DAD WITH NO RIGHTS PAYS CHILD SUPPORT

DAD WITH NO RIGHTS PAYS CHILD SUPPORT,
originally uploaded by terrybankert.

Michigan Supreme Court says that father who cannot see his child because his parental rights have been terminbated still must pay child support.
FATHER WHO HAD HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS TERMINATED STILL PAYS CHILD SUPPORT.




FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. Presented here by Flint Divorce lawyer Terry Bankert.



PARENTS WERE DRUGGIES



(The children in this family )…were made temporary wards of the court

in 2007 because of chronic drug abuse by both parents. Subsequently, respondent and his wife divorced, and both were ordered to pay child support while the children were in the care of their grandmother.

AFTER DIVORCE MOM GETS HER ACT TOGETHER AND GETS KIDS BACK.

The children were returned to their mother’s care in January 2008 after she complied with the parent-agency agreement.



DRUGGIE DAD GETS RIGHTS TERMINATED



In May 2009 the trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights, and

further ordered that respondent’s child support obligation continue pursuant to the

divorce judgment.



Flint Genesee Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert presents several Issues:

1.Whether the trial court properly ordered the respondent-father to continue paying child support after his parental rights were terminated;

2.Whether respondent's obligation to pay child support ended as a matter of law when his parental rights were terminated;

3.Statutory distinction between "parental rights" and "parental obligations"; Scope of parental rights; MCL 722.2;

4.The parental duty of support (MCL 722.3);

5. Whether respondent's continued child support obligation violated his constitutional right to due process



THIS CASE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND .

Court: Michigan Supreme Court filed 12/20/2010,Case Name: In re[ B] ,e-Journal Number: 47656,Judge(s): Young, Jr., Kelly, Cavanagh, Corrigan, Markman, and Hathaway; Not participating - Davis [1]

SUMMARY-CHILD SUPPORT STAYS EVEN WHEN PARENTAL RIGHTS TERMINATED

Since the Legislature "made a clear distinction between parental rights and the parental obligation to support a minor child, and nothing in the statutory structure indicates that the termination of parental rights automatically results in the severance of the parental support duty," the court held that the support duty continues unless it is modified or terminated by a court of competent jurisdiction.



DAD LOSES APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT



Because the trial court declined to modify or terminate the respondent-father's support obligation, and he did not show that this was an abuse of discretion, the court concluded that his obligation remained intact and affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment (although based on a different analysis than that given by the Court of Appeals). Respondent's parental rights were terminated pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).

BASIS OF DADS APPEAL

On appeal, he challenged the propriety of the trial court's order requiring him to continue paying child support after his parental rights were terminated.

BAD DAD WANTS TO BE DEAD BEAT

He argued that his obligation to pay child support ended as a matter of law when his parental rights were terminated and that any continued obligation violated his constitutional right to due process.

COURT SAYS THE LAW NOT READ RIGHT

The Court of Appeals rejected his argument. Noting that nothing in the statutory scheme defines the scope of "termination of parental rights," the court turned to the meaning of "parental rights."

JUST WHAT ARE PARENTAL RIGHTS.

"As a constitutional matter, parental rights encompass parents' fundamental liberty interest in ‘the care, custody, and control of their children.'"

DAD DID NOT ARGUE LIBERTY

Respondent did not claim that terminating his parental rights violated his liberty interests.

DAD ARGUES DUE PROCESS VIOLATION BUT DOES NOT BACK IT UP

He claimed that his right to due process was violated by the order requiring him to continue paying child support after his parental rights were terminated. However, he did not cite any authority, and the court found none, holding that a parent has either a federal or state constitutional entitlement to have his child support obligation suspended when his parental rights are terminated.

MERITLESS CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT

Thus, the court found no merit in his constitutional claim.

SCOPING OUT PARENTAL RIGHTS

"MCL 722.2 defines the scope of parental rights as encompassing the ‘custody, control, services and earnings of the minor . . . .'" Pursuant to the plain statutory language, "parental rights do not include or contemplate parental obligations."

PARENTS SOLE OBLIGATION IS TO PROVIDE SUPPORT

Rather, MCL 722.3 identifies the sole parental obligation imposed by the Legislature - the duty to provide child support, which is imposed on both parents, jointly and severally.

A DUTY WITH TEETH

The duty may be enforced where neither parent has custody of the child, and even when the state has custody of the child.

RIGHTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN DUTIES

"Because the parental rights identified in MCL 722.2 are distinct and detached from the parental duty identified in MCL 722.3, it is clear that the Legislature has determined that parental rights are independent from parental duties."

SUPPORT DOES NOT DEPEND ON ACCESS TO RIGHTS

There is no indication that the support duty is conditioned on retaining parental rights. Further, the plain language of the termination statute (MCL 712A.19b) only implicates "parental rights." "Because nothing in the language of MCL 712A.19b affects the duty of support articulated in MCL 722.3, the obligation remains intact." MCL 722.3 provides that a court has the discretion to modify or terminate a parent's support obligation, but is not compelled to do so.



[1]

Court: Michigan Supreme Court filed 12/20/2010,Case Name: In re Beck ,e-Journal Number: 47656,Judge(s): Young, Jr., Kelly, Cavanagh, Corrigan, Markman, and Hathaway; Not participating - Davis

Sphere: Related Content