R.C.S. v. A.O.L. (In re Baby Girl T.)

• Decision Date: 23 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 20100546.,20100546.
• Parties: In re BABY GIRL T., a person under eighteen years of age. R.C.S., Appellant, v. A.O.L., Appellee.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

298 P.3d 1251

In re BABY GIRL T., a person under eighteen years of age.R.C.S., Appellant,

v.A.O.L., Appellee.

No. 20100546.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 23, 2012.

Unconstitutional as Applied

West's U.C.A. § 78B–6–121(4)

Daniel S. Drage, Ogden, for appellant.

Larry S. Jenkins, Lance D. Rich, Salt Lake City, for appellee.

On Certification from the Utah Court of Appeals

Justice DURHAM, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Ramsey Shaud challenges the district court's determination of his rights as a birth father and its grant of a motion in limine preventing his presentation of evidence. The district court concluded that Mr. Shaud did not comply with the provisions of the Utah Adoption Act and therefore waived the right to notice of any judicial proceeding in connection with the adoption of Baby Girl T., as well as the right to refuse to consent to her adoption. It also barred him from presenting evidence that the reason he failed to comply with requirements of the Act was because state employees negligently failed to register his notice of paternity proceedings prior to the birth mother's execution of a consent to adoption.

¶ 2 We hold that the Act is constitutionally defective as applied to Mr. Shaud and deprived him of “a meaningful chance to preserve his opportunity to develop a relationship with his child,” T.M. v. B.B. (In re Adoption of T.B.), 2010 UT 42, ¶ 31, 232 P.3d 1026. We therefore reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Shasta B. Tew and Mr. Shaud, residents of Florida, engaged in a sexual relationship and conceived Baby Girl T. Ms. Tew learned that she was pregnant in early June of 2009. She informed Mr. Shaud that she was pregnant and told him that the child was his. Mr. Shaud told Ms. Tew that he wanted to participate in all the prenatal doctor appointments, attend the child's birth, and ultimately raise the child. Ms. Tew informed Mr. Shaud that she would place the child for adoption.

¶ 4 Mr. Shaud attempted to convince Ms. Tew not to give the child up for adoption and that he was capable of caring for the child. Ms. Tew apparently did not respond to most of Mr. Shaud's entreaties. When she did communicate with Mr. Shaud, it was to request that he sign the necessary paperwork to place the child for adoption. In their last telephone communication before the child's birth, Mr. Shaud again insisted that he be allowed to raise the child. In mid-December, Ms. Tew sent Mr. Shaud a letter stating, “I'll be in Arizona and Utah with my family for the holidays and stay on in Utah for a while.” Mr. Shaud continued to send Ms. Tew online messages, attempting to convince her to let him have the baby, but Ms. Tew did not respond.

¶ 5 Presumably based on his belief that Ms. Tew was going to be somewhere in Utah to deliver the child,¹ Mr. Shaud retained Utah counsel in early January to assert his paternity claim and prevent a potential adoption. ² Mr. Shaud's counsel filed a petition to establish paternity and a sworn affidavit with the district court on January 12, 2010. That same day, Mr. Shaud's counsel also sent via facsimile a copy of the notice of commencement of paternity proceedings to the Office of Vital Records and Statistics of the Utah Department of Health (Vital Records). Mr. Shaud's counsel also mailed the original notice. According to Mr. Shaud, Vital Records received this mailing two days later, on January 14. He also asserts that the original time stamp on the mailing envelope, indicating receipt on January 14, was later crossed out and that the envelope was re-stamped as received on January 20. Vital Records entered Mr. Shaud's notice into its confidential putative father registry on January 20, 2010, at 9:15 a.m.

¶ 6 Ms. Tew gave birth to Baby Girl T. on January 15, 2010, nearly a month premature. On January 19, Ms. Tew signed an affidavit consenting to the child's adoption through A Act of Love Adoptions (Act of Love), an adoption agency. Act of Love then contacted Vital Records to determine whether anyone had filed a notice of paternity proceedings. At 8:30 a.m. on January 20, 2010, Vital Records informed Act of Love that it had searched its paternity registry and that “[n]o paternity proceedings have been found pertaining to the child in question.” This occurred forty-five minutes before Vital Records entered Mr. Shaud's notice into the registry. Act of Love proceeded with the adoption.

