What do you think---parental rights and support

[Ottakee]

What do you think of this? I can see a dangerous slippery slope here

 

***************

Ending a parent's rights to a child does not automatically mean that parent is exempted from financially supporting his or her child, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday.

 

 

In an opinion written by Justice Robert Young Jr., the court said the Legislature recognized that parents are empowered with both rights and duties. "Nothing in either provision evinces any legislative intent that one is connected to or conditioned on the other," Mr. Young wrote.

 

 

Mr. Young was joined by Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly and Justice Michael Cavanagh, Justice Maura Corrigan, Justice Stephen Markman and Justice Diane Hathaway in In Re Beck (SC docket No. 140842). Justice Alton Davis did not participate on the case because he was part of the Appeals Court panel that heard the case.

 

 

In the case, the Oakland Circuit Court had severed the parental rights of Lawrence Beck to his two children. But the order directed that he continue to pay support for the two children.

 

 

He argued that because he no longer had parental rights he should not be liable to pay ongoing support for the children. Doing so would violate his due process rights, he said.

 

 

The Court of Appeals rejected his argument, and so did the Supreme Court.

 

 

Mr. Young said the Legislature has always defined two separate functions of a parent, designated by a parent's rights and obligations.

 

 

Unless specifically ended by a court or by the minor child's emancipation (or, of course, attaining majority), a parent's obligation to support a child do not automatically end with the elimination of parental rights, Mr. Young said.

 

 

"The termination of parental rights does not automatically end the obligation of support," Mr. Young said.

[cathmom]

I think that's crazy.

[Mom0012]

I think it depends on the situation somewhat. It makes me think of my sister as a single mom now with 3 special needs kids. Her ex-husband is under supervised visitation. He is such an idiot, I could see his rights to see his children terminated at some point. If he knew he wouldn't have to pay anymore, he might even try to get his rights terminated. But, should my sister then have to bear the full financial responsibility for caring for the children? In that case, I say of course he should still be required to support his children.

 

If someone terminates their rights so that a child may be adopted, then I see that as a totally different thing. I'm not sure of the court's intent, but I wonder if the case they were deciding was more along the lines of what I described with my sister.

 

Lisa

Edited December 23, 2010 by LisaTheresa

[MelanieM]

I think it makes sense, actually. Just because you don't want to parent a child doesn't mean you shouldn't be financially responsible for him/her. As it is right now it can be very difficult for a custodial parent to get child support from the other parent if s/he doesn't want to pay. If that non-paying parent could simply terminate their parental rights and then no longer be responsible for paying child support... well, that would result in an even bigger problem with parents abandoning their responsibilies, and even give them a legal way to do so. Personally, I think there should be a consequence to helping to create a new person. We can't force someone to parent a child, but surely requiring them to financially come to the table is a reasonable expectation.

[Impish]

I think that child support and visitation are two very different things.

 

A parent would be raked over the coals if they refused their ex to see the kids unless they were paid up in support.

 

Some ppl want their rights terminated so they don't have to pay anymore...that's the sole guiding principle. I think its good that this guy isn't being let off of his responsibilities.

 

Totally different if it turned out that the man in the case isn't the bfather, and wants out though.

[Carrie12345]

I agree with it.

Just as my ex retains custody rights when he fails to adhere to his support order, the opposite is equally valid. Children aren't items to be bought and sold, so it's very important to separate the financial and custodial aspects.

[momofkhm]

If someone terminates their rights so that a child may be adopted, then I see that as a totally different thing.

 

This was my thought. Could adoptive families go back the birth parents for financial support with this ruling?

[MariannNOVA]

IMO, they are two separate issues.

 

IME, though, while my dds wished never to see their father (with good reason we have learned), the judge determined that if they did not want contact with him, it relieved him of his monetary obligation.:glare:

[Haiku]

I agree that rights and obligations are separate issues.

 

Tara

[Laurie4b]

I think this is a tricky question and we don't have enough info to make a judgment. We just know the father's rights were terminated : whether that was due to adoption (unlikely, if he's being asked to pay support) or abuse/neglect (more likely--and we don't know whether the process was fair--it is often not)--we don't know. The child may be in state custody (foster care) and the father doesn't want to pay for it. (Many states charge parents for foster care. That's really cute when a child has been wrongly taken .)

