Opinion ID: 1259336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the father promptly assert his legal rights?

Text: The father also argues that although he could not form a relationship, he did assert his legal rights at the first opportunity by responding to the petition to sever. As previously noted, we place the burden of action on the parent. Ante at 96-98, 876 P.2d at 1131-1133. The father only asserted his interests in response to the petition to sever. If the adoptive parents had not acted, the evidence suggests that the father would have continued to do nothing. He had stopped calling attorneys after the first few months and made no attempt to obtain a hearing to block the adoption, seek custody, or establish paternity and assume the responsibility of support. He explained his behavior by saying he wanted to take it slow. Reporter's Transcript of Severance Hearing at 59 (Dec. 1, 1992) (hereinafter R.T.). He apparently believed he could sit back and wait because they're going to come to me. Reporter's Transcript of Dependency Hearing at 86 (Sept. 27, 1993). This Fabian tactic is rational, but it does not fulfill the requirement that an unwed father must grasp [the] opportunity. Lehr, 463 U.S. at 262, 103 S.Ct. at 2993. The mother's attorney told the father that if he wanted to pursue custody, he must do so immediately because the child was bonding with her adoptive parents. R.T. at 67. We believe the trial court reasonably concluded that the father needed to do more than just wait to respond or oppose after the attorneys came to him  he needed to affirmatively act to establish his rights. We find, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the father abandoned the child because he failed to promptly and persistently grasp the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child or assert his legal rights.