¶ 7 A few weeks later, Act of Love filed a verified petition for the determination of Mr. Shaud's parental rights, asserting that he had waived any rights regarding the child because his notice was not entered into the Vital Records registry before Ms. Tew executed her consent to the adoption. Mr. Shaud's counsel gathered evidence that Vital Records had been negligent in entering the notice in a timely manner, and that it had strayed from its normal practice of accepting notices sent via facsimile, rather than requiring originals.³ Act of Love filed a motion in limine to exclude any evidence that Vital Records was negligent because the Adoption Act explicitly states that a notice of paternity proceedings is not “considered filed [until] it is entered into the registry,” Utah Code § 78B–6–121(4), and that acts or omissions of third parties do not excuse an unmarried biological father from strictly complying with the Act's requirements, id. § 78B–6–106(1). The district court granted the motion and held that Mr. Shaud had relinquished his rights. It concluded that Mr. Shaud had not strictly complied with the Act because his notice of paternity proceedings had not been entered into the Vital Records registry before Ms. Tew consented to the adoption.

¶ 8 Mr. Shaud timely appealed the district court's ruling, and the court of appeals certified the case to this court. We have jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A–3–102(3)(b).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 “We review questions of statutory interpretation for correctness, affording no deference to the district court's legal conclusions.” State v. Parduhn, 2011 UT 57, ¶ 16, 266 P.3d 765 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Constitutional challenges to statutes present questions of law, which we review for correctness.” State v. Robinson, 2011 UT 30, ¶ 7, 254 P.3d 183 (internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Under the Adoption Act, the consent of an unmarried biological father is not required before his child is placed with adoptive parents if the father does not satisfy certain requirements. SeeUtah Code § 78B–6–121(3). The requirement central to this appeal is that an unwed father must “file[ ] notice of the commencement of paternity proceedings ... with [Vital Records], in a confidential registry established by the department for that purpose.” Id. § 78B–6–121(3)(c). This notice “is considered filed when it is entered [by Vital Records] into the registry.” Id. § 78B–6–121(4).

¶ 11 The Act's requirements operate under the presumption that an unwed father knows that his “child may be adopted without his consent unless he strictly complies with the provisions of [the Act].” Id.§ 78B–6–102(6)(f). This court has consistently upheld the Act's strict compliance standard as constitutionally sound. See, e.g., Sanchez v. L.D.S. Soc. Servs., 680 P.2d 753, 755 (Utah 1984) (“It is of no constitutional importance that [an unwed father] came close to complying with the statute.”). But see Thurnwald v. A.E., 2007 UT 38, ¶¶ 39–40, 163 P.3d 623 (avoiding an interpretation of the Act that would impose an “uncertain filing period” on an unwed father because it would violate principles of due process). We have upheld the Act's strict compliance standard in part because an unwed father's biological connection to his child does not automatically grant him a fundamental constitutional right to parenthood. Rather, an unwed father has a “provisional right” to parenthood, Wells v. Children's Aid Soc'y of Utah, 681 P.2d 199, 206 (Utah 1984), and due process requires only that an unwed father have “a meaningful chance to preserve his opportunity to develop a relationship with his child,” T.M. v. B.B. (In re Adoption of T.B.), 2010 UT 42, ¶ 31, 232 P.3d 1026.

¶ 12 But we have not had occasion to address whether due process concerns arise when a father's failure to strictly comply with the Act is allegedly due to a state agency's negligence entirely outside his control. “[A] statute fair upon its face may be shown to be void and unenforceable as applied.” In re Adoption of Baby Boy Doe, 717 P.2d 686, 689 (Utah 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). As mentioned above, the Act requires that an unwed father file notice of the commencement of paternity proceedings with Vital Records, and this notice is “considered filed” only upon Vital Records' entry of the notice into its confidential registry. Mr. Shaud contends that he provided facsimile and original copies of his notice to Vital Records prior to Ms. Tew's execution of a consent to adoption. However, due to Vital Records' alleged negligence, Mr. Shaud's notice was not entered into the registry until after Ms. Tew executed her consent. The district court concluded that Mr. Shaud did not strictly comply with the Act because his notice was not timely filed and that any acts or omissions by Vital Records did not excuse his failure to strictly comply with the Act.

¶ 13 This is an “exceptional case.” In re Adoption of T.B., 2010 UT 42, ¶ 42, 232 P.3d 1026 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the outset we note that, as this case demonstrates, the statute creates an anomaly: a putative father is charged with strict compliance with a requirement he has no power to fulfill. While he may control the delivery of the notice to Vital Records, only the agency may enter it in the registry, which is the actual act of “filing.” Therefore, when the statute purports to require the father to “file,” it is requiring an act he has no legal or actual ability to do.

¶ 14 Under the district court's interpretation of the Act, an unwed father does...