Two Month Relationship with Biological Child is Insufficient for Constitutional Protection

In Re Adoption of T.B.

T.M. v. B.B. & S.B., 2010 UT 42, (Utah Supreme Court May 14, 2010).

From birth, unwed biological father, T.M. (Father) maintained a relationship with his daughter.  He offered to pay expenses for the pregnancy, delivery, and had an informal agreement with Mother regarding care and custody of their daughter.  Prior to Mother’s relinquishment of parental rights to her parents, Father filed a Paternity action and filed a motion to set aside the adoption decree in the adoption case.  The paternity action was consolidated with the adoption action, and his motion to set aside and his petition for paternity were denied.  Father appealed. 

The Supreme Court found that while Father made several steps toward obtaining a right to withhold consent, it was not enough.  He failed to strictly comply with the statute; and his relationship, however regular and important to the child, was insufficient for full blown constitutional protection.  The Supreme Court stated that Father should have complied with strictly the statute.  He had not only the 50 days after Daughter’s birth to comply, but also had the time during the pregnancy.  Because he did not strictly comply, he has no right to withhold consent. Affirmed.

Dissent: Justice Nehring joined by the Chief Justice dissented finding that his relationship with Daughter was sufficient for constitutional protection.  Father did all he could

Special Note: 3-2 Decision

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/TB051410.pdf

Adoption: To Challenge an Adoption, an Out-of-State Father Must Comply With State Requirements Where He and the Mother Resided

H.U.F. and G.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT App. 10, (Utah Supreme Court, February 10, 2009).

W.P.W. the putative father of Baby Girl Stine challenged the trial Court’s findings that he failed to comply with the Utah requirements to challenge the adoption of B.G.S. W.P.W. appealed on added that the trial court violated his equal protection and due process rights. This matter was certified to the Supreme Court bypassing review by the Utah Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. First, the Court found that W.P.W. failed to preserve his Constitutional claims (due process and equal protection) by failing to argue those claims to the trial court. Second, Father argued that he established his right to contest the adoption because he had no notice of the mother’s move to Utah and because he complied with the Arizona law; where he and mother resided prior to the birth of B.G.S. However, the Supreme Court found that in order to challenge the adoption, Arizona law required W.P.W. to file a Paternity action within 30 days of receiving notice of a possible adoption. W.P.W. failed to file for Paternity within the 30 days; therefore he did not comply with the most stringent requirements. Because of his failure, he could not contest the adoption. Additionally, he failed to comply with the Utah law because he had reason to believe that the mother was residing in Utah.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/HUF021009.pdf