[Ottakee]

I guess my concern was that wrongly taken it would open up the doors for.the state to remove kids from the parents if they didn't like something (not talking real abuse :grouphug::grouphug:here) and then having the parents still pay for the care. You know the old no taxation without representation thing.

 

I am certainly all for child support, etc.?

[phathui5]

I can see it, especially in cases of abuse and neglect. Just because someone is a bad parent doesn't mean they aren't responsible for the support of the child.

 

In adoption cases, it's different, because the adoptive parent is taking on responsibility for the child.

[Denisemomof4]

I can see it, especially in cases of abuse and neglect. Just because someone is a bad parent doesn't mean they aren't responsible for the support of the child.

 

In adoption cases, it's different, because the adoptive parent is taking on responsibility for the child.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. In your opinion, why is it different for adopted vs. bio kids?

[mcconnellboys]

Well, I see what they intended with regard to this case and with regard to fathers in general who often do not pay child support as they should after a divorce.

 

However, I also see what you mean about there being other ways this could be used in future that might be problematic.

 

The language you quote does say "unless specifically ended by a court", so I would think that in future if a government agency were taking a child from its parents, for instance, that their attorney would certainly argue that under those circumstances, if their rights were ended over their objections, then their duties should be ended as well.

[Sarah CB]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. In your opinion, why is it different for adopted vs. bio kids?

 

I think that's the problem with this ruling. It has to do with the parent whose rights were terminated. This could be applied to a situation where an adoption took place.

 

I absolutely agree that custody, guardianship, and visitation should have nothing to do with whether the parent pays child support - however, in my opinion terminating your parental rights is completely different.

[KrissiK]

If rights are terminated then that is it. If it terminates their rights, then it should also terminate their responisibilities. When the parental rights were terminated for my kids' birth-parents then we could breath a sigh of relief. That was it, no more.

[Truscifi]

I think it makes sense, actually. Just because you don't want to parent a child doesn't mean you shouldn't be financially responsible for him/her. As it is right now it can be very difficult for a custodial parent to get child support from the other parent if s/he doesn't want to pay. If that non-paying parent could simply terminate their parental rights and then no longer be responsible for paying child support... well, that would result in an even bigger problem with parents abandoning their responsibilies, and even give them a legal way to do so. Personally, I think there should be a consequence to helping to create a new person. We can't force someone to parent a child, but surely requiring them to financially come to the table is a reasonable expectation.

 

:iagree: And just because you're a bad parent doesn't mean you should get to just walk away either.

 

I also agree that if the child is adopted by another family the duty of the birth parent should end. When the child is adopted the new family takes both the rights and responsibilities for the child.

[LibraryLover]

I see it's all been said. :)

Edited December 22, 2010 by LibraryLover

[lionfamily1999]

If rights are terminated then that is it. If it terminates their rights, then it should also terminate their responisibilities. When the parental rights were terminated for my kids' birth-parents then we could breath a sigh of relief. That was it, no more.

:iagree: I thought rights were terminated so that the relationship could cease completely. It's not over if money is still changing hands.

[LizzyBee]

I have an extremely violent ex-bil. Terminating his parental rights while forcing him to continue to support his daughter would have been the perfect solution. Instead, the stupid courts saw no problem with a man having unsupervised visitation even though he attacked a man from behind with a tire iron and put him in the hospital for a week in front of his daughter. When bil r*ped his daughter, the DA said she believed every word of dd's testimony, but there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. So, again, he continued unsupervised visitation. My niece is extremely intelligent and beautiful, and could be anything she wants in life. Instead, her self-respect has been irreparably damaged by her father and she has 2 kids by different dads, has gone through a long string of live-in abusive boyfriends, and survives financially on govt assistance.

 

If a parent sucks and needs to removed from his/her child's life for the child's well-being, why should he or she be absolved of financial responsibility for that child?

[LizzyBee]

:iagree: And just because you're a bad parent doesn't mean you should get to just walk away either.

 

I also agree that if the child is adopted by another family the duty of the birth parent should end. When the child is adopted the new family takes both the rights and responsibilities for the child.

