447 P.3d 110
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Child born in Montana in Jan 2016; within a week Mother and a man she identified as the child’s father (Purported Father) voluntarily relinquished parental rights and the child was placed with prospective adoptive parents who live in Utah.
- Adoptive parents obtained an ICPC-100A placement approval (form listed Purported Father, not Father) and transported the child to Utah in February 2016; they filed an adoption petition in Utah in January 2016 and obtained temporary custody orders.
- Father (C.S.), the legal husband and biological parent according to later genetic testing in Montana, was served notice of Utah adoption proceedings in February 2016 and intervened.
- Adoptive parents filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights in June 2016; after a bench trial the Utah district court terminated Father’s rights and finalized the adoption.
- On appeal Father argued (1) Utah lacked jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights (invoking the UCCJEA and related principles) and (2) the adoption had to be set aside because the ICPC request form was materially deficient (it named Purported Father).
- The Utah Court of Appeals held the district court had jurisdiction under the Adoption Act but remanded to obtain specific findings on whether the ICPC requirements were satisfied before finalizing the adoption decree.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Adoptive Parents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah district court had jurisdiction under the Adoption Act to terminate Father’s parental rights | Utah lacked jurisdiction because Father lived in Montana and UCCJEA jurisdiction should be required before terminating out-of-state parent’s rights | The Adoption Act grants jurisdiction where prospective adoptive parents reside and a termination petition filed within adoption proceedings is authorized; Father received notice and intervened | Court: Adoption Act confers jurisdiction (§ 78B-6-105 and § 78B-6-112); Father’s intervention and notice sufficed to subject him to Utah jurisdiction |
| Whether the UCCJEA was a prerequisite to Adoption Act jurisdiction | UCCJEA must be satisfied before adoption-related termination of parental rights | UCCJEA expressly excludes adoption proceedings; adoption jurisdiction is governed by the Adoption Act; ICPC and UCCJEA are distinct | Court: UCCJEA does not govern adoption proceedings; it is not a prerequisite to Adoption Act jurisdiction |
| Whether adoption decree must be vacated because ICPC form listed Purported Father (defective ICPC-100A) | Defect in ICPC-100A meant ICPC noncompliance and adoption must be vacated | ICPC-100A was approved by both states before transfer; ICPC compliance may be shown by the full ICPC packet even if form was incomplete; defects do not automatically divest jurisdiction when notice and intervention occurred | Court: Remanded for findings on ICPC compliance. Defective form did not automatically divest jurisdiction; if record can establish actual ICPC compliance, adoption may be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborne v. Adoption Center of Choice, 70 P.3d 58 (Utah 2003) (addressing parental-rights determinations within adoption proceedings)
- Nevares v. Adoptive Couple, 384 P.3d 213 (Utah 2016) (UCCJEA home-state and significant-connection analysis)
- In re adoption of B.B.D., 984 P.2d 967 (Utah 1999) (out-of-state intervening father submits to Utah jurisdiction)
- In re adoption of T.M.M., 608 P.2d 130 (Mont. 1980) (vacatur where child moved without ICPC notice to receiving state)
- In re Adoption No. 10087, 597 A.2d 456 (Md. 1991) (ICPC violations require scrutiny but do not mandate dismissal if child’s best interest requires prompt determination)