Does this sound like a real ruling? - OP deleted

[glitzyglow]

Thank you all for your help! You confirmed that things don't seem to add up correctly. Possible, but very unlikely.

[deanlicker78]

I would think if you terminate your rights you have no more obligation to that child than any stranger on the street would.*

*My law degree is from Law and Order University. Professors Benson and Stabler.

[mel]

****NOT A LAWYER****
My understanding is that terminating their rights would release them from ANY obligation, financial or otherwise. I can't see how the court can make them provide insurance for a child they want nothing to do with.

[sonrisa]

what kind of insurance are you talking about? Health insurance through an employer? Life insurance? independent health insurance?

[hisno1girl]

Sept 7, 2016 10:53:52 GMT -5 deanlicker78 said:

I would think if you terminate your rights you have no more obligation to that child than any stranger on the street would.*

*My law degree is from Law and Order University. Professors Benson and Stabler.

Ditto.

Man I miss Stabler and his ass. Lol

[glitzyglow]

sonrisa, health insurance through terminated parent's employer.

[sonrisa]

Aside from probability or legal issues, would the terminating parent even be able to carry such insurance? Would employer's insurer cover a kid who is no longer their kid? (not legal advice. Just wondering about logistics)

[glitzyglow]

sonrisa, I'm not understanding the logistics either. I'm very skeptical.

[Deleted]

If the parent terminated parental rights, I don't know how the insurance company would handle this. Insurance is given to "Employee + spouse/child/children/all of the above. This is legally no longer the employee's child.

[sonrisa]

perhaps they didn't actually terminate rights? Just agree to some sort of limited visitation and the insurance is in lieu of child support? (I'm not a family lawyer at all)

[Deleted]

Pretty sure when my friend had her ex's rights terminated she also gave up on the back child support owed. Not that he would have ever paid it anyway, but because of that I can't see anything going forward being enforceable or mandated.

[kath16]

**NOT A LAWYER. my answer comes from dealing with my SD's mom/grandparents**

yeah TPR is taken very seriously. it would most likely disqualify the child from coverage under the terminated parent's insurance.

Family law IS complicated though, so I guess I wouldn't say for sure, but it seems really unlikely.

[Kristinmo]

My understanding is custody and financial obligations are 2 separate issues. So you can be prohibited (or just not request) physical custoday or visitation but still be financially responsible. It is extremely difficult to end financial obligations unless there is a step parent that wants to adopt.

ETA:  So he could have just gotten the language confused - he "terminated parental rights" could mean he just doesn't have visitation but he could still be required to carry insurance.

[kath16]

Catlawdy take out your quote, she asked PDQ

[kath16]

Sept 7, 2016 11:10:57 GMT -5 Kristinmo said:

My understanding is custody and financial obligations are 2 separate issues. So you can be prohibited (or just not request) physical custoday or visitation but still be financially responsible. It is extremely difficult to end financial obligations unless there is a step parent that wants to adopt.

True that they are separate, but this is different from terminating rights.

Also, we did the bolded fairly easily. My H just said he does not want child support from her and that was that.

[zitiqueen]

Sept 7, 2016 10:56:57 GMT -5 hisno1girl said:

Sept 7, 2016 10:53:52 GMT -5 deanlicker78 said:

I would think if you terminate your rights you have no more obligation to that child than any stranger on the street would.*

*My law degree is from Law and Order University. Professors Benson and Stabler.

Ditto.

Man I miss Stabler and his ass. Lol

Quoting because I can only like it once.

[glitzyglow]

Sept 7, 2016 11:10:57 GMT -5 Kristinmo said:

My understanding is custody and financial obligations are 2 separate issues. So you can be prohibited (or just not request) physical custoday or visitation but still be financially responsible. It is extremely difficult to end financial obligations unless there is a step parent that wants to adopt.

ETA:  So he could have just gotten the language confused - he "terminated parental rights" could mean he just doesn't have visitation but he could still be required to carry insurance.

I am wondering if this isn't what is actually happened. He says he terminated his rights, but he may not understand the differences.

[Deleted]

Maybe I'm unaware, but even if a parent has absolutely nothing to do with a child it is my understanding that they are required by US law to pay child support.

[mel]

Sept 7, 2016 11:35:27 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Maybe I'm unaware, but even if a parent has absolutely nothing to do with a child it is my understanding that they are required by US law to pay child support.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. My BIL gave up all parental rights to 2 children and never paid a dime in child support. This was also over 20 years ago, so things may have changed.

[kath16]

Sept 7, 2016 11:35:27 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Maybe I'm unaware, but even if a parent has absolutely nothing to do with a child it is my understanding that they are required by US law to pay child support.

My understanding is that this is true UNLESS you terminate your rights. If you terminate your rights, the courts see it as if you have no children.

[Saint Monica]

My guess is that this is incorrect.

If the rights are terminated the court could likely not maintain jurisdiction over his person in the event he failed to comply with the health insurance provision.

[sonrisa]

Sept 7, 2016 11:43:44 GMT -5 kath16 said:

Sept 7, 2016 11:35:27 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Maybe I'm unaware, but even if a parent has absolutely nothing to do with a child it is my understanding that they are required by US law to pay child support.

My understanding is that this is true UNLESS you terminate your rights. If you terminate your rights, the courts see it as if you have no children.

