Opinion ID: 1259336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The trial and appellate proceedings

Text: The father received notice of the severance petition and responded by writing a letter to the court saying he did not wish to give up his child and hoped to raise her. The court then appointed an attorney for him and a guardian ad litem for the child. Thus, the interests of both father and child were represented at the severance hearing. After testimony from the natural father, the paternal grandmother, and the adoptive mother, the trial court concluded that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that the father intended to abandon his child. [4] Accordingly, the court held that no grounds for termination existed and refused to sever the father's parental rights. Order, Jan. 5, 1993 (hereinafter First Order). This, of course, made the child unavailable for adoption. See A.R.S. § 8-106(A)(1)(b). The child appealed through her guardian ad litem, arguing that the trial court applied an improper standard for abandonment by failing to consider the child's needs and rights. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, 144 Ariz.Adv.Rep. 48, 1993 WL 276801 (Ct.App. 1993). The court of appeals held that the statutory definition of abandonment found in § 8-546 did not apply and that the settled purpose test is instead the proper standard to apply in all abandonment cases. Id.