I had a *relative who had two children from a previous marriage. He was behind on child support, and agreed to **terminate parental rights so that his ex-wife’s new husband could adopt them. That would presumably terminate any visitation rights, also.
The question: In a case like this (termination of parental rights), is it common for the ‘terminated’ parent to petition for some kind of visitation, and is it something that a court would likely grant? [I can see why they wouldn’t, just wondering.] I
And if you’re wondering about the relative who gave up the rights, he wasn’t a bad guy, just a doofus, and a large part of his giving up parental rights came from his own family for the reason mentioned below.
*Yes, a relative. OP has zero offspring of any time. Relative is also deceased, and ‘children’ are in their 30s.
**There was some suspicion that the children might not have belonged to my relative—and may or may not have been the biological children of the new husband [to whom the ex-wife has been married for over 30 years no].
It all depends on the circumstances, applicable state law and the judge handling the case.
I can tell you that if visitation is disputed, most courts are not likely to look favorably on someone who voluntarily gave up their parental rights, especially if it was only to avoid paying child support. That is a huge decision with massive consequences for the child in question, and it should not be done lightly. Changing one’s mind after the fact will probably not go well.
As SaharaTea says, this depends on state law. I can tell you that under the laws of my state (Kansas), the ‘terminated’ parent would have no legal standing even to ask the court for visitation. The termination of parental rights ends the legal relationship entirely, so the ‘terminated’ parent would be considered some unrelated third party trying to impose themselves upon the legal parents. If the mother and adoptive father object, the petition has no chance whatsoever of success. (In the unlikely event a trial court granted visitation, the appeals court would strike it down; the controlling precedent is Sowers v. Tsamolias.)
In this state, the termination also ends the biological grandparents’ and other relatives’ rights to seek visitation; they’re legally not related anymore either.
In most states, you have no legal rights after termination. Open adoption contact contracts are usually not legally enforceable - and certainly no state had an open adoption contract that was enforceable 30 years ago.
In open adoption, parties agree to some sort of contact - but the birthparent has no right or responsibility to maintain the contact (in most states). i.e. adoptive parents simply agree that it would be best if the birthparent was around.
I’ve been involved in a few “open adoption” cases. The provisions regarding visitation are not enforceable in my state, and depend entirely on the good will of the adopting parents. As noted above, once TPR is granted, the birth parents have no standing to seek visitation.
But in case anyone is confused, not currently having visitation rights is not the same as having your parental rights terminated. Involuntary termination of parental rights is not at all common.
I got the impression that the OP was talking about one parent terminating their rights, presumably so a step-parent could adopt (and that s/he wouldn’t have to pay child support any more would be an extra benefit).
Regarding grandparents, I used to work with a woman whose son signed the rights away to his kids for this reason (child support) when he got divorced, an act that led to him being estranged from his whole family (gee, I wonder why) but she had maintained a relationship with his ex, and shortly before I left that job, she took some time off to go visit them in the distant state where they lived. They were teenagers, and she had not seen them in about 10 years except through pictures. I suppose that whether other relatives on that side of the family get to see the child(ren) depends on the individual situation?
A parent can allow anyone to visit the kids if they feel it’s appropriate. In this case it was nice of the ex to let the grandmother see the kids, because she was under no legal obligation to do so.
Once children reach majority age, what is the point of visitation rights? You contact them, if they want to see you then you see them, if they don’t, you leave them alone. You can’t force an adult to visit you if they don’t want to.
I’m not sure I have all the details. In any adoption, the biological parents rights are terminated. However, lots of domestic adoptions for years now have been open adoptions where there is still contact between the biological parents and the adoptee and family. I would guess the amount and extent of contact is decided upon by all the parties involved. Is there a reason this couldn’t be or wasn’t set up? Is there a geographic issue or does the ex not want him to have any involvenent?
Yes, great point. I posted about all parties agreeing to how much contact and how often, but I really didn’t consider the fact that the agreement isn’t necessarily legally binding.