In re Interest of Sierra E.

Caselaw Number
A-05-932
Filed On


SUMMARY: “[T]he obligation which a parent owes to his or her children is not something which can be simply ‘phoned in’” and “[s]mall tokens of parental affection for a child are an inadequate substitute for parental presence in a child’s life.”

The father appealed an order by the juvenile court terminating his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment and neglect. At the trial, testimony was presented that the father had no contact with Sierra or inquired about Sierra between January and July 2004.The father contested this assertion, claiming that he had one week of contact with Sierra during which he sent grocery money to the child’s mother. He asserted that Sierra’s mother prevented contact between father and daughter.

The court declined to address the father’s argument that notice of the proceedings was faulty. Although the notice was made by publication, this decision was made after two separate attempts at personal service, and “only after approximately 26 different locations were contacted in an attempt to find James.”

The court rejected the father’s argument that he had not abandoned Sierra. According to the court “the question of abandonment is largely one of intent, to be determined in each case from all the facts and circumstances.” The court stated that “parental obligation requires a continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with that child.” The record indicated that Sierra’s father had abandoned Sierra for “at least 6 months prior to the filing of the motion for termination.” He had not called to inquire about Sierra’s well being, sent no gifts, cards or financial support, and had no contact with Sierra after October 2003. The court found that “even though [the father] presented testimony to dispute” the lack of contact, that testimony “indicated nothing more than a token contact on minimal occasions.”

Termination was in Sierra’s best interests. The caseworker from DHHS testified regarding the importance of permanency and the importance of a parent maintaining regular contact with the child. Also, the father’s “ability to maintain suitable housing…[is] suspect” considering the extensive trouble the State had in serving him.