Opinion ID: 2747938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: ¶85 I dissent. First, Utah Code section 78B-6-121(3)(b) unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of gender stereotypes and is thus repugnant to the principle of equal protection enshrined in both the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution. Second, the majority refuses to analyze Mr. Bolden‘s claim under procedural due process at all. Finally, the majority fails to employ strict scrutiny review despite the fact that section 78B-6-121(3)(B) Infringes upon Mr. Bolden‘s fundamental parental rights. Although I believe the statute is unconstitutional primarily as a violation of equal protection, I also dissent because the affidavit requirement violates the Due Process Clause where it infringes on Mr. Bolden‘s fundamental parental rights but is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. ¶86 ―The relationship between parent and child is protected by the federal and state constitutions.‖1 Among the persons entitled to protection are unmarried fathers.2 The liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children ―is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests‖ recognized by the United States Supreme Court.3 Mr. Bolden challenges Utah Code section 78B-6-121(3)(b)—the affidavit requirement—as a violation of both due process and equal protection under the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution. I would hold that (1) Utah Code section 78B-6-121(3)(b) unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of gender stereotypes and thus fails to survive intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, (2) as applied to Mr. Bolden, the process set forth in section 78B-6-121(3) is fundamentally unfair and thus a deprivation of procedural due 1 Wells v. Children’s Aid Soc’y, 681 P.2d 199, 202 (Utah 1984). 2 Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 261 (1983); Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 394 (1979); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Thurnwald v. A.E., 2007 UT 38, ¶¶ 25, 28, 163 P.3d 623; Wells, 681 P.2d at 202. 3 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); see also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923). 45 In re Adoption of J.S. NEHRING, A.C.J., dissenting process, and (3) section 121(3) infringes upon a fundamental right and is unconstitutional under strict scrutiny review.