Scott v. Benson, 529 P.3d 319

Background

Unmarried couple Sarah Benson and Taylor Scott knowingly signed a voluntary declaration of paternity (VDP) stating Scott was the father of Benson’s older child (Child), though he was not the biological father. The VDP was filed with Vital Records and Child’s birth certificate was updated.
Scott acted as a father figure for several years while also being the biological father of a different child (Sibling) for whom he had an established VDP and custody.
After Benson later cut off Scott’s contact (her husband sought to adopt Child), Scott sued to be adjudicated Child’s legal father and for custody; Benson challenged and sought to set aside the VDP under Utah Code § 78B-15-307 (fraud, duress, or material mistake).
The district court found the VDP was procured by fraud and mutual mistake and set it aside under § 307, but then applied § 78B-15-608 (equitable estoppel / best-interest factors) to disregard genetic-test results and adjudicate Scott Child’s legal father.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals, holding that a § 307 challenge is conducted under the Part 6 adjudication procedures and may include the § 608 analysis.

Issues

Issue	Benson's Argument	Scott's Argument	Held
Whether a court may apply § 78B-15-608 after a successful § 78B-15-307 VDP challenge	A successful § 307 challenge ends the inquiry and the VDP must be set aside without a § 608 equity/estoppel analysis	§ 307 challenges are to be conducted "in the same manner" as Part 6 adjudications under § 308, so a § 608 analysis may be part of the challenge	Held: § 308 requires following Part 6 procedures; courts may consider § 608 factors when deciding whether to disregard genetic-test results in a § 307 challenge
Whether § 78B-15-617(4) (adjudication when a man is excluded by genetic testing) conflicts with § 608	§ 617(4) mandates adjudicating a man excluded by genetic testing as not the father, so § 608 cannot rescue a non-genetic declarant	§ 617(4) contemplates a man "properly excluded" by genetic testing; if a court disregards testing under § 608, he is not "properly excluded"	Held: No conflict — a man is not "properly excluded" if the court disregards genetic results under § 608; the provisions are read harmoniously
Whether applying § 608 here raises constitutional concerns (parental rights) or requires avoidance	Applying § 608 to allow a non-genetic party to obtain parental status infringes the mother’s constitutional parental-rights and should be avoided	Statutory text governs; no plausible text-consistent reading avoids the constitutional concern; Benson must show unconstitutionality	Held: Court rejects avoidance — no plausible, text-consistent construction offered; Benson did not prove statute unconstitutional or show how her rights were violated here
Whether the court should depart from the statute based on absurdity or policy	The statute produces absurd or unjust results (e.g., coerced VDP signings), so courts should construe § 307 to foreclose § 608 in most non-genetic cases	Legislature could rationally permit an equity-based § 608 inquiry; hypotheticals don't change plain statutory text	Held: Court declines to rewrite statute for policy/absurdity reasons; plain text controls and yields no absurd result warranting deviation

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Benson, 501 P.3d 1148 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (court of appeals decision affirmed by Utah Supreme Court)
Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 248 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (discusses interplay of statutes governing paternity adjudication)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents have fundamental right to direct upbringing of their children)
Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Carlson, 332 P.3d 900 (Utah 2014) (explains constitutional-avoidance canon and its limits)
Zilleruelo v. Commodity Transporters, Inc., 506 P.3d 509 (Utah 2022) (favor statutory text over asserted legislative purpose when language is clear)
Utley v. Mill Man Steel, Inc., 357 P.3d 992 (Utah 2015) (describes absurd-results canon for statutory construction)
State v. Sanders, 445 P.3d 453 (Utah 2019) (hypothetical absurdity does not justify departing from clear statutory text)