KRISTINE M. v. David P.

Caution
135 Cal. App. 4th 783·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 34·2006 Daily Journal DAR 580·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 748·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 404
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 2006A109655California406 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

Parents have no right, in California, to waive or limit by agreement a child’s right to support. (Fam. Code, § 7632; K.M. v. E.G. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 130 , 144 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 61 , 117 P.3d 673 ]; In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1426 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 280 ].) Once paternity is established upon petition under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (§ 7600 et seq.), can parents nonetheless ask the court to terminate the father’s parental rights pursuant to their stipulation and as a matter of convenience in order to guarantee that contact between the father and child will end as will the father’s obligation to support the child in the future? The answer is “No.” Public policy intervenes to protect the child’s continued right to support. A judgment so terminating parental rights and the attendant obligation to support the child is void as a breach of public policy and as an act in excess of the court’s jurisdiction.

Seth M., through court-appointed counsel, appeals from such an order terminating the parental rights and obligations of his father, respondent David P. Neither David, nor Seth’s mother, respondent Kristine M., has filed a responding brief. We…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.