In re Adoption of C.C., 491 P.3d 859

Background:

In 2013 J.S.P. and K.C. obtained a New Hampshire marriage license, participated in a ceremony, and received a marriage certificate; the marriage was bigamous/void because K.C. was still married to another man.
K.C. gave birth to C.C. in Utah on August 14, 2017; two days later K.C. signed relinquishment and consent-to-placement documents and adoptive parents filed for adoption on August 17, 2017.
The district court initially granted temporary custody to the adoptive parents and held no putative father had established paternity; J.S.P. then filed to establish paternity and moved to intervene in the adoption claiming presumed‑father status under Utah Code §78B‑15‑204(1)(c).
The court allowed intervention but later granted adoptive parents’ partial summary judgment dismissing J.S.P., reasoning the 2013 marriage was void and had terminated such that he could not be a presumed father; J.S.P. filed and then abandoned an immediate appeal; a final adoption decree issued in June 2019; J.S.P. filed a timely appeal from the final adoption order.
The Utah Supreme Court considered (1) whether the partial summary‑judgment dismissal was immediately appealable (i.e., whether appellate jurisdiction existed), and (2) whether J.S.P. is a presumed father under §78B‑15‑204(1)(c).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability: Was the order dismissing J.S.P. on partial summary judgment immediately appealable?	J.S.P.: No — no appeal of right until final adoption; his later notice was timely	Adoptive parents: Yes — dismissal of J.S.P. was final and appealable; his later appeal is untimely	Court: No — partial SJ did not adjudicate all claims/parties and lacked Rule 54(b) certification; appeal from final adoption was timely
"Apparent compliance with law": Did the 2013 attempted marriage meet §78B‑15‑204(1)(c)’s "apparent compliance" requirement?	J.S.P.: Yes — they obtained a license and official marriage certificate, so the attempted marriage was in apparent (ostensible) compliance	Adoptive parents: No — marriage was void and known to parties, so it was not in apparent compliance	Court: Yes — "apparent" means ostensible; obtaining license and certificate suffices; statute contains no knowledge/good‑faith requirement
Timing of birth/termination: Was C.C. born "during the invalid marriage or within 300 days after its termination" under §78B‑15‑204(1)(c)?	J.S.P.: Yes — child was born during the invalid marriage; no statutory termination event occurred before birth	Adoptive parents: No — marriage effectively terminated when entered or when parties learned it was void, so presumption does not apply	Court: Yes — legal invalidity alone is not a statutory ‘‘termination’’; no death/annulment/declaration/divorce/separation occurred before birth; child born during invalid marriage, so presumption applies

Key Cases Cited

Bahr v. Imus, 250 P.3d 56 (Utah 2011) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
W. Water, LLC v. Olds, 184 P.3d 578 (Utah 2008) (adoption decree is a final order altering legal relationships)
State ex rel. B.B., 94 P.3d 252 (Utah 2004) (adoption decree effects change in status of child)
Christensen v. State Tax Comm’n, 469 P.3d 962 (Utah 2020) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
Wash. Townhomes, LLC v. Wash. Cnty. Water Conservancy Dist., 388 P.3d 753 (Utah 2016) (exceptions to interlocutory appeal rule)
Millard Cnty. v. State Tax Comm’n ex rel. Intermountain Power Agency, 823 P.2d 459 (Utah 1991) (denial of intervention treated as immediately appealable)
C.M.F. v. State (State ex rel. A.F.), 167 P.3d 1070 (Utah 2007) (juvenile‑court orders terminating parental rights can trigger immediate appeal)
Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 248 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (statutory text interpreted in linguistic and structural context)
Bryner v. Cardon Outreach, LLC, 428 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2018) (courts will not infer substantive terms into statute)
Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 301 P.3d 984 (Utah 2013) (resisting addition of language where statute contains none)