Parental Rights Termination?

[IndianaDixie]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

My fiancee has a 2 year old son who I've been taking care of for the past year. His mother hasn't seen him in over a year and a half and only saw him maybe 3 or 4 times before that. She put my fiancee's daughter (her step-daughter) in the hospital after picking her up and throwing her down over and over when she was only a year and a half old. She was convicted and put on 8 years house arrest. She has paid child support maybe two or three times at abou 20 buck a pop (which is not the court ordered amount). She is already in contempt of court because she came to our house and she's not supposed to be anywhere near my soon to be stepdaughter. My question is with all of this in mind would he have grounds to petition to get her parental rights terminated.. and what are the chances of this actually happening? My soon to be stepson has absolutely no clue who this woman is the last two times he saw her he cried and didn't want to go to her.. Any advice would be helpful.

Thanks.

 

[Happy Trails]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

My fiancee has a 2 year old son who I've been taking care of for the past year. His mother hasn't seen him in over a year and a half and only saw him maybe 3 or 4 times before that. She put my fiancee's daughter (her step-daughter) in the hospital after picking her up and throwing her down over and over when she was only a year and a half old. She was convicted and put on 8 years house arrest. She has paid child support maybe two or three times at abou 20 buck a pop (which is not the court ordered amount). She is already in contempt of court because she came to our house and she's not supposed to be anywhere near my soon to be stepdaughter. My question is with all of this in mind would he have grounds to petition to get her parental rights terminated.. and what are the chances of this actually happening? My soon to be stepson has absolutely no clue who this woman is the last two times he saw her he cried and didn't want to go to her.. Any advice would be helpful.

Thanks.

Start here:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar35/

 

[nextwife]

OMG! And most states give moms auto custody just because they have the uterus. Custody should always be based on which parent is best emotionally suited to parent the child, IMHO. Gender should be irrelevant. How terrible that the child was put through all that before ending up with dad..

 

[CJane]

OMG! And most states give moms auto custody just because they have the uterus.

Ya know, that's ONLY true in unmarried situations, and only because maternity was always a LOT easier to prove than paternity.

 

[nextwife]

Ya know, that's ONLY true in unmarried situations, and only because maternity was always a LOT easier to prove than paternity.

In MOST states, even if dad is legally established, mom still has auto custody. It's kinda like a reward to moms who have babies outside marriage- we reward them with auto custody, even if there is a legal dad. Whereas if they'd waited to marry, they'd have to be granted custody to have it.

 

[LdiJ]

In Indiana the criteria to attempt to involuntarily terminate a parent's rights is for the parent to have zero contact with the child (including paying NO child support) for a minimum of one full year. You would also have to be married to dad, for at least a year, and be willing to adopt the child and take over the legal responsibilities of a parent.

Parental rights can also be terminate for cause (such as child abuse) however if that didn't happen as part of the case that caused her conviction for abusing the daughter, then its not as likely to happen now.

Obviously CPS is involved in the case. What are their findings? Has she jumped threw their hoops?

 

[CJane]

In MOST states, even if dad is legally established, mom still has auto custody. It's kinda like a reward to moms who have babies outside marriage- we reward them with auto custody, even if there is a legal dad. Whereas if they'd waited to marry, they'd have to be granted custody to have it.

Funny, as the unmarried mom, I never looked at it as a reward. My son has a legally established father who pays child support every month per the order. He's also made NO attempt to see or contact our son in more than a year. I most unmarried situations that I'm aware of this is the norm. Why should a person - any person - who has no intention of fulfilling parental responsibilities be granted automatic custody just for providing genetic material?

The unmarried father could CHOOSE the VERY EASY process of establishing his custodial rights. He could CHOOSE to not create children out of wedlock. But very often, they CHOOSE to not involve themselves. I don't consider that to be my 'reward'.

The assumption is that in a married household the father HAS contributed to the daily well-being of the child and it's therefore in the child's best interest for joint custody to CONTINUE.

 

[nextwife]

Funny, as the unmarried mom, I never looked at it as a reward. My son has a legally established father who pays child support every month per the order. He's also made NO attempt to see or contact our son in more than a year. I most unmarried situations that I'm aware of this is the norm. Why should a person - any person - who has no intention of fulfilling parental responsibilities be granted automatic custody just for providing genetic material?

The unmarried father could CHOOSE the VERY EASY process of establishing his custodial rights. He could CHOOSE to not create children out of wedlock. But very often, they CHOOSE to not involve themselves. I don't consider that to be my 'reward'.

The assumption is that in a married household the father HAS contributed to the daily well-being of the child and it's therefore in the child's best interest for joint custody to CONTINUE.

And unmarried mothers who don't really give a rip, and who'd rather be out clubbing still DO get auto custody. They are no better than your ex. Why should a parent who WANTS involvement and custody, even if they are the superior parent, be denied custody just because of gender? Why should an unmarried dad's only hope of custody be IF a mom is unfit?

The child should get to live with the parent that is the most ready willing and able parent, regardless of gender.

 

[LdiJ]

And unmarried mothers who don't really give a rip, and who'd rather be out clubbing still DO get auto custody. They are no better than your ex. Why should a parent who WANTS involvement and custody, even if they are the superior parent, be denied custody just because of gender? Why should an unmarried dad's only hope of custody be IF a mom is unfit?

The child should get to live with the parent that is the most ready willing and able parent, regardless of gender.

