to terminate the rights of Benny alleged natural father, Mr. Charles C. According to the record before this Court, it does not appear that a paternity action has been brought against Mr. C., nor has any child support been paid. Similarly, it appears that no paternity action has been brought against Edward’s natural father. Although the termination decision regarding the father has not been appealed, it appears that the termination decision was presumably made to facilitate Benny’s adoption. If the Appellant’s rights are not terminated after consideration on remand, adoption is no longer an issue, and the Appellant's rights to receive support from the natural father would be negated by termination of the father’s parental rights. See Swinney v. Mosher, 830 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Ct.App.1992)
holding that termination of fathers parental rights should be reversed since it was done to facilitate childs adoption and would prejudice rights of child and mother to receive support from father holding that an agreement between a mother and father to waive payment of child support and arrearages in exchange for fathers consent to the adoption of the minor children by the mothers husband was invalid because it violated public policy recognizing that termination of parental rights can be accomplished only by resort to chapters 63 adoption and 39 termination of parental rights and any attempt by a parent to contract away the childs right to support is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy holding that proposed adoption by stepparent who was separated from the childs mother was not valid and that as a result termination of the fathers parental rights was inappropriate holding that statute that imposed different requirements to establish parental rights on father than on mother did not violate fathers right to equal protection under the law