501 P.3d 1148
Utah Ct. App.2021Background
- Scott was not Child’s biological father but began a parental role after Child’s birth; he and Benson later had a child together (Sibling).
- In March 2018 Scott and Benson knowingly signed a voluntary declaration of paternity (VDP) for Child falsely asserting Scott believed he was the biological father; they filed it with Vital Records and amended the birth certificate.
- More than a year later Benson challenged the VDP under Utah Code § 78B-15-307 (fraud and material mistake of fact); the parties stipulated Scott was not the genetic father.
- The district court found the VDP infirm for fraud and mutual mistake under § 307, stated (improperly) the VDP was “void ab initio,” but then—at Scott’s request—applied § 78B-15-608 and the equitable doctrine of estoppel and best-interest analysis.
- Relying on credibility findings (favoring Scott), the court found Benson estopped from denying parentage, that disruption would be inequitable, and that disregarding genetic facts served Child’s best interests; it declared Scott Child’s legal father.
- Benson appealed only the court’s statutory interpretation: (1) whether Scott qualified as a “declarant father,” and (2) whether a successful § 307 challenge renders a VDP void ab initio and thus precludes § 608 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (Benson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a man who knowingly signed a false VDP qualifies as a “declarant father” under the Act | Scott is a declarant father because he signed a valid VDP in which he "claimed" (averred belief) he was the genetic father; statutory "claim" does not require good faith | Scott never truly claimed genetic paternity (he knew he was not the father and later stipulated non-paternity), so he should not qualify as a declarant father | Court: Scott is a declarant father—signing a VDP in which he averred belief suffices; "claim" is not limited to good-faith assertions |
| Whether a successful § 307 challenge (fraud/mistake) renders a VDP void ab initio, erasing declarant status and barring § 608 relief | A § 307 challenge does not automatically void a declaration from inception; the statute’s specific void/rescission provisions control and § 608 may still apply | A successful § 307 challenge made the VDP void ab initio, so Scott could not be a declarant father and § 608 is inapplicable | Court: No statutory basis to deem a § 307-only challenge void ab initio; such challenges set aside the declaration going forward but do not automatically erase declarant status for § 608; court’s "void ab initio" language was ill-advised |
| Whether the district court properly applied § 78B-15-608 to disregard genetic facts and adjudicate Scott the legal father | § 608 authorizes disregarding genetic exclusion if (a) conduct estops the signatory from denying parentage, (b) disruption would be inequitable, and (c) it is in the child’s best interest—facts support these findings | A fraudulent VDP should prevent enforcement of parental status and allowing § 608 here rewards/covers fraud and may circumvent adoption law | Court: District court correctly applied § 608; factual findings (uncontested on appeal) supported estoppel, equity, and best-interest determinations, so Scott may be adjudicated legal father |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizing parental care and custody as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983) (biological connection confers important parental interests)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (a father’s interest in his children merits constitutional protection)
- In re Adoption of J.S., 358 P.3d 1009 (Utah 2014) (parental rights are significant and traditionally respected)
- In re S.H., 119 P.3d 309 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (a properly signed and filed VDP has same effect as a judicial paternity determination)
- McGee v. Gonyo, 140 A.3d 162 (Vt. 2016) (documents involving signatory fraud can be set aside; discussed as comparative authority)
- G.R.B. v. L.J.B., 260 So. 3d 833 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) (applied analogous statute to remand for § 608-style equitable analysis)