Of course unmarried mothers who do that are no better than uninterested fathers. Nevertheless, those unmarried mothers are fully responsible for their children legally, whether dad steps up to the plate or not.

In my state in an unwed situation legal custody defaults to the mother. I personally think that makes sense. Everyone knows for certain who mom is (except in some very rare circumstances) but no one can be truly certain who dad is until DNA has been done. After all, we advise unmarried father to NOT sign the AOP until a DNA test has been done, so how can they be considered truly "equal" prior to a court decision? The child is going to spend significant developemental periods in the sole/primary care of the mother.

How can it be possible to say that after a child is six months old and has lived solely with mom, that suddenly mom and dad are totally "equal"?

It only has to do with gender because of the biological fact that the mother is the one who gives birth. That ensures that the child is not in "legal limbo" until court orders are made.

When science has reached the point where paternity can truly be safely and economically determined before the child is born...then a court may be able to decide who takes the child home from the hospital.....and when science has reached the point where the medical community agrees that breastfeeding is no longer medically better.

I have lots of male friends and acquaintences who have primary custody of their children....or true joint. Their gender didn't stop that. Admittedly not many of them came from unwed situations....however some did.

 

[nextwife]

Of course unmarried mothers who do that are no better than uninterested fathers. Nevertheless, those unmarried mothers are fully responsible for their children legally, whether dad steps up to the plate or not.

In my state in an unwed situation legal custody defaults to the mother. I personally think that makes sense. Everyone knows for certain who mom is (except in some very rare circumstances) but no one can be truly certain who dad is until DNA has been done. After all, we advise unmarried father to NOT sign the AOP until a DNA test has been done, so how can they be considered truly "equal" prior to a court decision? The child is going to spend significant developemental periods in the sole/primary care of the mother.

How can it be possible to say that after a child is six months old and has lived solely with mom, that suddenly mom and dad are totally "equal"?

It only has to do with gender because of the biological fact that the mother is the one who gives birth. That ensures that the child is not in "legal limbo" until court orders are made.

When science has reached the point where paternity can truly be safely and economically determined before the child is born...then a court may be able to decide who takes the child home from the hospital.....and when science has reached the point where the medical community agrees that breastfeeding is no longer medically better.

I have lots of male friends and acquaintences who have primary custody of their children....or true joint. Their gender didn't stop that. Admittedly not many of them came from unwed situations....however some did.

Why shouldn't custody be reevaluated at 90 or 180 days old if dad is now legally established AND the more competent and willing, ready parent? Just because mom has the uterus DOESN"T make her always the best home for the child. I know so many parents whose kids changed where they lived to their homes at a few months old. Even at two years old, like mine did.

And frankly, if a mom WASN'T assured auto custody when unmarried, maybe she'd be inclined to be far more proactive about making choices that KEPT her from getting pregnant in such circumstances.

 

[LdiJ]

Why shouldn't custody be reevaluated at 90 or 180 days old if dad is now legally established AND the more competent and willing, ready parent? Just because mom has the uterus DOESN"T make her always the best home for the child. I know so many parents whose kids changed where they lived to their homes at a few months old. Even at two years old, like mine did.

And frankly, if a mom WASN'T assured auto custody when unmarried, maybe she'd be inclined to be far more proactive about making choices that KEPT her from getting pregnant in such circumstances.

Because the courts don't work that fast.....because the courts CANNOT work that fast.....and when medical science comes up with a foolproof method of birth control, that works equally for both males and females, then your idea works just great.

You are a chauvanist....you blame the responsibility for procreation on the female. There is no man out there who can automatically father a child against his will.

 

[IndianaDixie]

His exwife was convicted on neglect of a dependent .. a felony. She picked her up (she was only 1 at the time) threw her down, picked her up threw her down again and shook her. This is exactly why she doesn't have custody of her son, she has to pay 80 bucks a week for someone to come pick him up and she can visit with him four an hour, she's never done this. She told the judge she didn't see why she had to pay child support since she didn't want my fiancee to have him, the judge told her that anyone who gave her a child would be crazy. So basically since she paid $20 there is nothing that can be done yet? Oh and she hasn't seen him in a year.

 

[profmum]

And frankly, if a mom WASN'T assured auto custody when unmarried, maybe she'd be inclined to be far more proactive about making choices that KEPT her from getting pregnant in such circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Goodness what an antiquated comment.. in 2007 too!!.. that women are at "fault" for getting pregnant and men bear no responsibility. A recent census poll showed that most couples are choosing to live together rather than get married, we have a close to 50% divorce rate in this country, the notion that marriage is the only way to best have a child no longer reflects our current society.. so there are and will be more unwed mothers and that does not mean that children raised in this generation will necessarily suffer because of this.

 

[IndianaDixie]

Oh, though this doesn't pertain to my subject, my fiancee got custody of his daughter from her mother when she was only 9 months old and they were not married. Mothers are not granted auto custody it's all in if the father gets a lawyer and goes to court to contest it or not...

 

[LdiJ]

Oh, though this doesn't pertain to my subject, my fiancee got custody of his daughter from her mother when she was only 9 months old and they were not married. Mothers are not granted auto custody it's all in if the father gets a lawyer and goes to court to contest it or not...

Actually, yes, it is auto custody (or rather custody by default) for all unwed mothers in Indiana, UNTIL a judge makes a different decision. Your fiancee got custody because it went to court and the judge made a different decision. However prior to that mom automatically had custody.