The Alabama Supreme Court set a new legal precedent in the state, ruling a parent may still be required to pay child support payments even if his or her parental rights are terminated.
In the ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Alabama Appeals Court case, M.D.C. v. K.D.
Initials are used in place of names in cases involving minors.
In M.D.C. v. K.D., the court said the father, K.D., did not have to pay child support because his parental rights were terminated in 2005.
K.D.'s parental rights were terminated after he served time in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of second-degree rape.
Opelika resident Kent Lauderdale, a family law attorney, said parental rights are the rights to child visitation or custody.
A court may terminate an individual's rights, or an individual may voluntarily terminate his or her parental rights.
"The court wants to protect an individual's parental rights," Lauderdale said. "They want to see a person raise their own child. But the state also wants to protect their residents. And in cases where the child might be in danger, they can terminate someone's parental rights."
Lauderdale said this ruling applies to all people whose parental rights are terminated, regardless of whether the termination was voluntary.
The Sept. 30 ruling on the Supreme Court's case was split 6-3. Justice Glen Murdock said in his dissent, "rights and obligations usually go hand in hand, including parental rights and the parental obligation to pay child support."
Murdock also acknowledged his concern for how the ruling could affect Alabama's child welfare system.
The opinion of the court stated, "Justice Murdock's dissent questions whether an unintended consequence of the opinion this court releases today could be the creation of 'additional proceedings,' resulting from a possible increase in termination proceedings."
Lauderdale agreed with Murdock's opinion that the ruling will have a significant effect on the court system.
"In the grand scheme of things, we're talking about a small percentage of people," Lauderdale said. "But this impact of this is going to be widespread."
Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb and Justice Patricia Smith agreed with Murdock that the ruling of the case would have a significant effect on the court system and the Department of Human Resources.
Cobb and Smith chose to concur with the ruling of the court and said the questions raised by Murdock should be left for another day.
The court concluded, "involuntarily terminating a parent's rights to his or her child does not, by operation of law, extinguish the parent's responsibility to pay child support for the benefit of that child as established by judgment."
The Alabama Supreme Court justices who concurred with the opinion of the court cited the intent of the Alabama Child Protection Act.
The Alabama Child Protection Act was passed in 1984 to protect the welfare of children in the case of parents choosing to terminate their parental rights.
Child support was not addressed in the Alabama Child Protection Act.
Lauderdale said he would have voted with the majority, but he said he thinks the Alabama Child Protection Act should be reworded to better clarify what it says regarding child support.
"I would have to agree with the majority, but I realized my vote would clog the courts," Lauderdale said. "I wish the legislation would go back and clear up what they meant because the courts cannot change the laws, they can only interpret them."
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