 

If a child is adopted through social services, they are often classified as special needs. A child over a year old is classified as SN, even if they have no physical illnesses or developmental delays. SS pays the adoptive family a monthly stipend and the kids get medicaid regardless of family income. In that situation, I would have no problem with the bio parents continuing to pay child support in order to reimburse SS/taxpayers for their costs.

[Haiku]

In your opinion, why is it different for adopted vs. bio kids?

 

I'm not the person you're responding to, but I think it's different for adopted kids. I voluntarily took legal and financial responsibility of my kids. I am responsible now. In cases where the child has not been adopted, someone needs to support that child. I have serious issues with American parents who walk away from their kids and make no provision for their support. I understand that the legal, social, and financial situations are/can be different in other countries.

 

Tara

[Truscifi]

If a child is adopted through social services, they are often classified as special needs. A child over a year old is classified as SN, even if they have no physical illnesses or developmental delays. SS pays the adoptive family a monthly stipend and the kids get medicaid regardless of family income. In that situation, I would have no problem with the bio parents continuing to pay child support in order to reimburse SS/taxpayers for their costs.

 

 

This is not the case in every state. For example, in Florida the adoptive family qualifies for assistance with college tuition, but that is about it.

[grace'smom]

I guess my concern was that wrongly taken it would open up the doors for.the state to remove kids from the parents if they didn't like something (not talking real abuse :grouphug::grouphug:here) and then having the parents still pay for the care. You know the old no taxation without representation thing.

 

QUOTE]

 

I didn't think of it from that angle but you are right- that could give too much power to the state. When I think of it that way it seems a little scary. If I were a family being investigated (which I've heard some families do get investigated over homeschooling) I'd be very afraid because they would have the power to take the kids and wouldn't even have financial burden to taxpayers as a deterrent. Makes it a little too free and easy on their part. But I agree that if you abuse your kids and they are taken away for their own safety you shouldn't be absolved of your financial responsibility. That makes taxpayers pay for your bad behavior. Hmmm, this is a very tricky situation....

[Mejane]

I agree he should continue to pay. That said, if I were the custodial parent and I could handle it financially myself, I would want to sever all ties. I'd prefer he just get gone.

[Truscifi]

I guess my concern was that wrongly taken it would open up the doors for.the state to remove kids from the parents if they didn't like something (not talking real abuse :grouphug::grouphug:here) and then having the parents still pay for the care. You know the old no taxation without representation thing.

 

QUOTE]

 

I didn't think of it from that angle but you are right- that could give too much power to the state. When I think of it that way it seems a little scary. If I were a family being investigated (which I've heard some families do get investigated over homeschooling) I'd be very afraid because they would have the power to take the kids and wouldn't even have financial burden to taxpayers as a deterrent. Makes it a little too free and easy on their part. But I agree that if you abuse your kids and they are taken away for their own safety you shouldn't be absolved of your financial responsibility. That makes taxpayers pay for your bad behavior. Hmmm' date=' this is a very tricky situation....[/quote']

 

I don't think this decision would affect the process for terminating parental rights at all. It is only about what happens after rights are terminated.

 

And FWIW at least in Florida, termination of parental rights is a very long and drawn out process, pursued as a last resort only if the parents have been found on multiple occasions to be severely unfit and have refused services to rectify the situation or those services have been unsuccessful. For example, single mom, unknown dad, mom is a drug addict who neglects her children to the extent of not feeding them for days at a time and leaving them with men she barely knows who bring her drugs, has failed in treatment multiple times, then has her convicted pedophile boyfriend move in with her and the kids, and when told the kids can't be in the same house with a convicted (and unrepentant) pedophile, says well, I guess we'll move out then. As in her and the boyfriend. Leaving the kids alone. :confused: And even with all that it still took months and months of court hearings and the mother finally voluntarily signing over rights for the termination to actually be done. And yes, until those kids are adopted I do think the mother should have to pay for their care.

 

I know the process can be misused, but in my experience, the bulk of the legal protections are for the parents, and not nearly enough is done for the kids.

 

Let the flames begin.

[lionfamily1999]

If a child is adopted through social services, they are often classified as special needs. A child over a year old is classified as SN, even if they have no physical illnesses or developmental delays. SS pays the adoptive family a monthly stipend and the kids get medicaid regardless of family income. In that situation, I would have no problem with the bio parents continuing to pay child support in order to reimburse SS/taxpayers for their costs.

