Grandparent Liability for support, of NON MINOR child

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OHIO


My son was born out of wedlock, which automatically gives me sole custody of my son in my state. Throughout my son's life (he's 7) his father and paternal grandparents have always been there and very involved in his life.

The only obligation we'd always agreed upon was to split the cost of daycare. This was always an issue for him, as he has never been able to hold a job on a consistent basis. Any and all financial obligations have always been taken care of by his parents. He is 32 yrs old and hasn't worked in almost a year. He has a history of substance abuse, mental health issues, in addition to a domestic violence charge against me, when I first found out I was pregnant.

He's attempted suicide within the last 12 months, and is supposedly in rehab for his substance abuse and mental health, all on state assisted medical care.

Due to some issues that had developed I stopped allowing him to see our son, without the supervision of the grandparents- due to his lifestyle choices and the negative impact I feel it was having on him. His parents would spend time with him daily before I got off work.

I should also mention he has an older child that he IS ordered to pay support for-which has always been paid by his parents, until recently- and now he's delinquent in that, and he's also got another child due in March 2012.

He's now seeking to get custody of our son. While I know there's no chance he'll be receiving custody of him, I am now going to file for support, due to all the circumstances at play right now.

Since his parents have always footed the bill for his part of all agreed upon financial responsibilities- is it possible to now hold them legally liable?

ps. sorry that was so lengthy- but that's as short as i could go without it not making any sense!

No, you and the child's father are responsible for supporting your child.

The grandparents are absolutely not responsible for supporting their grandchild.

Why you think they should be, I don't know.

The only reason I'm even questioning it, is because they have always been the ones footing the bill on behalf of their son. They've allowed him to be irresponsible and they've always covered for him. They've paid delinquent support on his oldest child, and have always paid his half of things when it comes to our son.

They're the ones who have hired the attorney to try to seek custody to begin with.

Financially the money isn't the issue. It's purely a matter of principle at this point- that I'm even seeking a support order, and making sure I've covered myself appropriately, since there is also another child on the way. He's never had contact with the other child, nor is he on good terms with the woman who is due in spring. Our son is the only child he has, who's life he's been a part of.

My thought process behind it is, since it can be proven and show a history of financial support from them on his behalf, that they could still be required to do so. If he had a job and was working, there wouldn't be cause to even bring this up... However, he can't seem to get and/or keep a job.

ARC0202 said:

The only reason I'm even questioning it, is because they have always been the ones footing the bill on behalf of their son. They've allowed him to be irresponsible and they've always covered for him. They've paid delinquent support on his oldest child, and have always paid his half of things when it comes to our son.

They're the ones who have hired the attorney to try to seek custody to begin with.

Financially the money isn't the issue. It's purely a matter of principle at this point- that I'm even seeking a support order, and making sure I've covered myself appropriately, since there is also another child on the way. He's never had contact with the other child, nor is he on good terms with the woman who is due in spring. Our son is the only child he has, who's life he's been a part of.

My thought process behind it is, since it can be proven and show a history of financial support from them on his behalf, that they could still be required to do so. If he had a job and was working, there wouldn't be cause to even bring this up... However, he can't seem to get and/or keep a job.

Click to expand...

His parents are not the only ones who have allowed him to be irresponsible. You share in that blame as well. You should have filed for support and visitation years ago.

Unless his parents where in bed doing the deed that created your son, they have no legal business in this whatsoever. Now if they want to keep footing the bill for the irresponsible man you chose to father a child with, then that is their business.

ARC0202 said:

The only reason I'm even questioning it, is because they have always been the ones footing the bill on behalf of their son. They've allowed him to be irresponsible and they've always covered for him. They've paid delinquent support on his oldest child, and have always paid his half of things when it comes to our son.

They're the ones who have hired the attorney to try to seek custody to begin with.

Financially the money isn't the issue. It's purely a matter of principle at this point- that I'm even seeking a support order, and making sure I've covered myself appropriately, since there is also another child on the way. He's never had contact with the other child, nor is he on good terms with the woman who is due in spring. Our son is the only child he has, who's life he's been a part of.

My thought process behind it is, since it can be proven and show a history of financial support from them on his behalf, that they could still be required to do so. If he had a job and was working, there wouldn't be cause to even bring this up... However, he can't seem to get and/or keep a job.

Click to expand...

As purely a matter of principal, this question should be even easier for you. The grandparents are have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to support YOUR child.

If your child's dad were maybe 15 or 17 years old, the GPs might indeed have some legal responsibilty,. But for them to have a minor child who is the father of a 7 year old? He'd have had to been maybe 10 when he became dad . . .

He's not, he was an adult who was already unreliable when you chose him to be dad. Consider yourself FORTUNATE that his parents covered his financial responsibility so far, or you might be in worse financial shape now.

nextwife said:

If your child's dad were maybe 15 or 17 years old, the GPs might indeed have some legal responsibilty,. But for them to have a minor child who is the father of a 7 year old? He'd have had to been maybe 10 when he became dad . . .

He's not, he was an adult who was already unreliable when you chose him to be dad. Consider yourself FORTUNATE that his parents covered his financial responsibility so far, or you might be in worse financial shape now.

Click to expand...

That's really the key. OP, you should be thanking the grandparents with your every breath. They have helped support your child when they didn't have to. The idea of you suing them for support is just plain appalling.