Opinion ID: 2635796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statutory Framework for Unmarried Biological Fathers Applicable to Mr. O'Dea

Text: ¶ 28 Under Utah law, an unmarried biological father of a child under six months of age waives all rights in relation to his child, including rights associated with consent to adoption and notice of a hearing, if he does not strictly comply with the requirements set forth in section 78-30-4.14(6). Utah Code Ann. § 78-30-4.14(11). An unmarried biological father can only establish himself as a person who must consent to the adoption of the child if he strictly complies with the following requirements: (a) initiates proceedings to establish paternity under Title 78, Chapter 45g, Utah Uniform Parentage Act; (b) files with the court that is presiding over the paternity proceeding a sworn affidavit: (i) stating that he is fully able and willing to have full custody of the child; (ii) setting forth his plans for care of the child; and (iii) agreeing to a court order of child support and the payment of expenses incurred in connection with the mother's pregnancy and the child's birth; (c) consistent with Subsection (7), files notice of the commencement of paternity proceedings with the state registrar of vital statistics within the Department of Health, in a confidential registry established by the department for that purpose; and (d) offered to pay and paid a fair and reasonable amount of the expenses incurred in connection with the mothers' pregnancy and the child's birth, in accordance with his financial ability, unless: (i) he did not have actual knowledge of the pregnancy; (ii) he was prevented from paying the expenses by the person or authorized agency having lawful custody of the child; or (iii) the mother refuses to accept the unmarried biological father's offer to pay the expenses described in this Subsection (6)(d). Id. § 78-30-4.14(6)(a)-(d). These requirements must be completed before the day on which the birth mother executes her consent for the adoption or relinquishes the child for adoption. Id. § 783-0-4.14(6). ¶ 29 Two statutory exceptions excuse the unmarried biological father from strict compliance. The first exception addresses unmarried biological fathers who did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have known, before the time the mother executed a consent to adoption or relinquishment of the child for adoption, that a qualifying circumstance existed. Id. § 78-30-4.14(10)(b)(i)(A). Fathers who meet this standard, but who fully complied with the requirements to establish parental rights in the child, and to preserve the right to notice in the state where the father knew or should have known the mother resided before relinquishment of the child or the state of conception, do not waive their rights to consent to the adoption or to receive notice of a hearing even if the fathers do not strictly comply with the requirements of section 78-30-4.14(6). Id. § 78-30-4.14(10)(b)(i)(B). ¶ 30 The second exception addresses unmarried biological fathers who knew, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, before the time the mother executed a consent to adoption or relinquishment of the child for adoption, that a qualifying circumstance existed. Id. § 78-30-4.14(10)(b)(ii)(A). A father who falls under this second standard of knowledge must comply with all the requirements listed in section 78-30-4.14(6) before the latter of the date the birth mother executed a consent to adoption or relinquishment of the child or twenty days after the unmarried biological father knew or should have known through reasonable diligence that a qualifying circumstance existed. Id. § 78-30-4.14(10)(b)(ii)(B). Fathers who fall under this exception are not excused from completing the four requirements listed in section 78-30-4.14(6), but rather are granted a brief extension of time to complete the requirements. Thus, the analysis of whether Mr. O'Dea was eligible to avail himself of this exception depends on whether he knew, or should have known through reasonable diligence, that a qualifying circumstance existed. If Mr. O'Dea knew or should have known a qualifying circumstance existed, strict compliance with another state's paternity requirements will not preserve his parental rights in Utah. Rather, he must still strictly comply with the requirements listed in section 78-30-4.14(6). ¶ 31 Because we find that the phone call made by Ms. Olea to Mr. O'Dea informing him that she was in Utah gave Mr. O'Dea sufficient notice that a qualifying circumstance existed, we do not reach whether Mr. O'Dea's compliance with Wyoming or Montana law establishes his right to consent to the adoption or to receive notice of any judicial proceeding concerning the adoption in Utah. Having established the statutory framework of Mr. O'Dea's claim, we now address whether Mr. O'Dea is subject to strict compliance to Utah Code section 78-30-4.14(6).