The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals decision in In Re Beck on December 22, 2010, rejecting a father's argument that his obligation to pay child support ended as a matter of law when his parental rights were terminated and that his constitutional right to due process of law was violated by an order that continued his child support obligation.
The Supreme Court's rationale was different from that of the COA. The high court used rules of statutory construction, stating that when the Legislature specifically defined parental rights and parental obligations, it chose to address those concepts in two discrete statutory provisions. This specific statutory structure indicates the Legislature’s determination that parental rights are distinct from parental obligations. Nothing in the statutory structure indicates that the loss of parental rights automatically results in the loss of parental obligations. Rather, a parental obligation continues “unless a court of competent jurisdiction modifies or terminates the obligation . . . .”The supreme court defined some of those possible situations, one of which includes the adoption of the child or children after termination of parental rights.
Because the Beck trial court declined to modify or terminate respondent’s obligation to pay child support, his obligation remains intact, held the Court.
Download In re Beck, S Ct Docket No 140842 (2010) Affirming COA here.
The March 4, 2010 post about the COA decision in In Re Beck is here.
Do you need help with a child support issue? Find a Michigan Family Lawyer near you.
Comments