In re J.E., 524 P.3d 1009

Father and Mother (unmarried) signed and filed a voluntary declaration of paternity (VDP) for J.E. on August 18, 2021; the Office of Vital Records accepted it and issued an amended birth certificate naming Father as the father.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) requested genetic testing; results (returned Sept. 2021) excluded Father as the child’s biological father.
The GAL challenged the VDP on behalf of Child, invoking Utah Code § 78B-15-623 (child not bound by a parentage determination inconsistent with genetic testing); the juvenile court sustained the challenge and declared the VDP “void.”
Father appealed, raising (among other things) that the GAL/Child lacked statutory standing to challenge the VDP and contesting the court’s remedy language; the court also considered whether the order was final and appealable.
The Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction (the order effected a permanent change in the child’s status), found Child had statutory standing under § 78B-15-623 to challenge the VDP, affirmed the challenge on the merits, but remanded to correct the court’s use of the term “void” because the proper effect is prospective only.

Issue	Father’s Argument	GAL/State’s Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction / finality	Order declaring VDP void was not final/appealable because juvenile case remains open	Order permanently removed Father’s parental rights conferred by VDP and is appealable	Court had jurisdiction: order effected a permanent change in Child’s status and was final for appeal
Standing to challenge VDP under § 78B-15-623	Child (via GAL) lacks statutory standing to challenge a VDP filed outside court	§ 623 means a child is "not bound by" a parentage determination inconsistent with genetic testing, so child may challenge	Child (through GAL) has statutory standing under § 623 to challenge a VDP inconsistent with genetic test results
Merits / effect of successful challenge	VDP should remain valid or be treated as void ab initio	Genetic testing excludes Father; under the Act a declaration inconsistent with genetic testing can be set aside	Challenge sustained; VDP is set aside prospectively (not void from inception)
§ 78B-15-608 (disregard genetic tests) and sua sponte duty	Father (late) requested right to a § 608 hearing to disregard tests; amicus argued court must consider § 608 sua sponte	Court need not raise defenses or statutory inquiries sua sponte; party must invoke § 608 to trigger best-interest analysis	§ 608 argument forfeited (raised too late); court not required to sua sponte perform § 608 analysis; no plain error shown

In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (finality in juvenile proceedings determined by whether order effects a permanent change in child's status)
In re A.F., 138 P.3d 65 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (pragmatic analysis for final and appealable juvenile orders)
In re K.J., 327 P.3d 1203 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (appellate review treats juvenile-court factual findings favorably)
Scott v. Benson, 501 P.3d 1148 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (a VDP accepted by vital records confers parental rights and is subject to challenge)
In re S.H., 119 P.3d 309 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (a duly filed declaration of paternity has same effect as a judicial determination)
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (biological relationship forms the basis of parental rights)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (biological father’s interest in his children warrants constitutional protections)
State v. Outzen, 408 P.3d 334 (Utah 2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (judges do not have duty to raise unpressed legal theories sua sponte)