Last week, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled parents whose parental rights have been terminated are still required to pay child support, setting a legal precedent within the state.
The Supreme Court overturned a state appeals court decision that stated a parent who lost rights to a child was no longer required to pay child support.
The six member majority felt neglectful parents could be rewarded for their behavior if they were not required to support the children they no longer had legal rights to see.
This editorial board, on the other hand, couldn't seem to come to a clear consensus on this issue.
We do all believe there should be some form of accountability for deadbeat parents and that the system in charge of maintaining and enforcing support payments should be strengthened and kept free of delays.
We also agree parents who voluntarily gave up all rights as a possible way to avoid paying child support were probably trying to cheat the system, so this decision will finally make them have to pay their fair share.
We might not necessarily agree with all of the methodology of this decision, but we believe keeping the child's welfare and happiness as the primary concerns is the best way to handle all such cases.
The concern from some members of this board was this: is this decision a backdoor way to legislate morality?
While child support is generally seen to be an obligation, it had been seen as something society and the mores of that society dictate. In this instance, it was not and has not been a legal obligation in this state until now.
Regardless of whether parents have any rights over their offspring, we would hope they would want to do the right thing and support their kids.
Some of us worry making these parents pay child support could provide them an opportunity to try and claim that if an obligation is being placed on them to support their child, they should be afforded some form of access to said child. In other words, money buys access.
We are certain the courts would uphold parental rights terminations in cases where the non-right possessing parent is guilty of a serious crime like rape or child abuse. We aren't worried about that.
We just envision a possible case where the non-custodial parent could put up some decent legal argument, and could, with the skill of a good lawyer, somehow manage to regain custody, to the child's detriment.
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.
