In re R.M. (L.M. v. J.B. and A.B.)
2013 UT App 27
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Child RM was born to unmarried parents, with the father listed on the birth certificate and a voluntary declaration of paternity executed.
- Mother later married Stepfather; in 2010 Mother and Stepfather filed for adoption and to terminate natural father’s parental rights.
- Father failed to answer; trial court entered a decree of adoption in 2010, then set aside due to lack of notice.
- In 2011, the trial court ruled Father’s declaration of paternity was insufficient to give him rights to consent to adoption, citing paternity provisions.
- An interlocutory appeal was filed; adoption and paternity actions were stayed pending appeal.
- Question presented: whether an unmarried biological father who files a declaration of paternity must also comply with the paternity provisions to require his consent to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaration of paternity alone grants right to consent | Father argues declaration grants consent rights without full paternity-compliance. | Mother/Stepfather argue declaration alone is insufficient without paternity provisions compliance. | Declaration alone is not sufficient; declaration and paternity-compliance are both considered for consent. |
| Interpretation of 78B-6-120(1) subsections (d)-(f) | All unmarried fathers with either adjudication or declaration should be treated as having consent rights under (d)-(f). | Only one pathway should apply; compliance with paternity provisions may be required for consent. | Subsections (d), (e), and (f) provide distinct, separate means for obtaining consent rights; (e) and (f) are not redundant. |
| Effect of filing declaration of paternity versus compliance with paternity provisions | Filing a declaration should suffice to trigger paternal rights to consent. | Some fathers may lack declaration options if mother does not sign; paternity provisions may be necessary. | A declaration of paternity is not universally sufficient; consent may be required under (e) or (f) depending on circumstances. |
| Necessity of compliance with paternity provisions when not adjudicated | If not adjudicated, declaration should give right to consent if signed by mother. | Without complying with paternity provisions, declaration alone may be inadequate. | Unmarried biological fathers can obtain consent rights via declaration or by complying with paternity provisions; not mutually exclusive. |
| Overall statutory construction of 78B-6-120(1) in context | Statute should be read to give effect to all subsections and avoid redundancy. | Plain reading could render some subsections superfluous unless harmonized. | The court adopts a reading that preserves three independent pathways to consent (d), (e), (f). |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaques v. Midway Auto Plaza, Inc., 2010 UT 54 (Utah Supreme Court, 2010) (statutory interpretation without deference to trial court conclusions)
- Paar v. Stubbs, 2005 UT App 310 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2005) (interpretation of statutory provisions in context)
- In re S.H., 2005 UT App 324 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2005) (declaration of paternity as equivalent to legal finding of paternity)
- In re Adoption of Baby B., 2012 UT 35 (Utah Supreme Court, 2012) (unmarried biological fathers' rights under paternity provisions examined)
- In re Adoption of T.B., 2010 UT 42 (Utah Supreme Court, 2010) (requirement to strictly comply with paternity provisions discussed)
- In re Adoption of I.K., 2009 UT 70 (Utah Supreme Court, 2009) (analysis of rights of unmarried biological fathers in adoption context)