Removing parental rights

[mandya]

I live in CA and my daughters father has only seen her 3 times since she was 8 months old she is now 4 1/2 I am getting married in October what is my legal option of getting his parental rights removed? We have gone to court twice and both times he has failed to past a drug test he hasn't seen her since July of 1999 and hasn't called to see how she was doing since Chirstmas. My fiance would love to adopt her they are very close and have an exellenct relationship.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I live in CA and my daughters father has only seen her 3 times since she was 8 months old she is now 4 1/2 I am getting married in October what is my legal option of getting his parental rights removed? We have gone to court twice and both times he has failed to past a drug test he hasn't seen her since July of 1999 and hasn't called to see how she was doing since Chirstmas. My fiance would love to adopt her they are very close and have an exellenct relationship.

My response:

His drug use and/or failure to visit is not enough to "terminate" his parental rights. Termination is only used by the courts when the child is in immediate or threatened danger. Since he doesn't visit, and hasn't made any threats against the child, there is obviously no danger to your child. Termination of parental rights by the juvenile court is a "last ditch" method of protecting a child.

The juvenile court's fundamental role is the protection of minor children on behalf of the state, while that of the family court is dissolution of marriages and adjudication of custody rights as between the parents. [See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 200-201, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866, 868-869 (describing distinction between "juvenile" and "family" courts); In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 773, fn. 1 (same)]
termination of parental rights proceedings are within juvenile court jurisdiction; Ca Wel & Inst § 300 et seq.) (Ca Fam § 3000 et seq.).

A judgment terminating parental custody and control, whether voluntary or involuntary, "terminates all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the child"--including all further child support obligations. Thus, the parent whose rights are severed by the decree may no longer be reached for future child support. [Ca Fam § 7803; In re Olivia A. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 237, 241, 226 Cal.Rptr. 382, 384.

Where the noncustodial parent expresses no interest in maintaining contact with the child, a court apparently cannot compel him or her to exercise visitation rights [Louden v. Olpin (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 565, 568, 173 Cal.Rptr. 447, 449, cert.den. (1981) 454 U.S. 1055] Dictum suggests the same rule applies where custody/ visitation is adjudicated in a marriage dissolution or other Family Code proceeding: "There is neither statutory nor case law to support such a contention . . . The court cannot compel a noncustodial parent on dissolution of a marriage to care for and love and visit with the child." [Louden v. Olpin, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at 568, 173 Cal.Rptr. at 449]

Therefore, if he chooses not to voluntarily terminate his parental rights, there is nothing you can do to force him; e.g., in California, even incarcerated murderers are able to maintain their parental rights and, in most cases, force visitation while incarcerated.

In summary, beyond his voluntary termination, there's really nothing you can do to force him, or the courts, to terminate his parental rights.

Good luck to you.

IAAL

 

[morning_angel]

A judgment terminating parental custody and control, whether voluntary or involuntary, "terminates all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the child"--including all further child support obligations. Thus, the parent whose rights are severed by the decree may no longer be reached for future child support. [Ca Fam § 7803; In re Olivia A. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 237, 241, 226 Cal.Rptr. 382, 384.


Good luck to you.

IAAL

IAAL, I have always been under the impression (perhaps incorrectly so) that termination of parental rights and termination of responsibilities (specifically, child support) were not one in the same, and that parental rights could be terminated, either voluntarily, or by court order without relieving the parent in question of their responsibility of supporting the child, unless there was another "parent" waiting to adopt the child and take on that responsibility. This in order to "protect" both the child from not having means of support and the state from possibly having to take on the responsibility of supporting the child in the future, should the remaining parent be unable to do so.

From your post, I gather that is not the case...is that specific to CA or have I held an improper understanding of the parental termination laws? Can you please clarify this for me? Thank you for your time, Your Eminence

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

My above response is specific for California, only, since our writer is asking about California law.

Like I said, once a parental termination is declared by the court - - either through voluntary Petition, or through necessity due to extreme circumstances, all responsibility for the child ceases - - everything ceases.

Our writer (the child's mother) has already stated that : "My fiance would love to adopt her they are very close and have an exellenct relationship." So, it appears there will be an adoptive parent waiting in the wings, should the "termination Petition" be granted.

The most common occurrence of "termination" is, of course, through the adoption process - - which is the only way a parent can "voluntarily" Petition the court for termination and obtain such a decree.

There are extreme circumstances where a parent's rights are terminated involuntarily - - e.g., the child who is burned beyond recognition by his father, and survives. (Sound familiar ?) In that type of situation, the State and the taxpayers gladly pay for child support in order to keep such a "father" away from the child.

But, in either case, the parent whose rights are severed by the decree may no longer be reached for future child support. The adoptive parent (or the State) now steps into the shoes of the parent(s) and pays support for the child as if the child was the natural child of the adoptive parent. The adopted child also takes from the Estate of the adoptive parent. Under the law, there is no difference between biological or adoptive parent(s) - - the legal rights, duties, liabilities, and responsibilities, are exactly the same.

Thanks for asking.

IAAL

 

[morning_angel]

thanks for explaining!

 

[mandya]

thanks

thanks for you quick response i have spoke to my fiance and the first thing we are going to do when we get married is start proceedings on a step parent adoption. which i don't know if that is going to be easy considering the father moved and has given no forwarding address