Cited by

parent’s interaction with their child.” ¶ 1 (App. 2013).

¶13 Mother contends Father took “affirmative steps to isolate her from the child and to destroy their relationship,”

¶12 and argues that Mother prevented him from having a normal parental relationship with A.F.

We have also recognized, however, that “a parent who has persistently and substantially restricted the other parent’s interaction with their child may not prove abandonment based on evidence that the other has had only limited involvement with the child.” –94, ¶ 1 (App. 2013).

We have also recognized, however, that “a parent who has persistently and substantially restricted the other parent’s interaction with their child may not prove abandonment based on evidence that the other has had only limited involvement with the child.” –94, ¶ 1 (App. 2013).

Decision of the Court Brittany B., –99, ¶¶ 21–32 (App. 2013).

The court did not err in determining that “Mother’s actions do not rise to the level of interference required to establish a defense to abandonment.” ¶¶ 21–25 (App. 2013) (father continually sought visitation with child through both mother and the court, despite mother’s attempts to restrict father’s contact).

¶16 Mother also argues that Father inappropriately impeded her ability to have a parent-child relationship with J.E.

first in 2013, and again “by his actions in this case.” Citing Calvin B. v. Brittany B., father argues the first abandonment finding was error because his absence from S.P.’s life was “due to [S.P.’s mother’s] actions.” ¶ 21 (App. 2013).

which found that a father had not abandoned his child where the mother had prevented the father from having more involvement in their child’s life.

¶31 Father G. argues that Mother impeded his ability to have a parent-child relationship with his children because she blocked him on social media, blocked or did not respond to his phone calls, and moved to Arizona without notifying him.

Although a parent “may not restrict the other parent from interacting with their child and then petition to terminate the latter’s rights for abandonment,” ¶ 21 (App. 2013), where circumstances prevent a parent from exercising traditional methods of bonding with the child, the parent “must act persistently to establish the relationship however possible and must vigorously assert his legal rights to the extent necessary,” Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 250, ¶ 22.

¶14 Father’s is unpersuasive.

But we also recognize that “a parent who has persistently and substantially restricted the other parent’s interaction with their child may not prove abandonment based on evidence that the other has had only limited involvement with the child.” –94, ¶ 1 (App. 2013).

¶10 Father argues that Mother prevented him from seeing T.W.

¶22 Father further contends Mother hindered his efforts to communicate with the child by terminating his FaceTime calls in December 2017.

4 KARLA M. v. LARRY J., et al. Decision of the Court ¶11 Mother nevertheless argues that because Grandparents "stymied her efforts for visitation and contact,"

¶13 Father contends the superior court erred by failing to consider the impact of Mother’s alleged efforts to prevent Father from maintaining his relationship with G.L.

Although Mother argues that Father interfered with her ability to see the children, and Jose M. v. Eleanor J., S.M., both cases are distinguishable.

The court then implicitly concluded that Father did not abandon S.P., ¶ 1 (App. 2013) (“[A] parent who has persistently and substantially restricted the other parent’s interaction with their child may not prove abandonment based on evidence that the other has had only limited involvement with the child.”).

¶ 17 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).