Last Update: December 22nd, 2010
Ending a parent's rights to a child does not automatically mean that parent is exempted from financially supporting his or her child, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday.
In an opinion written by Justice Robert Young Jr., the court said the Legislature recognized that parents are empowered with both rights and duties. "Nothing in either provision evinces any legislative intent that one is connected to or conditioned on the other," Mr. Young wrote.
Mr. Young was joined by Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly and Justice Michael Cavanagh, Justice Maura Corrigan, Justice Stephen Markman and Justice Diane Hathaway in In Re Beck (SC docket No. 140842). Justice Alton Davis did not participate on the case because he was part of the Appeals Court panel that heard the case.
In the case, the Oakland Circuit Court had severed the parental rights of Lawrence Beck to his two children. But the order directed that he continue to pay support for the two children.
He argued that because he no longer had parental rights he should not be liable to pay ongoing support for the children. Doing so would violate his due process rights, he said.
The Court of Appeals rejected his argument, and so did the Supreme Court.
Mr. Young said the Legislature has always defined two separate functions of a parent, designated by a parent's rights and obligations.
Unless specifically ended by a court or by the minor child's emancipation (or, of course, attaining majority), a parent's obligation to support a child do not automatically end with the elimination of parental rights, Mr. Young said.
"The termination of parental rights does not automatically end the obligation of support," Mr. Young said.
Follow us online: