Opinion ID: 1259336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the father have just cause?

Text: The father argues that he had just cause for failing to assert his rights. The statute states that [f]ailure to maintain a normal parental relationship with the child without just cause ... shall constitute prima facie evidence of abandonment. § 8-546(A)(1) (emphasis added). The father claims he was prevented from developing a relationship with the child for two reasons: first because the mother gave her up, and then because attorneys manipulated the system against him, though they knew he did not want to lose his child. We agree he was hindered but disagree with his conclusion. In Yuma County Juvenile Court Action No. J-87-119, a father faced with termination of his parental rights attempted to excuse his failure to develop a relationship with his child on the grounds that the mother had hidden the child. In finding abandonment, the court held: [C]ommon sense suggests that a person in this father's shoes who really intended to maintain a relationship with his son would have done more than this father did to try to find his child .... Even if every allowance is made for lack of sophistication and limited resources, the trial court was not compelled to believe that the father was actually stymied.... 161 Ariz. 537, 540, 779 P.2d 1276, 1279 (Ct. App. 1989) (emphasis added). As in the Yuma County Juvenile case, the father here contacted a few attorneys in Arizona and Texas to ask some questions. However, he did not ask any of them how he could protect his rights. Nor did he retain an attorney. He stayed in Texas, sent no support, and made no inquiries. In effect, he did nothing. Had the father immediately and unequivocally stated to any of these attorneys that he was willing to take action to get his child back, we must assume that the attorneys would have at least directed him to pro bono counsel or to the courts. Had the father done so, and had the attorneys ignored his demands, this case might have a different cast. However, on this record, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that [a]lthough the father had many legitimate reasons for not following up on suggestions by attorneys ... about how to fight for his child, none of those reasons rises to the statutorily required good cause. Second Order at 6.