In re Adoption of B.H., 474 P.3d 981

Background:

Mother (Montana resident) arranged an interstate adoption placing her newborn with Utah residents (Adoptive Parents) and completed ICPC Form 100A but listed D.G., not her husband (Father), as the child’s father.
Adoptive Parents took the child to Utah, filed an adoption petition, and gave notice; Father (a Montana resident) was served, moved to intervene, and the Montana court ordered genetic testing.
Genetic testing showed Father was the child’s biological father; Adoptive Parents then petitioned in Utah to terminate Father’s parental rights under the Utah Adoption Act in order to finalize the adoption.
The Utah district court held a bench trial, found Father abandoned and unfit, terminated his parental rights, and entered an adoption decree—but the decree did not explicitly state that the ICPC requirements had been complied with as required by Utah law.
The Utah Court of Appeals held the UCCJEA did not preclude Utah jurisdiction over the termination (it is an adoption proceeding), found the ICPC form materially defective but not jurisdictionally fatal, and set aside the adoption decree for failure to state ICPC compliance, remanding for factfinding and potential cure.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed: the Adoption Act (not the UCCJEA) governs jurisdiction for a termination filed to facilitate an adoption; ICPC noncompliance is not a jurisdictional defect; but the adoption decree must be set aside so the district court can make the required ICPC compliance findings (and allow any cure as appropriate).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the UCCJEA governs jurisdiction over a termination of parental rights filed to facilitate an adoption	Father: UCCJEA applies to termination; Montana (home state) has jurisdiction, so Utah lacks jurisdiction	Adoptive Parents: Termination was brought under the Adoption Act (sections 112/133), which the UCCJEA expressly excludes	Held: Adoption Act governs such terminations; UCCJEA does not apply, so Utah had subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether failure to list Father on the ICPC request deprived Utah courts of jurisdiction or invalidated the adoption	Father: ICPC noncompliance is jurisdictional; the placement is void and Montana retains jurisdiction; adoption must be dismissed	Adoptive Parents: ICPC is procedural/administrative; noncompliance provides penalties but not loss of receiving-state jurisdiction; Adoption Act governs remedies	Held: ICPC deficiency is not jurisdictional; ICPC/Adoption Act provide penalties/remedies but do not divest Utah of jurisdiction
Whether the adoption decree should be upheld despite lacking an express ICPC-compliance statement	Father: Decree invalid because ICPC requirements were not satisfied before filing; cannot be cured post-decree	Adoptive Parents: Court can make or supplement findings; remedial steps may cure ICPC technical defects	Held: Decree must be set aside for inadequate findings—Adoption Act requires the decree to state ICPC compliance; remand for further proceedings and possible cure

Key Cases Cited

Utah State Tax Comm’n v. See’s Candies, Inc., 435 P.3d 147 (Utah 2018) (appellate review: no deference to legal conclusions)
Nevares v. Adoptive Couple, 384 P.3d 213 (Utah 2016) (UCCJEA’s purpose is to avoid interstate jurisdictional conflict and vest a single state with custody jurisdiction)
Bagley v. Bagley, 387 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2016) (statutory interpretation: courts begin with plain language and apply absurdity doctrine narrowly)
Anderson v. Anderson, 416 P.2d 308 (Utah 1966) (a statute’s cross-reference to another does not necessarily incorporate the entire referenced statute)
In re Adoption of T. M. M., 608 P.2d 130 (Mont. 1980) (Montana case holding total ICPC noncompliance supported revocation of consent to adoption)
In re Adoption of B.H., 447 P.3d 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (court of appeals decision below: ICPC form materially defective but not jurisdictional; remanded for ICPC compliance findings)