In re: J.M.S.
2015 UT 35
Utah2015Background
- Jacob Brooks (18) and a 14‑year‑old Pennsylvania resident conceived a child in Pennsylvania; Brooks pled guilty to indecent assault (misdemeanor) after Pennsylvania charges.
- The birth mother arranged an adoption in Utah; the child was relinquished 24 hours after birth and adoptive parents filed in Utah.
- Brooks filed paternity documents in Utah and Pennsylvania and moved to intervene in the Utah adoption; the district court denied intervention under Utah Code § 78B‑6‑111.
- Section 78B‑6‑111 bars notice/consent rights of a biological father when the child was conceived by conduct that "would constitute any sexual offense" under Utah Criminal Code Title 76, Ch. 5, Part 4.
- The central legal dispute: whether § 78B‑6‑111 reaches out‑of‑state sexual conduct by non‑Utah residents (i.e., Brooks’s conduct in Pennsylvania), and whether applying it would raise due‑process concerns.
- The Utah Supreme Court, relying on its contemporaneous Nevares decision, held § 78B‑6‑111 does not apply to sexual activity that occurred outside Utah involving non‑Utah actors, reversed denial of intervention, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Brooks’ Argument | Appellees’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 78B‑6‑111 applies to conduct that occurred outside Utah involving non‑Utah actors | § 111 should not apply; Pennsylvania law should govern | § 111’s language has no geographic limit; focus is whether conduct fits Utah’s listed offenses | § 111 does not apply to out‑of‑state conduct by non‑Utah actors; reversed and remanded (following Nevares) |
| Preservation / adequate briefing of statutory and constitutional challenges | He preserved and argued both statutory choice‑of‑law and due‑process concerns | Argued statutory language covers the conduct regardless of forum | Court found issues preserved and adequately briefed for appeal |
| Due‑process challenge to applying § 111 extraterritorially | Denying intervention to an out‑of‑state father with no Utah nexus violates due process; forum‑shopping concerns | § 111 validly protects adoption interests; no constitutional bar asserted as dispositive | Court avoided deciding the substantive due‑process question because it construed § 111 not to reach Brooks’ conduct |
| Remedy and alternative avenues | If § 111 inapplicable, Pennsylvania law or other Utah adoption provisions may apply on remand | Utah adoption law should govern; § 111 can be applied if construed broadly | Court reversed denial of intervention and remanded; noted Pennsylvania statutes and other adoption procedures may be available to address parental‑rights termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear and convincing evidence required to terminate parental rights)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice requirements under due process)
- Peña v. Mattox, 84 F.3d 894 (7th Cir.) (criminal actor does not acquire non‑criminal liberty interests by virtue of crime)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (principles limiting extraterritorial application of statutes)
- U.S. Bond & Financial Corp. v. Nat’l Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Am., 17 P.2d 238 (Utah 1932) (declining extraterritorial application of Utah law)
- State v. Reed, 709 P.2d 391 (Utah 1985) (refusing extraterritorial effect for Utah sentencing provision)