Abandonment v. protective order

[Marina]

.

Abandonment v. protective order

http://www.romingerlegal.com/utah/opini ... 052203.htm

Father argues that because a protective order prohibited him from contacting the children, the juvenile court erred in determining he abandoned the children.

...

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. While we affirm the termination of Father's parental rights because he failed to challenge all five bases for termination, we note that the juvenile court did take into account the protective order when it found Father had abandoned the children:

This Court is not unmindful of the existence of the no-contact order against the father. However, he has appeared at numerous hearings with Court appointed counsel and interpreter, but has not petitioned nor moved this Court to modify, stay, or vacate the no-contact order; he has not provided any letters, cards, gifts, or other attempts at support for them; he has paid $60.00 in financial support for the children; he has made little or no effort to restore physical or legal custody to himself for a period in excess of six (6) months[.]

2. Father cites several instances when his various attorneys moved for visitation which was denied due to the protective order, but did not follow up or seek to have the protective order dismissed. Father also asserts that he did not understand what he needed to do to have visitation with the children or to contact DCFS.

.