I think I've heard you can't spontaneously give up your rights and terminate your support obligations. A dead beat dad can't just go to court for the fun of it and skip out on all obligations. The other parent has to agree and there may be some states that don't allow it even then (absent a new adoptive parent stepping in) since the right to support from the parent is the child's right, not the parent's (obviously not legal advice)

[Deleted]

You can do a lot of things with family law as long as the other party agrees to it. 
So he can terminate his rights and still agree to carry the insurance. BUT i dont know how that would work because its no longer legally his child so if the insurance is through employment that can make things tricky. I wonder too if it was decreed how long he has to provide insurance. and what happens if he is fired? is he now obligate to provide coverage through ACA?Also someone allowing one parent to legally claim a child as their child for one thing but not another is also opening up the door to some weird stuff too. Hopefully the other party also got it in writing that he cant claim the baby on his taxes.
I do not think anyone can say oh now you no longer owe child support. You cannot trade back child support like that. 

[hopecounts]

The existing owed child support would still likely be an existing debt, it would just stop accruing post TPR.
Family Law is kind of it's own crazy thing, and unless something is forbidden parties can make whatever agreements they choose.
I don't see how the terminating parent could keep the child on their insurance once they are no longer the legal parent of the child.
But they could be obligated to sign up and pay for the child's insurance on the ACA exchange independently.

[Deleted]

Sept 7, 2016 11:43:44 GMT -5 kath16 said:

Sept 7, 2016 11:35:27 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Maybe I'm unaware, but even if a parent has absolutely nothing to do with a child it is my understanding that they are required by US law to pay child support.

My understanding is that this is true UNLESS you terminate your rights. If you terminate your rights, the courts see it as if you have no children.

That's interesting. I have heard of parents that have zero interest to ever want a child or be involved with their kid(s) or pay child support and yet is required to do so by law. (One example--pregnancy as a result of a hook up--father did not want the mother to have the child and refused any rights to said child , but she took him to court and he is mandated to pay child support.

[hopecounts]

Sept 7, 2016 11:54:40 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Sept 7, 2016 11:43:44 GMT -5 kath16 said:

My understanding is that this is true UNLESS you terminate your rights. If you terminate your rights, the courts see it as if you have no children.

That's interesting. I have heard of parents that have zero interest to ever want a child or be involved with their kid(s) or pay child support and yet is required to do so by law. (One example--pregnancy as a result of a hook up--father did not want the mother to have the child and refused any rights to said child , but she took him to court and he is mandated to pay child support.

The difference is once you TPR you are no longer a parent in the eyes of the law.
If you can not (some states prohibit TPRing if their isn't an adoption either traditional or stepparent) or do not choose to TPR you are still legally obligated to pay support.

[Kristinmo]

Sept 7, 2016 11:54:40 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Sept 7, 2016 11:43:44 GMT -5 kath16 said:

My understanding is that this is true UNLESS you terminate your rights. If you terminate your rights, the courts see it as if you have no children.

That's interesting. I have heard of parents that have zero interest to ever want a child or be involved with their kid(s) or pay child support and yet is required to do so by law. (One example--pregnancy as a result of a hook up--father did not want the mother to have the child and refused any rights to said child , but she took him to court and he is mandated to pay child support.

It's required by law if the custodial parent files for it.  If the custodial parent does not file, there is no obligation to pay.  And you can't TPR just to avoid paying child support.

[panicked]

Not a lawyer, but I am a caseworker for CPS and work very closely with the legal system

Parents can voluntarily relinquish parental rights. This absolves them of all rights to the child, financial burdens included. However, the court does not have to accept the relinquishment. They can make the parent a "possessory" which means they have extremely limited rights, but maintain financial obligations.

[jojoandleo]

Sept 7, 2016 11:35:27 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Maybe I'm unaware, but even if a parent has absolutely nothing to do with a child it is my understanding that they are required by US law to pay child support.

If you terminate parental rights (Which, you can't just go down to the court house and terminate. NORMALLY it is when someone gets remarried and the new spouse wants to adopt the child, so the child's bio mom/dad terminates. OR, BOTH parties agree mom/dad can terminate-but that is more rare.), you do NOT owe child support.  It doesn't sever a right to BACK child support (that which was owed prior to the termination), but it severs a right to future support.  It severs ALL legal ties to the child. With that in mind, this does not sound like a possible or plausible ruling. However, family law is WEIRD and VERY VERY VERY STATE SPECIFIC.

Now, you can have NO visitation rights and still owe child support, but that is completely different from terminating parental rights.

[kath16]

Sept 7, 2016 11:54:40 GMT -5 @blueyes623 said:

Sept 7, 2016 11:43:44 GMT -5 kath16 said:

My understanding is that this is true UNLESS you terminate your rights. If you terminate your rights, the courts see it as if you have no children.

That's interesting. I have heard of parents that have zero interest to ever want a child or be involved with their kid(s) or pay child support and yet is required to do so by law. (One example--pregnancy as a result of a hook up--father did not want the mother to have the child and refused any rights to said child , but she took him to court and he is mandated to pay child support.

Yes, absolutely. It takes two to tango, etc.

But TPR is a whole different ballgame. As others have mentioned, many times they will require a stepparent or grandparents or someone to be in a position to adopt before you can terminate your rights. I have friends whose kids were adopted by their stepdad so their bio dad could TPR. My neighbors adopted their grandchild so their daughter could TPR.

Terminating rights is not taken lightly. Basically, someone has to be financially/legally responsible for the child(ren) so a lot of times there has to be someone waiting in the wings, so to speak. This is different from a deadbeat parent not coming to baseball games or paying child support.