[goodkat]

OK well I've made my decision... I've thought long and hard for obviously a really long time and now have decided to terminate my rights as my daughters father. The main reason for me doing this is yes she will have better medical care and now I have seen how happy she looks with her new dad and I can see that he loves her and she loves him and all I really want for my daughter is for her to be happy. It hurts to say it cause I am her father and would love to be in her life but I don't know where she is now and I probably won't see her ever again. So now my question is how can I terminate my rights as her father without having to pay attorney fees? I would like to do this without having to pay a lot of money cause well I just don't have money for an attorney

[J_9]

Have your ex seek to have your daughter adopted by her new husband, then you can just sign off for the adoption process to begin. Unless your daughter is being adopted you still will be obligated to pay child support.

[goodkat]

So I can't just terminate my rights. She has told me that her husband wants to adopt her but they apparently they want to do it when ever they want and keep me paying child support to spite me. Which don't get me wrong I don't mind paying cause she "is" my daughter but I know she's doing it to spite me

[J_9]

Terminating your rights only means that you give up the right to make decisions regarding the raising and well being of your child. It does not remove financial obligation.

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes unless the step father adopts you will have to pay child support, but will have no say in the child's life.

If you really love the child and want what is really best for the child, you stay part of the child's life.

[ScottGem]

Lets say WHOA for a minute here. You are leaving a lot out here. What is written about custody and visitation in the divorce decree? Hve you tried to get the court to enforce that? As the others have told you, you probably won't be able to relinquish your rights without the new husband adopting. And if even if its granted it doesn't get you out of child support.

[LadyB]

You need to assert your rights, not terminate them!

[s_cianci]

Are you paying chid support? If not, you could be sued for it in the future. If you are, you'll continue to do so even if you "give up your rights." The only way to be free of your support obligation is if her new "dad" legally adopts your daughter. If your ex and her husband decide they want to go that route, then they can have their attorney, at their expense, draft up an adoption agreement, which you would then sign, then their attorney would present it to the judge for his/her signature. At that time, the adoption would become legal and binding and all of your rights and responsibilities would be terminated.

so i can't just terminate my rights. she has told me that her husband wants to adopt her but they apparently they want to do it when ever they want and keep me paying child support to spite me. which don't get me wrong i don't mind paying cause she "is" my daughter but i know she's doing it to spite me

You will continue to pay support until he legally adopts her. Until then, you are her legal father, with all of the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

[Mary Surette]

GoodKat,
No offense meant to everyone on this thread, but you can terminate parental rights --voluntarily and not pay child support after that. I've done it myself IN TEXAS --. Terminating parental rights does terminate your duty to pay child support. All that would remain is your child's inheritance rights from you.

I did not do it involuntarily nor did I violate any child custody agreement, harm my child or violate a child support order.

It is based on a case by case basis and you would need to have good reason to do so. Also, agreement of the parties involved is necessary. What is more, it is not good public policy.

Termination normally precedes adoption.

Mary

[Mary Surette]

Goodkat,
I wouldn't terminate though. Just hang in there and assert your visitation rights as a dad. There are a lot of ramifications that will affect your child if you do terminate.
Mary

[Mary Surette]

Goodkat, read the "AliciaHubbard" question regarding termination. Nya made a similar answer as me. Termination will terminate child support --future payments. Mary
P.S. I would assume then that this is Texas and Florida case and statutory law.

[Mary Surette]

And we have gone over this before, your advice regarding child support termination is NOT accurate.

[ScottGem]

Goodkat, read the "AliciaHubbard" question regarding termination. nya made a similar answer as me. Termination will terminate child support --future payments. Mary
P.S. I would assume then that this is Texas and Florida case and statutory law.

Please stop giving inaccurate advice. Please read all the correspondence with nya, it was determined that support was terminated because of other factors not because of relinquishment.

No court is going to grant relinquishment of parental rights just to let the parent out of paying child support. Relinquishment, even in Texas, is not granted lightly and only under very specific circumstances.

[Mary Surette]

I kindly disagree with your response. It is not inaccurate.

Your generalization, again, "No court is going to grant relinquishment of parental rights just to let the parent out of paying child support," is another of your generalizations.

Please read all my thread, posts and answers regarding this issue.

[ScottGem]

I kindly disagree with your response. It is not inaccurate.

Your generalization, again, "No court is going to grant relinquishment of parental rights just to let the parent out of paying child support," is another of your generalizations.

Please read all my thread, posts and answers regarding this issue.

I stand by that statement. There are several other people here who have made the same statement. It is a valid generalization. I will come back later with more backup. In the meantime see GV70's last posts in this thread:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family...tml#post556805

Here is another another example from Jackson County WI:
Child Support

Can I give up my rights to the child so I can stop paying child support?
Terminating parental rights is a complicated area and a competent lawyer should be consulted before making any decisions. Most of the time, unless there is another person ready, willing, and able to adopt the child, termination of parental rights is not an option.
Just a quick Google turned up several other examples with the same theme. That termination of rights is complex process and only granted in limited instances.