I'm guessing that most of those parents would not be willing to pay. Then what?

[KrissiK]

 

I don't think this decision would affect the process for terminating parental rights at all. It is only about what happens after rights are terminated.

 

And FWIW at least in Florida' date=' termination of parental rights is a very long and drawn out process, pursued as a last resort only if the parents have been found on multiple occasions to be severely unfit and have refused services to rectify the situation or those services have been unsuccessful. For example, single mom, unknown dad, mom is a drug addict who neglects her children to the extent of not feeding them for days at a time and leaving them with men she barely knows who bring her drugs, has failed in treatment multiple times, then has her convicted pedophile boyfriend move in with her and the kids, and when told the kids can't be in the same house with a convicted (and unrepentant) pedophile, says well, I guess we'll move out then. As in her and the boyfriend. Leaving the kids alone. :confused: And even with all that it still took months and months of court hearings and the mother finally voluntarily signing over rights for the termination to actually be done. And yes, until those kids are adopted I do think the mother should have to pay for their care.

 

I know the process can be misused, but in my experience, the bulk of the legal protections are for the parents, and not nearly enough is done for the kids.

 

Let the flames begin.[/quote']

Oh, in California it is the same thing. It's horrible. I have so many foster parent friends who grieve and cry when they have to take their foster kids to visits, or they are reunited because the foster parent knows the situations they are going back to and they haven't changed. And, if the foster parents speaks up on behalf of the kids, the kids are removed from the home of the foster parent. That's happened to a friend of mine. She's scared to death when she takes her kid to visit her mom but doesn't dare say a word to the social workers.

[Laurie4b]

I guess my concern was that wrongly taken it would open up the doors for.the state to remove kids from the parents if they didn't like something (not talking real abuse :grouphug::grouphug:here) and then having the parents still pay for the care. You know the old no taxation without representation thing.

 

I am certainly all for child support, etc.?

I agree. It already happens with foster care that way.

[beezus]

If a parent sucks and needs to removed from his/her child's life for the child's well-being, why should he or she be absolved of financial responsibility for that child?

 

No matter how rotten the parent is, the child still needs to eat, wear clothes, see the doctor/dentist, and probably a therapist if a kid has a parent who behaves badly enough to have his parental rights cut off. I don't know the facts of this particular case, but possibly the court is focusing on the interests of the child and saying the child needs financial support even if he doesn't need contact with this parent.

[NanceXToo]

If a parent decides they want their rights terminated because they want nothing to do with the kid and/or they are trying to get out of support, then they should have to pay support anyway.

 

If a parent decides to agree to terminate their rights at the request of the other parent so that a step-parent can adopt, then I believe at that point (when the adoption goes through) the step-parent becomes the 'real parent' and the terminating parent should no longer have to pay support.

 

If a court terminates a parent's rights because they are a danger to the kids or some such and not allowed to see them, they should still have to pay support to ensure the kids can grow up with everything they need.

[Murphy101]

I think it is right. I hope his rights were terminated only for absolutely good reasons. For example, if he is neglectful or abusive. He might be a dangerous parent, but why does that exempt him for being responsible for his children? Then lots of parents would purposefully become bad parents so they can be terminated as parents and then no have to pay any money.

 

Well I guess they could do that. Or they could just put the kid up for adoption and walk away. There's no rational reason to become a bad parent just to sever financial obligations when it is perfectly legal to walk away. :confused:

 

:iagree: I thought rights were terminated so that the relationship could cease completely. It's not over if money is still changing hands.

 

I agree. If they legally are not longer the parent, then I don't see how they are legally still responsible for a child that at that point is no longer theirs.

[lionfamily1999]

That and how would they enforce it? It seems like the parents who are getting their rights terminated by 'force' are not going to jump at the chance to pay. Do we lock them all up? It's crazy enough with the courts trying to keep up with the parents that still have rights. I couldn't imagine if they had to track the ones that were so horrible they lost their right to be a parent.

 

I also shudder to think of the ramifications if this did bleed into parents who've given up their children for adoption. It would be bad enough, imo, to have adopted a foster child and still have to put up with the bio parents (I'm guessing, having never done foster care, that there isn't much love for parents that far on the terrible side) every month waiting for their payments.