In Re Adoption of B.Y.
2015 UT 67
Utah2015Background
- Jake Strickland (putative father) and W.P. (birth mother) had a relationship; W.P. became pregnant and told Strickland he was the father.
- W.P. decided to place the child (B.Y.) for adoption; she agreed with Strickland that they would raise the child together if he promised not to file a paternity action; Strickland promised and did not file.
- W.P. concealed adoption arrangements, relinquished parental rights after birth, and the agency found no paternity action on file; adoption proceeded through LDS Family Services.
- Strickland later filed a paternity action and moved to intervene in the adoption; the district court denied intervention because he failed to strictly comply with the Adoption Act and cited Utah Code § 78B-6-106(1).
- Strickland raised multiple constitutional challenges (procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, Fifth Amendment, Open Courts Clause, Supremacy/PKPA) and sought discovery and disqualification of opposing counsel.
- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed: Strickland forfeited intervention rights by failing to meet statutory prerequisites; private fraud does not excuse strict statutory compliance, and his constitutional claims failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Strickland) | Defendant's Argument (State/Adoptive Parties) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to intervene denied for failure to strictly comply with Adoption Act | W.P. promised not to place child; reliance on that promise excuses failure to file paternity action | Utah law requires strict compliance; § 78B-6-106 bars excuse based on other parties' statements/actions | Denial affirmed; private assurances do not excuse statutory noncompliance |
| Procedural due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) | W.P.’s fraud deprived him of notice and meaningful opportunity to preserve rights | Due process protects against state action; Strickland had actual and constructive notice and ample opportunity to comply | Claim fails: no state-created denial of notice; statutory prerequisites provided meaningful opportunity; impossibility exception not met |
| Substantive due process (fundamental parental right) | He had developed enough relationship to invoke fundamental right; statute unjustly extinguishes that right | Unwed fathers’ rights are provisional; state may condition perfection on neutral procedures that are not arbitrary | Claim fails: filing requirement is not arbitrary; substantial deference to state interests in finality and prompt adoptions |
| Equal protection / other constitutional claims (Fifth Amendment, Open Courts, PKPA) | Statute improperly groups responsible fathers with deadbeat fathers; filing could self-incriminate; Open Courts/PKPA violations | Statute is gender-neutral and rationally related to legitimate interests; risk of criminal prosecution is speculative; no PKPA application; Open Courts not implicated here | All claims rejected: statute withstands rational-basis review; Fifth Amendment speculative; Open Courts and PKPA arguments fail |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (procedural due process notice/opportunity framework)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (permissible state conditions on unwed fathers' rights; deferential review)
- California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (Fifth Amendment requires real danger of incrimination, not speculative risk)
- Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Comm’n of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472 (Fifth Amendment protects against real dangers)
- Ellis v. Social Servs. Dep’t, 615 P.2d 1250 (Utah: impossibility exception where compliance was rendered impossible)
- Wells v. Children’s Aid Soc’y of Utah, 681 P.2d 199 (Utah: ordinary case requires strict compliance; distinguishes Ellis)
- Manzanares v. Byington (In re Adoption of Baby B.), 308 P.3d 382 (interpretation of Utah adoption statute requirements)
- Sanchez v. L.D.S. Soc. Servs., 680 P.2d 753 (no constitutional requirement for actual government notice of statutory parental-rights prerequisites)