R.P. v. K.S.W.
320 P.3d 1084
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Wife (KS.W.) became pregnant during her marriage to Husband (D.RW.) after an affair with R.P., who filed a petition in 2010 to establish paternity; Wife initially admitted R.P. was the biological father and filed a counterpetition seeking a paternity decree.
- Husband was not originally a party; later joined after the domestic relations commissioner recommended joinder; Husband and Wife later decided to remain married and raise the child as Husband's.
- Wife and R.P. entered a mediated settlement agreement (filed but not court‑approved) under which R.P. paid support and exercised parent time; Wife later moved to set aside the agreement and moved to dismiss R.P.’s petition for lack of standing.
- The district court accepted Wife’s voluntary withdrawal of her counterpetition and dismissed R.P.’s petition for lack of statutory standing under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA); R.P. unsuccessfully sought relief under Rules 59 and 60.
- On appeal, the key legal question was whether R.P., an alleged biological father, had statutory standing under the UUPA to challenge the presumption of paternity enjoyed by the husband of a married woman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R.P.) | Defendant's Argument (Husband & Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.P. has standing under the UUPA to challenge Husband's presumption of paternity | UUPA's general standing list (§602) plus common‑law Schoolcraft test permit an alleged father to challenge presumption; omission of the word "only" shows legislature did not limit challengers | §607 narrows who may "raise" paternity for a child with a presumed father to the presumed father or the mother prior to filing for divorce; UUPA preempts common law | Court held R.P. lacks statutory standing; §607 limits challengers to husband or mother while marriage intact |
| Whether Utah common law (Schoolcraft) still governs standing despite UUPA | Schoolcraft’s case‑by‑case approach should remain available to allow alleged fathers with strong factual bases to proceed | UUPA preempts common law: legislature intentionally limited standing and codified rebuttal procedure | Court held UUPA preempts Schoolcraft; common law cannot expand standing inconsistent with statutory scheme |
| Whether Wife’s counterpetition/admissions or the mediated agreement gave R.P. standing or binding effect | Wife’s admission and agreement constitute judicial/admissible admissions or estoppel, giving R.P. a route to relief | Agreement was not court‑approved; counterpetition was voluntarily withdrawn and thus cannot be used by R.P.; standing still governed by UUPA | Court held neither the unapproved agreement nor withdrawn counterpetition conferred standing; R.P. waived challenge to the dismissal of the counterpetition |
| Whether there are unresolved factual issues (i.e., summary judgment proper) | Disputed facts relevant to Schoolcraft (relationship, conduct, estoppel) create triable issues | If UUPA governs, standing is statutory and bars relief regardless of factual disputes | Because standing is statutory under §607, summary judgment/dismissal for lack of standing was proper; factual disputes under Schoolcraft are preempted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.W.F. (Schoolcraft), 799 P.2d 710 (Utah 1990) (common‑law test permitting limited challenges to marital paternity presumption based on marriage stability and child protection)
- Balentine v. Gehring, 164 P.3d 1269 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (reversed summary judgment where factual disputes relevant to Schoolcraft remained)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 182 P.3d 353 (Utah 2008) (discussed interplay of Schoolcraft and statutory schemes; noted UUPA applicability questions)
- In re Estate of Hannifin, 311 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2013) (statutory preemption analysis where comprehensive statutory scheme displaced conflicting common‑law doctrine)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (U.S. 1989) (plurality addressing constitutional challenges to statutes denying alleged fathers the right to challenge a marital presumption)