Opinion ID: 2674677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: ¶1 In this case, Christopher Carlton asks us to once again consider both the constitutionality of the Utah Adoption Act (Act) as well as the extent of the rights it affords to putative fathers who wish to contest adoptions in Utah. Mr. Carlton argues first that the Act is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him, and second, that the district court erred when, based on a lack of CARLTON v. BROWN Opinion of the Court standing, it dismissed his Amended Verified Petition to Establish Paternity, which included his constitutional challenges to the Act as well as numerous tort claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. ¶2 First, although we disagree with the district court’s reasoning regarding Mr. Carlton’s lack of standing to assert the constitutional claims, given the current state of the pleadings we would ultimately reach the same conclusion, albeit for different reasons. Nevertheless, because we also conclude that it was error for the district court to deny Mr. Carlton leave to amend his petition—which would have cured the standing defects identified below—we conclude that the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Carlton’s constitutional claims was also erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Carlton’s constitutional claims and on remand we instruct the district court to allow Mr. Carlton to amend his petition. ¶3 Second, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Carlton’s tort claims due to his failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, with the exception of one of his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Carlton asserted an IIED claim against both Shalanda Brown and The Adoption Center of Choice, Inc. (Adoption Center). As to the former, we affirm the district court’s dismissal due to inadequate service of process. But as to the latter, we reverse because the district court’s primary reason for dismissing this claim—Mr. Carlton’s failure to establish parental rights under the Act—turns on the outcome of the constitutional issues that were erroneously dismissed by the district court. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.