Well, he can terminate them legally, yes. But then what? He's going to give up the child that he made simply because he doesn't make enough money right now? He's giving up his kid so he won't have to get a better job to support it? I'd keep the kid and get a better paying job. Children are not items to be tossed away. Don't make them if you can't afford them.

In Canada a father is always responsible, whether he gives up his rights or not. I'd get a court order to ensure he really can't afford it. If when he can he will still be responsible. My friend is going through that right now. He is required by law to show his last 3 years salary and the court will make a determination on how much he has to pay based on her expenses and his salary. Check with your local courthouse on family issues, they will be able to tell you much more and how to proceed.

I know that in MO if a father gets more than $10K behind he loses custody rights but I don't think you ever lose the child in terms of being a parent unless you give up that right.

IF the mother goes along with it ; BUT .. if she doesn't, he CAN go to Jail / Prison for not paying . After all; he created the child , HE needs to help pay to raise and support the child ... Even IF Parental Rights are terminated; he'll owe for the back support and CAN go to jail / Prison for not paying it .. +5

My friends ex gave up the rights to his two children for that one reason. but going with that he has no right to contact the children at any time whil they are a minor.

If the mother says so then yes BUT if the mother is on any type of welfare: food stamps, medicaid, housing, etc the state will still make him pay child support and it's not his choice. The money he pays will be used to pay expenses related to the welfare cost.

It doesn't make any difference if he does or not, child support is run by State/Federal government. Unless the Mother specifically does the legal paperwork to not have the father pay child support, the state will mandate it. the can do it for any of the following: The mother receive food stamps or medicaid The child receive free or reduced lunch at school The mother lives in public housing or section 8 housing in some cases if the mother receives social security disability or unemployment the state can mandate child support payments in all of the above cases, the state keeps the money to offset the cost of the programs, and the mother receives none of the money

It is not the normal way to go, and certainly not the best either. "Once established, child support orders typically remain static unless otherwise reviewed. Obligors and obligees reserve the right to request a court review for modification (typically six months to one year or more after the issuance of the order or if the circumstances have changed such that the child support would change significantly). For instance, if the obligor has a change in income or faces financial hardship, they may petition the court for a reduction in support payments. Examples of financial hardship include supporting other children, unemployment, extraordinary health care expenses, etc. Likewise, if the obligor is spending more time with the child, they may petition the court for a reduction or even a reversal in support payments. Conversely, if the child's expenses increase, the obligee may ask the court to increase payments to cover the new costs. Although both parents have the right to petition the court for a support order adjustment, modifications are not automatic, and a judge may decide not to alter the amount of support after hearing the facts of the case. That is to say, simply because a obligors's income has decreased, a court may find that the decrease in income is of no fault of the child, and will not decrease the child's expenses, and therefore should not have an impact on him or her financially. Likewise, a court may find that an increase in the child's expenses may have been calculated by the receiving parent and is not necessary, and therefore the support obligation of the paying parent should not increase." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support

Its a very hard process. lol. My adopted ex step dad tried this. But it took him until I was just shy of 21 to pull it off. Its a challenge but can be done. But in by doing so you are extinguishing your rights as the child's father. So it is something that needs to be weighed heavily.

I don't think so but it's wrong. Mothers can terminate not only their rights but the child itself. Fathers should be able to terminate their rights, just like mothers do with abortion.

Can he? ... I don't know Should he be permitted to do so? No! ... Only exempt until he can afford to do so ... Legal rights, responsibility, and affordability are 3 factors to any fathers position of love and caring any child under his care. His quest to service legal rights when he can afford the support I would imagine merely tells the mother and child he does not want to commit to a real family love and unity ... Responsibility to care and maintain that family regardless of his later wishes to leave for his own advances is always 50% his ... If you can't afford it ... then you can't get blood from a stone ... but the struggle should never be the mothers alone and he should be held accountable for his part sooner or later no matter the excuse today ... Finally ... Either way, no financial input from the father is still better than an aborted life ... The child may not like him when grown because of his lack of care, yet I am sure the child will be thankful of having life with or without the father. Some mothers would pay just to have the man removed completely from their lives for his abusive and failing ways etc ... So I think within any 'fair case' each factor towards the childs and that families best interest should be down to the mothers final decision, that providing she herself is not a complete failure. Peace