Can a NRP give up their rights/responsibilit
ies to a child if the RP agrees?
Thank you lostdad! That was very helpful much appreciated because that's helped me understand it all a lot better than before
There's no link with PR and maintenance. That said - a father not on the birth certificate and denying paternity won't be compelled to pay maintenance until it has been established - at which point his case for PR is strengthened (I've helped both mums and dads in this situation).
Technically there is nothing to stop someone who has removed PR reapplying for it at a later date but they wouldn't be doing themselves any the favour - they would have to convince the court that while having their PR removed was in the child's best interests in the past, it isn't now.
Remember - someone who holds PR but has no involvement isn't going to make much of a difference on a day-to-day basis for the RP.
When you say `legal guardian' - do you mean a `holder of PR'? If yes - in the situation you mention there would be nothing to stop your ex making an application for residence of your child on the advent of your death, removing them from your partner but as always he'd have to argue that making a change of residence is in the best interests of the child.
To sum up though...if he gave up PR he is an idiot.
Thanks, lostdad. Lots of info there I think I've confused myself now though. I thought if the PR was given up, the responsibility to pay would also be given up but that's seperate issues? Do you know whether a person can get PR back again after they've given it up? For example, if my dd's father did choose to give up his PR and I agreed with him so it was allowed, could he then apply for it back if I died and take dd from the person I'd requested to be her legal guardian?
If you mean Parental Responsibility - a holder of this can make an application to the court to have it removed. Or a holder of PR can ask someone else to have it removed. Or a holder of PR can ask for someone else to have it. Or all holders of PR for a particular child agree someone else should have it.
As always they will have to demonstrate that making orders to this affect are in the best interests of the child.
None of this has no bearing on maintenance however - so a hypothetical feckless parent hoping to escape paying by giving up PR wouldn't get anywhere. There is no link in law between contact/residence and maintenance either.
Thank you for the replies
Cestlavie, I did wonder if that's how it worked! Its so scary to think thought that this man, who doesn't bother at all with his child other than financially, could, through the courts, end up with her if they were swayed that way. In the ideal scenario, she would go to live with my parents but I know he would fight it on principle and then palm her off on his sister (who she has met twice).
Nacho, I'm doubting myself now but I was hoping it was possible because thats what people must do when stepparents adopt. Not that there is a stepparent in this scenario so maybe that's the reason they are allowed.
Sandiy, if it was informal it wouldn't change anything legally which is what would be best I think, to have it all official. That's why I was hoping it would be possible.
I'm not certain that that's possible.Even if it is I very much doubt that its water tight.I should imagine if it were feckless parents up and down the county would be palming off children all the time.Also what about the child I think they have rights of their own to have contact and support from both parents no matter how useless.Finaly the maintence thing I think biological parents have a legal responsibility to provide for their off spring financially even if it's only a couple of pounds a month.I guess you could by pass that but still very tricky IMHO much better to informally agree and not involve courts if you feel that strongly.Adoption is different as the child becomes the responsibility of the state and all needs etc have to be identified and met prior to adoption hence the time frame.I can see the attraction though I really can.
I didn't think t was possible to just give up your responsibilities to a child but thnking about it, i guess that is what happens when a child is adopted.
Rp can name a legal guardian. And can name the person child should go live with.
If the N r p at that pont contests then courts would decide if child should go live with the n r p . In the child s best interests.
I've tried googling and most of what I find was a parent trying to take the responsibilities and rights away from the other parent so I'm hoping someone on here knows, can a NRP give up their legal rights and responsibilities to a child if both parents agree that its for the best? I mean, completely so the NRP doesn't pay maintenance and no longer has a say in any life decisions of the child including what happens to the child if the RP should die. Or, even with the rights and responsibilities given up, would the NRP still be considered the first choice for the child to live with if the RP died?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.