Opinion ID: 1539660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Record Supports Abandonment

Text: The Family Court found that Barr abandoned Nancy pursuant to title 13, section 1103(a)(2). Barr contends that the court clearly erred in this determination by erroneously finding that Barr: (1) did not communicate or visit regularly with his daughter; (2) failed to manifest the ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of her; and (3) had a present and continuing intent to abandon Nancy up to the time that termination proceedings were filed. Pursuant to section 1103(a)(2), intentional abandonment occurs if the parent has failed to: (A) [c]ommunicate or visit regularly with the minor and (B) [m]anifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the minor, if, during this time, the minor was not in the physical custody of the other parent, for a period of at least six consecutive months before the termination petition is filed. [12] In addition, in order to determine that intentional abandonment has occurred, the court must find a settled purpose by the parent to abandon the child and surrender any further parental claims to the child. [13] A settled purpose is shown through a present continuing intent to abandon up to the time the termination proceedings were filed. [14] The court must observe both the subjective and objective intent of the parent, with the objective intent measured by the parent's conduct. [15] This finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. [16] The Family Court found that Barr did not communicate and visit regularly with Nancy for at least six consecutive months in the year preceding the filing of the TPR petition. The TPR petition was filed on January 11, 2008. Therefore, the relevant period of time is January 2007 to January 2008. It is undisputed that Barr did not communicate with Nancy after May 2007. Barr argues, however, that his failure to communicate with her during that period was through no fault of his own. He claims that when Nancy was transferred to a new foster family, DFS would not permit Barr to contact her. Although Barr claims that he had contact with Nancy by letters and phone calls at some point between December 2006 and May 2007, such information was unknown by either DFS workers or the Children's Choice worker assigned to the case. There is no dispute, however, that Barr's last personal meeting with Nancy was in June 2006, during a thirteen-day period in the year he was not incarcerated, and his last contact with her of any kind was May 2007. Therefore, it is undisputed that Barr did not communicate with his daughter for eight months prior to the filing of the TPR petition. Nancy was not placed in the foster home until July 25, 2007. Barr made no attempt to have contact with her between May 2007 and the time she was placed in the foster home. After Nancy was placed in the foster home, Barr would have been permitted visitation if he had been case planning with DFS for reunificationhis case plan required weekly supervised visits with her. But, Barr failed to case plan and, by his own admission, never requested any such visitation. Accordingly, there is clear and convincing evidence that Barr did not communicate and visit regularly with his daughter for at least six consecutive months in the year preceding the filing of the TPR petition.