Hills v. Hills, 17154

• Decision Date: 30 October 1981
• Docket Number: No. 17154,17154
• Citation: 638 P.2d 516
• Parties: Lorrie Patricia HILLS, and the State of Utah, by and through Utah Department of Social Services, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Ronald Eugene HILLS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 516

638 P.2d 516

Lorrie Patricia HILLS, and the State of Utah, by and through Utah Department of Social Services, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Ronald Eugene HILLS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 17154.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 30, 1981.

Kathryn Schuler Denholm, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Ted Cannon, Gerald M. Conder, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

OAKS, Justice:

This is an action by a divorced mother and the Utah Department of Social Services (a party by reason of the mother's receipt of welfare) to amend a divorce decree to require the divorced father to make support payments for his two minor children. The issue on the father's appeal is the validity of his defense that he cannot be required to support the children because the district court terminated his parental rights and obligations in the decree of divorce.

Following the parties' separation in 1978, they executed a stipulation which stated in part:

That Ronald Eugene Hills wishes to relinquish all rights in regard to the above-named children and that he should be deprived of all parental rights and obligations in regard to said children, except in the event that (Lorrie Patricia Hills) dies during the minority of either of said children or for any reason loses custody of either or both of the above-named children, (Ronald Eugene Hills) shall be given preference as guardian.

The parties were divorced in 1979. The divorce decree incorporated the stipulation by reference and specifically ordered that the father be deprived of all parental rights and obligations in regard to his children. The decree made no provision for child support. In this action, brought just one month after the divorce, the district court held that the father was obligated to support his children, and amended the divorce decree accordingly. We affirm.

There is no merit to the contention that the parents' stipulation effectively terminated the father's parental obligations. The right to support from the parents belongs to the minor children and is not subject to being bartered away, extinguished, estopped or in any way defeated by the agreement or conduct of the parents. Gulley v. Gulley, Utah, 570 P.2d 127 (1977); Baggs v. Anderson, Utah, 528 P.2d 141 (1974); French v. Johnson, 16 Utah 2d 360, 401 P.2d 315 (1965). We cannot see how the incorporation of such a stipulation in a decree of the district court or the juvenile court gives it any greater effect. If parental rights and obligations are to be terminated, this must be done by court decree in the manner prescribed by law.

Utah Code Annotated, 1953, § 78-3a-48(2), a section of the Juvenile Court Act, prescribes specific procedures for the remedy of "termination of parental rights," including the holding of a hearing "specifically on the question of terminating the rights of...