2017 UT App 106
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Child born 2008; DCFS filed dependency petition in 2010 and again in 2014; father (G.H.) was not served in 2010 and was treated as an "alleged father" in 2014 because paternity was not established in Utah.
- DCFS attempted limited searches for Father in 2014; Mother later gave contact info and DCFS first spoke to Father in July 2014 but did not receive his proof of paternity until December 5, 2014.
- After DCFS received the "paternity paper," Father was notified, counsel was later appointed, and Father had two supervised visits (Jan and Feb 2015) and limited phone contact; he provided no financial support, cards, or gifts before the termination trial.
- Juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights at a May 2015 trial, finding abandonment and only token efforts to support or communicate, and that termination was in Child’s best interest.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) inadequate/tardy notice and fundamentally unfair process; (2) improper burden-shifting requiring him to prove paternity before being treated as a parent; and (3) insufficient evidence of abandonment or token efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2010 order adjudicated paternity and triggered statutory notice in 2014 | 2010 order stating “is the father” constituted adjudication, so State had duty to notify in 2014 | 2010 order was a perfunctory recitation and Father was not a party; no adjudication occurred | Court: 2010 order did not adjudicate paternity; Father was a putative father and not entitled to special notice in 2014 |
| Whether State shifted burden by requiring Father to prove paternity before treating him as a parent | DCFS forced Father to "prove" paternity before joining him, so delay in his participation was caused by State and thus due-process violation | An unwed father must take steps to establish legal paternity; burden to prove paternity is on claimant, not State | Court: Father failed to preserve claim; even on merits, no exceptional circumstances and burden properly rests on father to establish paternity |
| Whether evidence supported finding of abandonment under Utah law | Father: lack of timely recognition by DCFS excused noncommunication; insufficient evidence of abandonment | State: Father had no contact, support, or inquiries for months; prima facie abandonment shown and unrebutted | Court: Evidence supports abandonment—prima facie showing met and Father failed to rebut |
| Whether evidence supported finding of only token efforts to support/communicate | Father: limited visits and belated contact are not token given circumstances | State: minimal contact, no financial support, missed phone opportunities show only superficial efforts | Court: Evidence supports that Father made only token efforts; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 308 P.3d 553 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (due-process requirement of adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard in parental-termination proceedings)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (biological connection alone does not guarantee constitutionally protected parental rights for unmarried fathers)
- In re adoption of B.B.D., 984 P.2d 967 (Utah 1999) (unmarried father's parental rights acquire constitutional protection only after timely, full commitment demonstrated, e.g., by establishing legal paternity)
- In re adoption of B.Y., 356 P.3d 1215 (Utah 2015) (unwed fathers’ rights are provisional and require compliance with statutory prerequisites to be fully protected)
- In re T.E., 266 P.3d 739 (Utah 2011) (abandonment: prima facie showing shifts burden to parent to rebut; token-effort standard explained)
- In re R.A.J., 991 P.2d 1118 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (termination requires finding of statutory ground and that termination serves child's best interest)