Cited by

Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 1999) (inferring abandonment because mother did not attempt to develop a relationship with child).

Sec., (legislature amended § 8-533(B) to remove requirement that services be provided before parental rights may be terminated based on abandonment).

Sec., ¶¶ 17–20 (App. 1999) (affirming abandonment finding when mother made no effort to see or locate her child for 22 months).

Sec., –66, ¶¶ 12–15 (App. 1999) (diligent efforts to provide reunification services are not required in abandonment cases because of the absence of an existing parent-child relationship).

Sec., 66 ¶¶ 9, 15 (App. 1999) (recognizing that the legislature amended § 8-533(B) to remove the requirement that services be provided before termination on the ground of abandonment under A.R.S.

Sec., ¶ 15 (App. 1999) (diligent efforts to provide reunification services are not required in abandonment cases because of the absence of an existing parent-child relationship).

Sec., ¶ 14 (App. 1999) (quoting Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 261 (1983)).

Sec., -66, ¶¶ 13-15 (App. 1999) (without an existing parent-child relationship, a parent is not entitled to reunification services under constitutional due process principles).

Sec., ¶ 15 (App. 1999) (in abandonment cases, diligent efforts to provide reunification services are not required in absence of an existing parent-child relationship); see also Bobby G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

§ 8-533 nor federal law requires that a parent be provided reunification services before the court may terminate the parent’s rights on the grounds of abandonment.” Bobby G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ Sec., ¶ 11 (App. 2008) (citing Toni W. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ Sec., ¶¶ 7-9 (App. 1999)).

66, ¶¶ 9, 15 (App. 1999) (recognizing the futility in requiring the State to offer reunification services to a parent who has abandoned a child).

Sec., ¶ 15 (App. 1999) (holding that in the absence of an existing parent-child relationship, a mother was not entitled to be provided reunification services).

Sec., 66, ¶ 9, ¶ 15 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶ 15, see also Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 25, 995 P.2d at 687 (holding that, in an abandonment case, “ADES owed no duty to [the parent] to ensure that his parental rights were not severed,” and “[t]he burden to act as a parent rests with the parent, who should assert his legal

Sec., ¶ 15, (holding that a mother who had abandoned her child “was not entitled, based on constitutional due process principles, to require [DCS] to provide her with reunification services before seeking severance of her rights on the statutory ground of abandonment”).

Sec., ¶¶ 7–9 (App. 1999).

Sec., 66, ¶¶ 9, 15, 467 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶ 9, the focus of the child welfare policy after the filing of a dependency has been to expedite finding a permanent placement for dependent children.

Sec., -65, ¶ 11 , -66 (App.1999).

Sec., , quoting In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, , or risk a judicial finding that he has abandoned the child.