Case Title: DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, ex rel. OVERSTREET v. OVERSTREET

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97179

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, ex rel. OVERSTREET v. OVERSTREET  DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, ex rel. OVERSTREET v. OVERSTREET 2003 OK 87 78 P.3d 951 Case Number: 97179 Decided: 10/14/2003 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ex rel. Patricia Ann Overstreet, Appellant, v. QUINTON HAROLD OVERSTREET, Appellee. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III ¶0 The parental rights of Quinton Harold Overstreet, the appellee, were terminated in 1989. In 2001, Patricia Ann Overstreet applied for and received public assistance for the care of one of the children of the parties. The Department of Human Services, (DHS), the appellant, consequently sought and obtained an order to withhold income for child support against the appellee to recoup funds expended or to be expended on the child's behalf, and served the order on the appellee's employer. The appellee filed a motion to terminate the order asserting that termination of his parental rights also terminated his child support obligation. The trial court granted the appellee an order restraining further wage assignments for support obligations. DHS appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. John O. Walton, Assistant District Attorney, Ardmore, Oklahoma, for appellant. Wallace Coppedge, LITTLE, LITTLE, LITTLE, WINDEL, COPPEDGE, OLIVER, & GALLAGHER, Tishomingo, Oklahoma, for appellee. WINCHESTER, J. ¶1 The issue before us is one of first impression, that is, whether the termination of parental rights also terminates the duty to support. The legal issue and facts of this appeal are similar to those before us in Lindsay v. McCabe, 2003 OK 86, ___P.2d___, also decided today. The current law on this issue, found in FACTS ¶2 The appellee, Quinton Harold Overstreet, Father, and Patricia Ann Overstreet, Mother, were divorced in 1987. The decree of divorce granted Mother custody of the parties' two children, and ordered Father to pay $400.00 per month in child support. In 1989, Mother sought termination of Father's parental rights for failure to pay child support. After a hearing, the trial court found Father in contempt for failure to pay child support, granted Mother a judgment for the arrearage, and terminated Father's parental rights. ¶3 In 2001, Mother applied for and received public assistance for the care of one of the parties' children. The Department of Human Services, (DHS), the appellant, consequently sought and obtained an order to withhold income for child support against Father to recoup funds expended or to be expended on the child's behalf, and served the order on Father's employer. ¶4 Father filed a motion to terminate the order, pursuant to EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ON CHILD SUPPORT ¶5 Before 1994, and at the time Father's parental rights were terminated, the statute now codified as "The termination of parental rights terminates the parent-child relationship, including the parent's right to the custody of the child and his right to visit the child, his right to control the child's training and education, the necessity for the parent to consent to the adoption of the child and the parent's right to the earnings of the child, and the parent's right to inherit from or through the child. Provided, that nothing herein shall in any way affect the right of the child to inherit from the parent." 1968 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 282, § 132. ¶6 DHS asserts that the law before 1994 was identical to that codified in ¶7 DHS argues that a parent may not, by his own misconduct, unilaterally terminate his legal and moral obligation to support his minor children and cites West v. West, ¶8 We agree that parents cannot be allowed to agree to termination of the parent-child relationship without a hearing and consideration of the best interests of a child. This Court has refused to recognize a release agreement between a mother and father that releases all claims to a child in exchange for a release from prosecuting a paternity action. State Dept. of Human Services ex rel. K.A.G. v. T.D.G., ¶9 While courts in other jurisdictions agree that the type of contract found in K.A.G. is invalid, the great majority of jurisdictions also agree that judicial termination of parental rights severs the parent-child relationship to the extent that the parent no longer owes a duty to support the child. ¶10 The Nevada Supreme Court held that an order terminating parental rights completely severed the parent-child relationship, terminating all rights and obligations of both parent and child. Vine, 99 Nev. at 283, "[W]e construe the term 'parental rights' in the broader term as the sum total of the rights of the parent or parents in and to the child as well as the rights of the child in and to the parent or parents. In other words, we construe parental rights to include both parental rights and parental obligations." That sentence is quoted with approval by County of Ventura v. Gonzales, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1120 , 1123, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 461 , 464, and Roelfs v. Wallingford, 207 Kan. 804, 811, 486 P.2d 1371 , 1376 (1971). ¶11 In State of Kansas ex rel. Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services v. Clear, 248 Kan. 109, 115, 804 P.2d 961 , 965-966 (1991), the Supreme Court of Kansas noted that during the termination of parental rights the focus is "a final and permanent settlement of all problems of custody and supervision by a complete and final divestment of all legal rights, privileges, duties, and obligations of the parent and child with respect to each other and by replacement of the natural parent by another guardian or adoptive parent." Quoting Roelfs, 207 Kan. at 811, 486 P.2d 1371 . ¶12 We conclude that the majority view of our sister states holding termination of parental rights also terminates parental duties is consistent with the wording of the applicable statute, ATTACK ON UNDERLYING JUDGMENT ¶13 DHS expresses concerns for the due process and equal protection rights of the minor children because they were not separately represented by an attorney in the termination of Father's parental rights. DHS presumably presents this argument to support its request that the order of the trial court in the present case be vacated. In reality, DHS is challenging the validity of the termination of Father's parental rights in hopes of reinstating his parental duty of support. ¶14 The order terminating Father's parental rights was dated April 21, 1989, and filed April 26, 1989. The facial validity of that order is not before this Court. DEBT CREATED BY ¶15 DHS claims that pursuant to ¶16 The statute creates the debt against the party "responsible for support of such child." The phrase "who are responsible for support of such child or children" modifies "the natural or adoptive parent or parents." If a natural parent or parents are responsible for support, then the public assistance paid on behalf of their child becomes their debt. If an adoptive parent or parents are responsible for support, the debt applies to them. The construction DHS attempts to give this statute is not supported by the language. ¶17 We have held that when Father's parental rights were terminated, his parental duties were also terminated. Accordingly, he is not a "parent . . . responsible for support of such child." ¶18 This issue was addressed by the Court of Appeals of Georgia in Department of Human Resources v. Ammons, 206 Ga.App. 805, 426 S.E.2d 901 (1993), cert. den., 263 Ga. 382, 436 S.E.2d 316 (1993). The father's parental rights had been terminated and the Department of Human Resources had provided public assistance benefits to the child. The Department brought an action to recover the amount of the benefits. Georgia's statute, as quoted in the case, provided: ""The payment of public assistance to or on behalf of a child creates a debt due and owing the state by the parent ... responsible for the support of the child." OCGA § 19-11-5. (Emphasis supplied by Ammons.) The court reasoned that as the result of the termination order, the father was not a parent who is responsible for the support of his child. If the child had no claim for support, neither did DHR on behalf of the child. Ammons, 206 Ga.App. at 806, 426 S.E.2d at 902. ¶19 In the case at bar, § 238, the third paragraph provides, "The Department shall be subrogated to the right of said child or children to prosecute or maintain any support action. . . ." Where the child has no right to maintain an action for support, neither does DHS. CONCLUSION ¶20 We conclude that under the applicable statute, CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR FOOT