filing motion for contempt for CS. Do I include the termination papers he signed ?

[mommyof4]

That's a possibility. Now you have me thinking about it.

OP, why don't you take these two questions that have been posted (about CS having to be specifically inluded in the new order OR about the possibl existing order not being abated without a specific order) to your atty. That should help clear up the confusion.

 

[Isis1]

wasn't the whole point of stripping the father of his legal rights so the father could enter the military? i did read something to that affect. it was shocking of course, but from what i understood, he could not have legal rights to a child while being entered into the service. couldn't those rights be retained after he was released? therefore still subjecting him to child support? the whole part about having to keep contact withthe paternal grandparents seemed unreasonable if the father got to "walk away" completely.

 

[>Charlotte<]

wasn't the whole point of stripping the father of his legal rights so the father could enter the military? i did read something to that affect. it was shocking of course, but from what i understood, he could not have legal rights to a child while being entered into the service.

My son is in the Army, and he has custody of his son.

I think the misunderstanding about custody and military service might stem from the fact that if one is in the military and has custody, there is a procedure in place to allow them to be honorably discharged in deference to their status as a parent. "I don't want to be in the Army" anymore doesn't cut it, but "I don't want to be in the Army anymore because I have to take care of my child" does.

ETA: After thinking about it some more, I need to change my position on this somewhat. My son became a single, custodial father after (long after, in fact) his enlistment. I have to allow for the possibility that it might affect the status of someone who hasn't actually enlisted yet. I still kinda don't think it does, but I can't say with any real certainty that it doesn't.

 

[Jaylynnsmommy]

It's also possible that termination of parental rights does not necessarily terminate parental obligations. Perhaps the purpose of this order is meant to remove his right to share decision making and leaves that to the sole discretion of OP, but retains his status as the "father."

you hit it DEAD on. thats what I've been trying to explain haha. what you just said is what we were trying to get out of the papers.

I was understanding also that it doesn't say in the papers that he must CEASE paying support, and if the papers were meant to allow him to get into the military(i don't know WHAT his recruiter was telling him) but he was still able to have a relationship with her if he so chooses. If he wished to exercise the termination of rights to its full extent, i suppose he could take me to court and argue he doesn't need to pay since she's not "legally" his daughter or something to that effect, but I talk to him regularly, and thats not what he wants.

I have called my lawyer, but she wont return my calls.
Thats why I came on here ! Frustrating I know :[

 

[Ohiogal]

you hit it DEAD on. thats what I've been trying to explain haha. what you just said is what we were trying to get out of the papers.

I was understanding also that it doesn't say in the papers that he must CEASE paying support, and if the papers were meant to allow him to get into the military(i don't know WHAT his recruiter was telling him) but he was still able to have a relationship with her if he so chooses. If he wished to exercise the termination of rights to its full extent, i suppose he could take me to court and argue he doesn't need to pay since she's not "legally" his daughter or something to that effect, but I talk to him regularly, and thats not what he wants.

I have called my lawyer, but she wont return my calls.
Thats why I came on here ! Frustrating I know :[

So it is NOT a termination of parental rights. It is a termination of his visitation rights and decision making rights. WHICH IS NOT PARENTAL RIGHTS. Crappy written order by your attorney. And it can be used against you to get dad out of paying child support.

 

[Silverplum]

So it is NOT a termination of parental rights. It is a termination of his visitation rights and decision making rights. WHICH IS NOT PARENTAL RIGHTS. Crappy written order by your attorney. And it can be used against you to get dad out of paying child support.

It took THREE PAGES to get to the correct terminology?!?!!!!!!!


No one here at FA has access to the OP's paperwork...

 

[Ohiogal]

And I should add that what OP understands DOES NOT matter. It is what is on the WRITTEN order that matters. And that terminates dad's rights. So hence DAD is no longer dad and does NOT pay child support.

 

[>Charlotte<]

It is what is on the WRITTEN order that matters.

And the only reason I posted in #30 what ended up "hitting it dead on" is because I learned from you (OG) in a long ago thread* that you can't get too bogged down in trying to read between the lines of an order--because it doesn't matter what you meant, or what you wanted. All that matters is what it says. Law is, literally, literal.

*You probably remember it. It was a stubborn idiot that kept arguing with you. Narrow it down much?

 

[Ohiogal]

And the only reason I posted in #30 what ended up "hitting it dead on" is because I learned from you (OG) in a long ago thread* that you can't get too bogged down in trying to read between the lines of an order--because it doesn't matter what you meant, or what you wanted. All that matters is what it says. Law is, literally, literal.

*You probably remember it. It was a stubborn idiot that kept arguing with you. Narrow it down much?

NOt really... too many people are stubborn idiots that keep arguing with me on here.

 

[Ohiogal]

I would think that if there was ever an order for him to pay child support, termination of that support would require specific language stating such. So, I see it as the other way around--if it doesn't say he no longer has to pay support, then he must continue to pay support.

It's also possible that termination of parental rights does not necessarily terminate parental obligations. Perhaps the purpose of this order is meant to remove his right to share decision making and leaves that to the sole discretion of OP, but retains his status as the "father."

In any case, OP, this is far too important to resolve on an Internet message board. I understand you've already asked your attorney for clarification, but if you still don't understand, ask him again...and again, and again, until you do.

Which is right UNLESS the statute says otherwise. And apparently this state has a statute that requires child support to be mentioned if it is to continue AFTER termination. Since it does not mention it in the termination, statute controls.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Which is right UNLESS the statute says otherwise. And apparently this state has a statute that requires child support to be mentioned if it is to continue AFTER termination. Since it does not mention it in the termination, statute controls.

Termination as in "you may no longer exercise the rights of a parent and must defer to the mother" or termination as in "you are henceforth a legal stranger to this minor"

--or both/either?

 

[Ohiogal]

Termination as in "you may no longer exercise the rights of a parent and must defer to the mother" or termination as in "you are henceforth a legal stranger to this minor"

--or both/either?

Termination as in "termination of parental rights" which is what this woman's order states. That is defined in case law I would bet and if I didn't have a migraine I would bother looking for it.

 

[LdiJ]

I am still uncertain that this was an actual TPR. I think that the OP should run it by another local attorney for an opinion.

I am not saying this from the child support standpoint, I am saying it from the standpoint that all parties really need to know if dad's parental rights were actually terminted.

 

[mommyof4]

Termination as in "termination of parental rights" which is what this woman's order states. That is defined in case law I would bet and if I didn't have a migraine I would bother looking for it.

This is my read of the order, but hey, I've been flat out wrong before. (okay, only once, but it has happened.)

 

[wileybunch]

3.the father shall surrender all parental rights to the child and waive any further notice of upon the signing of this agreement.

Isn't this clause missing a word in here?