 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / July 2009Dead father may get custodial rights
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/28/Dead-father-may-get-custodial-rights/UPI- 32561248798686/ Published: July 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., July 28 (UPI) -- A Florida court is being asked for the first time to give custodial rights of a child to a father who is dead, experts say. A decision by a Broward County, Florida, judge to strip a father of his parental rights to his pre-teen daughter because he was a crack addict is being appealed after the man, identified only as C.A., was killed by a hit and-run driver, The Miami Herald reported Tuesday. A state appellate court is now considering that it might be in best interests of the child to retain her ties to her dead father because his estate could be in line for a large legal settlement, child welfare advocates say. "I have never seen either the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or its successor, the Department of Children and Families, terminate parental rights and then reverse themselves," and certainly not after a parent has died, Paolo Annino, director of the Public Interest Law Center at Florida State University, told the Herald. "We want to do what is in the best interests of children," added Mary Cagle, DCF's top child welfare attorney. "When the father died, we stepped back to see what was in the best interests of these children." Greegor, This is confusing. You mix up custodial rights, parental rights, and inheritance rights, here. These are not the same things. How does stripping a father (now deceased) of his parental rights affect the child's inheritance rights? Good luck, Dave M. > Greegor, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Good luck, > Dave M. Alway look at the money. If the (deceased) father gets his custodial rights restored and the child inherits a money judgment, I'll bet it's easier for the state to try and get a cut for whatever reason. Notice the news story doesn't say who filed the petition to restore the deceased fathers custodial rights. >> Greegor, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Notice the news story doesn't say who filed the petition to restore the > deceased fathers custodial rights. It does not matter if the father has custody or not. Any surviving child would be in line for an inheritance, unless the father is married. >>> Greegor, >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It does not matter if the father has custody or not. Any surviving child > would be in line for an inheritance, unless the father is married. Rereading the story it seems DCF petitioned the appellate court to reverse their decision to terminate the father's custodial rights. You know it has to do with DCF getting some of the inheritance. It says "it might be in best interests of the child to retain her ties to her dead father because his estate could be in line for a large legal settlement, child welfare advocates say." Who are "child welfare advocates" other than DCF? >>>> Greegor, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Who are "child welfare advocates" other than DCF? Still does not make any sense. Just because he does not have custody, does not mean that the child is no longer his, or he cannot see the child. It just means the child's primary residence would not be with him. Unless of course they they really want to do is claim since he was custodial parent, and she was living with state assistance, they should make a massive claim of reimbursement to the state for having to shelter her, or something to that effect. >>>>> Greegor, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > not mean that the child is no longer his, or he cannot see the child. It > just means the child's primary residence would not be with him. The father is DEAD and DCF wants the court to reverse the earlier DCF decision and restore legal custody of the little girl to her deceased father. > Unless of course they they really want to do is claim since he was > custodial parent, and she was living with state assistance, they should > make a massive claim of reimbursement to the state for having to shelter > her, or something to that effect. All DCF wants to do is make it easier for themselves to dip into the "large legal settlement." And if the little girl stays in state custody DCF could look for reimbursement from the inheritance for as long as the choose to keep her. > Still does not make any sense. Just because he does not have custody, > does not mean that the child is no longer his, or he cannot see the > child. They're really talking about reversing a Termination of Parental Rights. Generally once the state terminates parental rights (TPR) the severed parent is basically ordered to have no contact with the child, at least until they are 18, Usually the child is LIED TO about why the severed parent avoided contact, and the actual circumstances of the TPR. > It just means the child's primary residence would not be with him. Look closely and the article mentions termination of parental rights (TPR). > Unless of course they they really want to do is claim since he was > custodial parent, and she was living with state assistance, they should > make a massive claim of reimbursement to the state for having to shelter > her, or something to that effect. By the way, there is another child of this deceased man who was NOT TPR'd because the child was not seen as highly adoptible. Shows that it's not about the kids, it's about the FUNDING. Even if they have to break up sibling bonds. > By the way, there is another child of this deceased > man who was NOT TPR'd because the child > was not seen as highly adoptible. Where is this information from, grag? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/ thread/41f6e84d28709d1f/441a22250ac0c1f0 Dead father may get custodial rights 1 Greegor Jul 29 2 David Martel Jul 29 3 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 4 GeekBoy Jul 29 5 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 6 GeekBoy Jul 29 7 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 8 Greegor Jul 29 9 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 10 GeekBoy Jul 29 11 KL Jul 29 G > By the way, there is another child of this deceased G > man who was NOT TPR'd because the child G > was not seen as highly adoptible. DS > Where is this information from, Greg? Florence. >>>> Greegor, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Who are "child welfare advocates" other than DCF? Yes I see it now. It is parental rights, not custodial. > Greegor, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Good luck, > Dave M. Well, I know I can't inherit from my birthfamily unless I am specified in the will....as any other stranger....that is due to my relinquishment, so no parental rights = no inheritance rights http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/ thread/41f6e84d28709d1f/441a22250ac0c1f0 Dead father may get custodial rights 1 Greegor Jul 29 2 David Martel Jul 29 3 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 4 GeekBoy Jul 29 5 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 6 GeekBoy Jul 29 7 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 8 Greegor Jul 29 9 Dan Sullivan Jul 29 10 Greegor Jul 29 11 Dan Sullivan Jul 30 12 Greegor Jul 30 13 whitevamp Jul 30 14 GeekBoy Jul 29 15 KL Jul 29 G > By the way, there is another child of this deceased G > man who was NOT TPR'd because the child G > was not seen as highly adoptible. DS > Where is this information from, Greg? G > Florence. DS > Is Florence your latest child victim, grag? G > That's an odd way to describe your Mom. Moe > I found out today that a previous address Moe > Hanson used in Iowa is now a child daycare center. Street Address? Moe > Obviously Greg the child raper probably regretted his move. Or Moe just plain LIED, as usual. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.