When parent's rights are terminated, should they be FORCED to pay something monthly that goes into a bank ...?

â™¥â™¥Ritaâ™¥â™¥

In my state, many times a court/judge will order child support to be paid by n/parents after termination to be paid until the child/ren is/are adopted. that may also include medical insurance.

Of course, getting them to pay is another story...but yes, I do think parents should be ordered to pay.....especially when said parent walks in and relinquishes only to avoid having to pay....so they can continue to be irresponsible.

Now.....my state absorbs whatever money is paid to child support, it is not rolled in to any kind of trust account and I think it should be. If mom/dad does not pay, the state pays for the child's upkeep....if the state allowed that child support to go in to a trust...maybe, just maybe some of these kids would have a little nest egg to fall back on.....In that case, it appears it would be a win-win situation.

The brain

Actually, it would be an interesting proposal as a way to prevent homelessness among foster kids when they age-out.

Two problems:
1) Enforcement. If the bio-parents were incapable of doing what was necessary to get their children back, how on earth would you get them to pay anything.

2) When the kids age-out and are given "this pot of money," without any teaching of life-skills, the kids may blow the money on normal things a teenager would do, parties, material things, etc. So, there would need to be some allotment per week, almost like an allowance.

For all the pain and suffering that bio-parents who abuse and neglect their children cause, they should pay for the rest of their lives. Instead the kids pay.....

I see it in practice. Adults raised in the system or products of abuse who are desperately trying to figure out how to live life, find people to care about them, and fill an incredible emptiness that they have. Takes years of hard work.

IT would be nice if money could take that pain away....

Flying Monkey #073177

I think so but doubt it will ever happen. My son has a very healthy R.E.S.P for his schooling that he most likely won't be able to use due to legalities that state it must be used by one of my children or family members. How sad, I can't even contribute to his schooling.

IDK!!

I many cases I think it wold be a GREAT idea.... SOmeone here told me that a foster child can not have more than $1,000 in assets.

I think people confuse poverty withe not caring for ones child.

kitta

In some states , this is already happening. Parents whose children are taken into foster care, even if found innocent, are then sent a bill for care by the state.

Many of these parents were poor to being with and cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars to the state.

If the parents are found innocent of abuse, they should not have to pay for care.

American Women

I'm feeling is if they loose custody they should pay something even $10.00 a month- let them be reminded of there irresponsibility and any extra to that child will be helpful. I see it everyday- I work this teenage girls that are neglected, abused and been in the system, it's very sad.

txpure_1

No. If the parents were able to take care of their children then they wouldn't be in the system in the first place. What would the punishment be for the inability to pay the monthly minimum? Throw them in jail? The tax payers would be supporting both them and the kids at that point.

Corn is not dog food! No wheat!

Once parental rights are terminated, parents are no longer responsible for the child. They can't make schooling, medical or any other decision for the child, they have no right to see the child, so they can't be held responsible for costs.

BEFORE termination, yes, parents should be paying money for the child's care.

Look at it this way.

If 1 parent gets full custody of the child, the other parent has to pay child support. Figure it "takes 2 to tango" and BOTH parents should be paying care costs to the facility/program that has custody of the child.

If your kids are in foster care, you should be paying child support to the state. Why is that wrong?

Why is that not in place now?

If they can't pay child support, they can't afford to have custody of the child. If they don't pay, it should count against them in court when they try to get their kids back. It should count against their credit, just like a divorce or a bankruptcy.

I think the monty should go to the child's care. Just like child support does. States and private agencies don't have the resourses they need to provide the best care. Making people pay up will change that.

No one should hand an 18 year old more than $5 at a time. LOL! They just don't have the life skills to deal with that responsibility. If it were to go into some sort of trust fund, the only way the kid should be able to spend it is on college tuition.

Cam

Yes they should but sadly probably it wouldn't happen for a variety of reasons in most cases.

I recently became aware of an organization in my community that helps young men who have aged out of foster care get on their feet. They provide housing, work, food, etc. I thought it was fantastic!

mntnrain80c

No, the second their rights are terminated then they cease to be your parents and all responsibilities like money, food , housing etc end.

the adoptive parents are now responsible for all the things parents are supposed to do.

Serenity71

I think you'd have better luck getting blood out of stone....

Rivkah

A few years ago, a couple friends & I tried to get a bill passed in Florida that said the state would give a $500.00 government bond to any child that was put into foster care with no option of ever going back to their families. It got enough signatures to go to the state senate, but it never passed. Bonds get extremely low interest, but it's still far better than nothing.

So no, I don't think the parents should be forced - all it does is create a necessity for penalties when they don't comply. But there definitely should be something.

Laurel J

Say what? If their rights are terminated, their obligations should be terminated too. I don't mean to sound harsh, but in what way could that be fair to the parents, to have none of the benefits but part of the burden of raising a child?

We as a society owe these children a lot more than they get, for sure.

Opedial

No, if a parents rights are terminated, they are not legally or fiscally responsible for their child. The STATE shoudl be putting said money away.

tattooedgemini

no of course not. you can't force a parent to save money for a child when he or she is an adult. then you'd have to do the same for all parents not just the ones who have lost thier children.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: