Brooks v. A.S.
2015 Utah LEXIS 83
Utah2015Background
- Jacob Brooks (18) and the mother (14) engaged in sexual activity in Pennsylvania; Brooks pleaded guilty to indecent assault (misdemeanor) after being charged with statutory sexual assault.
- The mother relinquished the newborn for adoption in Utah; adoptive parents filed for adoption in Utah and Brooks moved to intervene and filed paternity in both Utah and Pennsylvania.
- Utah District Court denied Brooks's motion to intervene under Utah Code § 78B-6-111, which bars a biological father from contesting an adoption if the child was conceived as the result of conduct that "would constitute" a sexual offense under Utah law, regardless of conviction.
- Brooks appealed, arguing (1) § 78B-6-111 does not apply to out-of-state conduct by non‑Utahans and (2) applying the statute here would violate his due process rights.
- The Utah Supreme Court, relying on its decision in Nevares v. M.L.S., reversed the denial: it held § 78B-6-111 does not reach conduct by non‑Utahns occurring wholly outside Utah and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brooks) | Defendant's Argument (Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 78B-6-111 apply to sexual conduct that occurred outside Utah between non‑Utah residents? | § 111 should not apply; Pennsylvania law should govern and Utah statute lacks jurisdictional reach. | § 111's language is broad and not limited to conduct occurring in Utah; what matters is whether the conduct fits the Utah statutory definitions. | Held: § 111 does not apply to conduct by non‑Utahans outside Utah (relying on Nevares). |
| Were the statutory and constitutional challenges preserved and adequately briefed? | Brooks raised choice‑of‑law and due‑process objections in district court and on appeal. | Respondents contended issues were sufficiently presented; challenged adequacy but briefed on appeal. | Held: Issues were preserved and adequately briefed for appeal. |
| Does applying § 111 extraterritorially raise due process concerns? | Applying § 111 to out‑of‑state conduct would raise grave due process problems (lack of notice, jurisdictional nexus). | Respondents argued statute validly cuts off rights regardless of conviction; state interest in protecting adoptive child/parents. | Held: Court avoided a direct substantive due process ruling by interpreting statute not to apply extraterritorially; noted serious due process concerns if applied beyond Utah. |
| If § 111 is inapplicable, are there alternative legal remedies or laws to address parental rights based on criminal conduct? | Pennsylvania termination statutes and Utah adoption/termination procedures may govern; parties can pursue termination under Pennsylvania law. | Respondents relied on § 111 to block intervention; other remedies not yet invoked. | Held: Court flagged Pennsylvania statutory grounds (e.g., involuntary termination provisions) and left viability of those remedies to remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevares v. M.L.S., 345 P.3d 719 (Utah 2015) (interpreting § 78B-6-111 and limiting its application where conduct occurred outside Utah)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (grounds for termination of parental rights require proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (U.S. 2010) (principles limiting extraterritorial application of statutes)
- Manzanares v. Byington (In re Adoption of Baby B.), 308 P.3d 382 (Utah 2012) (standard of review for adoption-related appeals)
- Peña v. Mattox, 84 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1996) (discussing limits on asserting parental liberty interests when parenthood arises from criminal conduct)