Here's another from Ohio:
Reasons to terminate support (O.R.C. Section 3119.88):

• ]Emancipation
• Adoption
• Enlistment in armed services (child)
• Deportation (child)
• Marriage of child
• Marriage of obligor to obligee
• Death of child, obligor, or obligee (unless otherwise provided in court order)
• Change of legal custody
• Child no longer resides with obligee
• Spousal support - terms of decree have been met

Notice termination of rights is not listed here.

My research has determined that in a small number of jurisdictions (Texas being one of them) parental rights and support are tied together. However, in those jurisdictions, termination of rights has to meet the condition of "the best interests of the child". Now can someone can explain to me how terminating support payments would be in the best interests of the child?

So my "generalization" and advice stand proven and supported. The fact remains that in most jurisdictions Parental rights and responsibilities are kept separate. In those jurisdictions where they aren't separated, termination of rights gets even harder.

I will add here that Mary has now been banned from this site for creating and using a second account to attack others in violation of the rules.

[tawnynkids]

Wouldn't this be saying it is possible? http://www.tholstruplaw.com/terminat...sponsibilities
1. When will a court terminate a parent-child relationship?

A court may terminate parental rights if a person voluntarily files a suit for termination of parental rights and the court finds that terminating parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

A court may also terminate parental rights without the consent of the parent if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence

3. Does a parent have any responsibilities to the child once their parent-child relationship has been terminated?

No. Upon the termination of parental rights in Texas, the parent (whose parental rights were terminated) is no longer responsible for future child support. However, child support arrearages that were accumulated prior to the termination of parental rights continue unless they are addressed/resolved by the Order of Termination of Parental Rights.

What about these?
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/...98/at-9830.htm

17. The initiating State has a law, which does not recognize a termination of parental rights (TPR), as also terminating the noncustodial parent's obligation to support the child. The initiating State asks the responding State to establish a support order on a TPR case. The responding State refuses to establish a support order because under the responding State's law it is not appropriate to enter a child support order against a parent whose parental rights have been previously terminated by a court. Is the responding State's refusal to establish a support order in this situation supported by UIFSA?

Answer: Yes; under UIFSA's section 303(1) and (2), the responding State is directed to follow local law in the establishment of a child support order. This section of UIFSA requires the responding State's tribunal to determine the duty of support and the amount of the child support payment in accordance with the laws and guidelines of the responding State. Because the law of the responding State recognizes the termination of parental rights as also terminating a duty to provide support, its refusal to establish a support order is appropriate.

XV. Effect of Termination Order (G.S. 7B-1112)
A. An order terminating parental rights completely and permanently severs all rights and obligations of the parent to the child and the child to the parent; except, the child's right of inheritance does not terminate until a final order of adoption is issued. When parental rights have been terminated, parents no longer have any constitutionally protected interest in their children. In re Montgomery, 77 N.C. App. 709, 336 S.E.2d 136 (1985).

G.S. 7B-1112. Effects of termination order.
An order terminating the parental rights completely and permanently terminates all rights and obligations of the parent to the juvenile.. . Arising from the parental relationship.. .
Notes
An order terminating a parent's rights with respect to a minor child terminates prospectively his or her legal obligation to support the child but probably does not relieve the parent from his or her obligation to pay child support arrearages that are vested and owed as of the date an order terminating
Parental rights is entered.

Curious on thoughts...

[ScottGem]

Tawny,
My opinion is that they have done this to make termination of rights HARDER, not termination of support EASIER. One of the major issues behind child support is that women without support often become a burden on the state. Welfare or other public resources are often used provide support for such a family. Therefore the state wants to limit their liability. So it makes no sense for them to make it easier to allow a parent to cease support.

Texas law does appear to terminate both at the same time. I've acknowledged that. It surprised me to read the statute and leaves me wondering why. The only thing I could glean from browsing the rest of Texas law on this issue was that it makes termination of rights a very difficult and rare process.

Most of the questions we get follow a similar theme. Basically they say, I don't care about my child or I have no access to my child so can I just give up my rights and stop having to pay support? In my opinion, the answer to that is no. That rights will be terminated only in a limited set of circumstances, that in some jurisidictions, terminating rights does not terminate obligations. In others where the two are linked, termination is even more difficult. But the idea of just voluntarily relinquishing rights to get out of paying support, is not going to happen.

[tawnynkids]

Well actually the last two are North Carolina Child Support Statutes.
The center two were actually obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children & Families

And this is from Kansas: Under the Kansas Code for Care of Children, K.S.A. 38-1501 et seq. both parents may agree that one parent's rights should be terminated if the noncustodial parent has no contact with and fails to support the child. The custodial parent will then have grounds to file a child in need of care petition and seek to terminate the noncustodial parent's rights. Even though the child is being well cared for by the custodial parent, a court may find that the noncustodial parent has abandoned the child and thus find that the child is a child in need of care and proceed to terminate the noncustodial parent's rights. In this way the custodial parent can be assured that the other parent can never try to challenge his or her custody and will never have custody of the child even if the custodial parent dies. Conversely, the noncustodial parent is assured that he or she will never have to provide support for the child, either directly or through reimbursement to SRS under K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 39-709 and K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 39-755. While this result appears directly contrary to the established rule of law that a parent may not simply divest himself or herself of the duty to support his or her child, Kansas statutes are clear that such action is permitted as long as both parents are willing and the court finds it is in the best interests of the child.

