[steve1026]

My ex wife has asked me repeatedly to sign over my rights for the last year and half. She has finally been married for a year to her new husband. I have been paying $1012.00 a month since the divorce. I go divorced in Ohio. I moved to Arizona to get my head on straight. It worked. I have tried for two years to communicate with my sons and she will not let me. She is mean and manipulative. And I have finally had it. My chances of a good relationship with my sons is over. I am willing to sign over my rights if she will do away with past and present child support. Is any of this possible.

[excon]

Is any of this possible.

Hello steve:

Nope. You may give up your rights, but not your responsibilities. If you want to have a relationship with your kids, why did you move?

excon

[weldergirl06]

Right now I'm in the opposite position as you. The father of my baby is the manipulitive and mean one. If you sign away your rights to the children it just means that you have no say in what schools they go to, religion or upbringing. It doesn't mean that you don't pay child support. Someone told me that they had a contract drawn up by a lawyer between the two parents. It said that the father would have nothing to do with the children until they are 18, depending on whether the child wants to see him at that time. In return, the mother wouldn't ask for child support.

[macksmom]

It's possible... if her husband wants to adopt the children... if not, then no.

[ScottGem]

IF her husband formally adopts the children, then your support will end with the adoption. But you will still owe any back support. But unless the husband adopts, the courts are unlikely to allow you to relinquish rights or, if they do, it will not affect your child support.

[JudyKayTee]

Right now I'm in the opposite position as you. The father of my baby is the manipulitive and mean one. If you sign away your rights to the children it just means that you have no say in what schools they go to, religion or upbringing. It doesn't mean that you don't pay child support. Someone told me that they had a contract drawn up by a lawyer between the two parents. It said that the father would have nothing to do with the children until they are 18, depending on whether the child wants to see him at that time. In return, the mother wouldn't ask for child support.

Never a good idea to go outside the Courts - this can come back and bite you big time! Would be totally unenforceable because you cannot give up your rights and the father has the right to see the child, the mother (or custodial parent) has the right to receive support.

I would be curious to see who did this and how it worked in the long run -

[ScottGem]

had a contract drawn up by a lawyer between the two parents. It said that the father would have nothing to do with the children until they are 18, depending on whether the child wants to see him at that time. In return, the mother wouldn't ask for child support.

I'm surprised an attorney would draw up such a document since it would be completely unenforceable if challenged.

[cdad]

Never a good idea to go outside the Courts - this can come back and bite you big time! Would be totally unenforceable because you cannot give up your rights and the father has the right to see the child, the mother (or custodial parent) has the right to receive support.

I would be curious to see who did this and how it worked in the long run -

I agree with you Judy on most of what you said except the last part. The mother ( or custodial parent ) has the right to receive support. That's just not true, and it is misleading. The child is the one entitled to support by both parents.. not either parent. The courts have made that point clear and that's why they stay involved. Its always the interest of the child. Therefore a parent can't just give away their obligation so easy. Its an obligation to the child. Not the other parent.

[JudyKayTee]

I agree with you Judy on most of what you said except the last part. The mother ( or custodial parent ) has the right to recieve support. Thats just not true, and it is misleading. The child is the one entitled to support by both parents .. not either parent. The courts have made that point clear and thats why they stay involved. Its always the interest of the child. Therefore a parent can't just give away their obligation so easy. Its an obligation to the child. Not the other parent.

I understand what you are saying but this is often an argument - "I sent the money and my X isn't using it for the benefit of the child." The support, while intended for the child, is, in fact, awarded to the custodial parent.

[Fr_Chuck]

The issue here is that you should have court ordered visits and time for you to have the child with you. If you were not to pay, she would take you back to court, so now, you take her back to court for failure to follow the court order,

The time to fight for your children, I guess in our world we can consider children disposable now, we get remarried and start a new family so let us just give away our old one ?

If the mothers new partner wants to adopt, then if you sign over your rights and he adopts, then your support will end. If the new parent does not adopt your support will not end.