[¶ 1] B.F. (fаther) appealed from a district court judgment appointing G.S., G.J., and K.C. as guardians over J.S.L.F. We reverse the appointment of G.S., G.J., and K.C. as guardians over J.S.L.F., and remand for entry of judgment placing J.S.L.F. in B.F.’s custody.
I.
[¶ 2] J.S.L.F., a minor, was born in the summer of 2008 tо B.F. and S.M.L. They lived in Grand Forks for the first few months of the child’s life, and were the subject of several complaints received by Grand Forks County Social Services. Social services investigated and determined services were requirеd at least twice due to neglect of the child and psychological maltreatment. In October of 2008, father, mother, and child moved to Glenburn, N.D., allegedly to avoid social services. While they were in Glenburn, there were at least three more reports from social services about their supervision of the child, the condition of the house they lived in, and the feeding of the child. The child also had serious health problems requiring hospitalization due to malnourishment. In March of 2009, the father moved back to Grand Forks, ending his romantic relationship with the mother. From that point until the institution of this action, the mother raised the child essentially by herself. The father saw the child approximately six times between March 2009 and December 2010, and paid child support.
[¶ 3] After the father left Glenburn, the mother moved to Job Corps hoping to learn a job skill and learn to better raise the child. While she lived there, there were repeated reports concerning her hygiene, her cleanliness, and her supervision of the child. On November 1, 2010, the mother left the child with two of the co-petitioners so she could move to Bismarck. On November 15, 2010, the mother signed a co-petition for appointment of a guardian in which she gave consent for G.S., G.J., and K.C. to be appointed guardians.
[¶ 4] On November 17, 2010, the mother arrived at G.S. and G.J.’s home with the police and took the child back. The next day, the district court entered an ex parte order giving G.S., G.J., and K.C. a temporary guardianship over the child. In the order, the court found an emergency existed because the mother was unable to carе
[¶ 5] The temporary guardians made a motion to make the guardianship permanent, and B.F. was served with notice of the petition on December 27, 2010. A hearing was set for January 25, 2011. At B.F.’s request, the hearing was continued. A hearing on the petition for permanent guardianship was finally held on July 28, 2011. The district court ruled that both parents’ rights had been suspended by the circumstances, and that it was in the best interests of the child to appoint G.S., G.J., and K.C. as the child’s permanent guardians.
II.
[¶ 6] On appeal, B.F. argues his parental rights were not suspended by circumstances. Section 30.1-27-04, N.D.C.C., provides “[t]he court may appoint a guardian for an unmarried minor if all parental rights of custody have been terminated or suspended by circumstances or prior court order.” The statute does not define “suspended by circumstances,” and we have not defined the term in previous decisions.
[¶ 7] A court is not permitted to appoint a guardian when the minor has a living parent who is entitled to custody. See Uniform Probate Code Practice Manual Volume 2, 511 (Richard V. Wellman, ed., 2nd ed., 1977). The guardianship provisions were not intended to “change state juvenile law relating to custodial rights and duties.” Hearing on H.B. 1040 Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 43rd N.D. Legis. Sess. (February 27, 1973) (Report оf the Legislative Council for consideration by the Committee on Model Laws and Intergovernmental Cooperation) [Hearing on H.B. 1040]. “[F]or example, a guardian of a minor cannot be appointed until parental rights have been terminated and termination of parental rights is not covered.” Id. Therefore, if the minor has a parent that is still alive, in order to appoint a guardian, the court must find that the parent’s rights to the child have been terminated by а prior court order, or the parent’s rights have been suspended by circumstances. See N.D.C.C. § 30.1-27-04.
[¶ 8] Here, it is undisputed that B.F.’s parental rights have not been terminated. Rather, the district court found:
lack of consistent involvement in JSLF’s life by [the father] represents an abandonment sufficient to allow this Court to find that his rights have been suspended by circumstances. This substandard care of JSLF by [the father] combined with the voluntary action by [the father] to remove himself from JSLF’s life and have subsequent minimal involvement with his son satisfies the “suspended by circumstances” requirement of NDCC 30.1-27-04.
“It is well-settled that parents have a paramount and constitutional right to the custody and companionship of their children superior tо that of any other person.” Hamers v. Guttormson,
[¶ 10] The present case illustrates the necessity of proceedings under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act. Section 27-20-30(e), N.D.C.C., allows a court to “[a]p-point a fit and willing relative or other aрpropriate individual as the child’s legal guardian” when a child has been found to be deprived. A finding of deprivation, which includes the finding of unfitness, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. N.D.C.C. § 27-20-29. Here, the court did not find that B.F. was unfit by сlear and convincing evidence, but simply that B.F. had rendered “substandard care.” The Uniform Juvenile Court Act also gives the court a host of other options for disposition of the child in lieu of termination in a deprivation case. See N.D.C.C. § 27-20-30. Those options were not discussed by the trial court in this proceeding. The guardianship provisions of the Uniform Probate Code were not designed to circumvent the protections afforded to the natural parеnts and the child under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act. We hold that proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 30.1-27 are inappropriate to test the fitness of a parent.
III.
[¶ 11] The district court ruled that B.F. abandoned J.S.L.F. without stating a legal standard for abandonmеnt. Abandonment can constitute suspension by the circumstances. N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(l)(a) (stating a court may terminate the parental rights of a parent if the parent abandons the child); N.D.C.C. § 14-15-06(l)(a) (stating consent to adopt a child is not required from a parent who has abandoned the child). In both juvenile court proceedings and adoption proceedings, abandonment is defined as:
a. As to a parent of a child not in the custody of that parent, failure by the noncustodial parent significantly without justifiable cause:
(1) To communicate with the child; or
(2) To provide for the care and support of the child as required by law;
[W]e look to such factors as the parent’s contact and communication with the child, the parent’s love, care and affection toward the child, and the parent’s intent. Also relevant is the parent’s acceptance of parental obligations, such as “to care for, protect, support, educate, give moral guidance to, and provide a home for the child.” “A parent’s negligent failure to perform his parental duties is significant to the issue of abandonment.”
In re Adoption of S.R.F.,
[¶ 12] Suspension by the circumstances does not include a lesser degree of the same circumstances constituting termination. If we were to so construe N.D.C.C. § 30.1-27-04, we would provide a way to circumvent the legal standards for properly depriving a parent of his or her children. Therefore, a petitioner seeking to create a guardianship on the grounds of abandonment must show the same circumstances exist that would justify the finding of abandonment under thе Uniform Juvenile Court Act or under the Revised Uniform Adoption Act.
[¶ 13] The record in this case does not support a finding that B.F. abandoned J.S.L.F. The district court found that B.F. lived with the child for nine months after the child’s birth. B.F. moved back to Grand Forks in March оf 2009, and saw the child six times between then and December of 2010, when he was notified of this action. Since the institution of this action, he has had regular visitation with the child. The district court did not find, nor is there evidence in the record indicating B.F. did not contact the child by telephone or other means during that period. B.F. paid child support during the entire period of his absence. A finding of abandonment based on these facts would mean that any parent of limited finаncial means separated from his or her child by an appreciable distance would be at risk of abandoning his or her child. The facts in the record do not support a finding of abandonment, and therefore the district сourt’s finding that B.F. abandoned J.S.L.F. was clearly erroneous. Because we find B.F.’s parental rights were not suspended by the circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the other arguments raised by the appellants.
IV.
[¶ 14] We reverse the appointment of G.L., G.J., and K.C. as guardians over J.S.L.F., and remand for entry of judgment placing J.S.L.F. in B.F.’s custody.