn's custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, 360, subd. (c).) On December 6, 1999, the juvenile court terminated appellant's and Dawn's parental rights in a hearing under section 366.26.

The county filed a motion for judgment in the paternity action. The parties stipulated that appellant was Jonathan's biological father and agreed that the amount of support ordered, if any, would be the guideline amount under the Family Code. The sole issue to be determined by the court was whether appellant was obligated to pay child support after the date his parental rights to Jonathan were terminated.

The trial court ruled that the termination of appellant's parental rights did not eliminate his obligation to pay child support. It entered a judgment establishing appellant's paternity, setting child support at the guideline amount of $ 515 per month, and requiring appellant to reimburse the county for welfare benefits paid on Jonathan's behalf.

DISCUSSION

Appellant claims the termination of his parental rights under section 366.26 ended his obligation to support Jonathan because it ended their parent-child relationship. No published decision has addressed this precise issue, but we agree with appellant that an order terminating parental rights also terminates parental responsibilities..."

There's a lot more if anyone wishes to read the entire opinion. It can be accessed at California Courts

[ScottGem]

I always thought that in a TPR the support obligation went away .

I always felt the same, but previous discussions here revealed that some states have statutes that separate rights and obligations. So that a TPR doesn't affect the obligation to pay support. Texas is one of those states.

In those states that do not separate the tow, its even harder to get a TPR. So, based on the case law you found, I suspect the OP here has not gotten a TPR. So now we need to hear from the OP what really happened.

[JudyKayTee]

Once again, if the Court has ordered child support following a review of the entire situation I would "assume" the Court is correct.

Note that OP doesn't say that the other people involved what him/her to pay - the Court does.

And it could be past due child support, also.