So I was just wondering with as much as even I thought voluntarily giving up rights does not allow the parent out of paying support having found these I was beginning to think it is actually occurring more than we think and that it is in fact possible. Or that maybe I was just reading these all wrong. I always thought it wasn't possible.

[ScottGem]

The problem we have here is a seeming contradiction between the letter and spirit of the law.

Note the part that says: "...this result appears directly contrary to the established rule of law that a parent may not simply divest himself or herself of the duty to support his or her child...". So this clearly states that general rule of law (which is what most of us have been referring to) does not allow a parent to get out of paying support by terminating rights.

What I think the law is trying to do here is provide for an exception to the rule, leave a loophole in a very narrowly defined area. We often get questions that say, I don't want anything to with the NCP. I just want him out of my child's life. I don't care about support. So it appears the law is providing for an instance like that. But even in doing so, it still leaves the final decision up to the court (the court finds its in the best interest of the child). This is in keeping with the stated objective of most child care statutes that the best interests of the child is paramount.

But lets look at this from a practical standpoint. While it can happen, how often is the custodial parent going to let the NCP off the hook for support? How often is a court going to let the CP agree if its not in the best interests of the child?

I do think we need to review the exact question and we do need to slightly modify our stance with questions like these.

To get back to the original question in this thread, I think the answer here is to let the new father handle things. It seems clear that goodkat is relinquishing to pave the way for a step father to adopt. So let them get an attorney to draw up the papers, which would include his relinquishment of rights.

[GV70]

And this is from Kansas: Under the Kansas Code for Care of Children, K.S.A. 38-1501 et seq., both parents may agree that one parent's rights should be terminated if the noncustodial parent has no contact with and fails to support the child.

K.S.A.38-1501 WAS REPEALED

Conversely, the noncustodial parent is assured that he or she will never have to provide support for the child, either directly or through reimbursement to SRS under K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 39-709 and K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 39-755. While this result appears directly contrary to the established rule of law that a parent may not simply divest himself or herself of the duty to support his or her child, Kansas statutes are clear that such action is permitted as long as both parents are willing and the court finds it is in the best interests of the child.

39-755. Actions by secretary to establish parentage and to enforce support rights;:confused: :confused:

Well actually the last two are North Carolina Child Support Statutes.

About North Carolina you can read my answers here
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family...tml#post556805

The problem we have here is a seeming contradiction between the letter and spirit of the law.

Not exactly... It has to be read the whole code and the Court decisions,not only a letter as Tawnynkids and Mary read it.OK-Michigan has similar law as Texas for example.Here are the grounds for TPR:Abandonment or extreme parental disinterest, abuse/neglect, mental illness or deficiency, alcohol or drug induced incapacity, felony conviction/incarceration, /neglect or loss of rights of another child, failure to maintain contact, failure to provide support, child judged in need of services/dependent, child's best interest, child in care 15 of 22 months (or less), felony assault of child or sibling, murder/manslaughter of sibling child, murder of child's other parent, aggravated circumstances, VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT...
Following Mary's thinking and citing the grounds for TPR and their effect it suggests that:
1.If I do not pay support my rights will be terminated and I will never pay child support after the termination/ground-failure to provide support/.It is not correct.
2.If I voluntary sign over my rights I will not have obligations-it is not true again.
All states have other chapters and letters which regulate this process.For example-"Best interests..."The Michigan Supreme Court upheld one of lower courts'decisions and stated that it is in the best interest of the child to receive child support from both parents notwithstanding their wishes. And in this way it is a rule for all lower courts.
The goal of VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF PR is to make easier the process for step-parent adoption for example and this goal IS NOT to free the parents of their obligations.

Identification of Issues

The court is concerned with two issues when it conducts a hearing during which the parent voluntarily terminates or relinquishes parental rights. The first issue is whether the actions of the parent are truly voluntary. Implicit in this issue is a determination by the court that the decision of the parent is both freely and knowingly given. The second issue is whether such a termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. The practitioner should address both issues.
Best Interest of the Child

The court is also concerned whether voluntary termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. Many jurisdictions delineate specific factors that the court should consider in making this determination. Factors included in this determination could involve any or all of the following: whether the child is emotionally bonded to the parent or other family members and whether it would be harmful to the child to sever this relationship; the wishes of the child; the age and health of the child; the likelihood of adoption or some other permanent placement for the child; and any other factors that would support the conclusion that the child will benefit from the termination of parental rights.


The goal of the parties, including the court, is to ensure that, once a parent enters into a decision to sever rights to his or her child, this decision is followed and relied upon allowing the child to find permanence with a new family. By following and incorporating the suggestions above, the professional can have greater assurance that legal barriers have been addressed and such permanence for the child can be achieved