S.A.S. v. K.H.B. (In re B.B.)

• Decision Date: 23 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20180239,20180239
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the ADOPTION OF B.B., a person under eighteen years of age S.A.S., Appellant, v. K.H.B. and K.R.B., Appellees.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

469 P.3d 1083

In the MATTER OF the ADOPTION OF B.B., a person under eighteen years of ageS.A.S., Appellant,

v.K.H.B. and K.R.B., Appellees.

No. 20180239

Supreme Court of Utah.

Heard November 12, 2019

Filed July 23, 2020

Mark L. Shurtleff, Sandy, for appellant

K. Paul MacArthur, Stephanie L. O'Brien, Provo, for appellees

Associate Chief Justice Lee authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Himonas, Justice Pearce, and Justice Petersen joined.

Associate Chief Justice Lee, opinion of the Court:

¶1 This is a biological father's appeal from the entry of an adoption decree. The father (S.A.S.) initially objected to the adoption of his biological daughter (B.B.) but eventually consented and signed a relinquishment of parental rights. He later changed his mind and filed a motion to revoke his relinquishment, asserting that he had signed it under duress. The district court denied the motion on the ground that S.A.S. had failed to identify an evidentiary basis for his bare allegation that his relinquishment was involuntary. It also rejected his contentions that he had a due process right to have his relinquishment invalidated by the adoptive parents’ failure to notify him of his statutory right to receive counseling in connection with his relinquishment, and that he had an equal protection right to the same strict relinquishment requirements applicable to a birth mother.

¶2 We affirm. First, S.A.S. has identified no basis for a conclusion that his relinquishment was involuntary. Second, any failure to notify him of his statutory right to receive counseling did not invalidate the relinquishment. Finally, S.A.S. lacks standing to assert an equal protection challenge to the relinquishment requirements that apply to biological fathers.

I

¶3 B.B. was born out of wedlock in September 2016. Shortly after B.B.’s birth, the birth mother relinquished B.B. to K.H.B. and K.R.B., who filed a petition to adopt the child. S.A.S. initially objected to the adoption and filed an action seeking to establish his paternity and gain custody. He successfully established paternity and followed all statutory requirements for preserving his parental rights, including those found in Utah Code sections 78B-6-121 and 78B-6-122 (requiring birth fathers to, among other things, file an affidavit setting forth their commitment to provide for the child).

¶4 Later on, however, S.A.S. decided to consent to the adoption. On June 16, 2017, he texted K.H.B. about a letter sent by S.A.S.’s lawyer representing that he would sign a relinquishment of his parental rights if K.H.B. and K.R.B. would pay his attorney fees. S.A.S. said that he "regret[ted]" making that demand and told the prospective adoptive parents "to refuse to pay any money." He said he was sorry it had taken him so long to come to this "most difficult" of decisions but that he now "fe[lt] very good" about the adoption. He said he was going with the birth mother "either tomorrow or the beginning of the week" to "sign the papers," and emphasized that the "decision [to sign] was [his] and only [his]." S.A.S. explained that he had "discovered a lot about [his] family," including that "the condition that [his] family [wa]s in would not be the one hundred percent best place for [his] little girl." He said he had "had to take a step back [to] really find that out" but was "very glad" he had because he was "at peace with [his] decision."

¶5 The following day, S.A.S. signed his relinquishment before a notary public. The birth mother accompanied him. She testified that S.A.S. was "anxious" to sign and even "considered it urgent for him" to do so. Before signing, S.A.S. "read through the Consent thoroughly" and "knew that he was doing something special." The birth mother said it "was apparent to [her] that he signed it freely and voluntarily." The next day, S.A.S. sent another text message to K.H.B. saying that he felt "extremely good about [his] decision" and was "at peace with it."

¶6 S.A.S. later had yet another change of heart. On July 28, 2017, he filed a motion to revoke his voluntary relinquishment, asserting that it had been signed involuntarily—under "undue inducement, coercion, or fraud." In support of the motion, S.A.S. asserted that he had been influenced by K.H.B. and K.R.B.’s promise to provide him with the same level of contact with B.B. that they had agreed to give the birth mother. And he claimed that K.H.B. and K.R.B. had not kept this promise after he signed the relinquishment. Citing these facts, S.A.S. sought to have the motion to revoke his relinquishment heard at an upcoming evidentiary hearing.

¶7 S.A.S. also sought to have his relinquishment invalidated on due process grounds. He claimed his relinquishment should be invalidated because he had not been notified of his statutory right to counseling before signing it.¹ Relying on the fundamental nature of his parental rights, S.A.S. asserted that Utah Code section 78B-6-119(4)(c) ’s provision of monetary damages as the sole remedy is unconstitutional because "it denies a birth parent the right to revoke a relinquishment or consent to adoption when the mandated due process right of counseling is not provided."

¶8 Finally, S.A.S. asserted that he had an equal protection right to the same relinquishment signing requirements binding the birth mother. Under Utah Code section 78B-6-124(4), a birth mother's relinquishment of parental rights may only be taken before a judge or her designee, who must certify that the relinquishment was signed "freely and voluntarily." By contrast, a biological father's relinquishment need only be signed before a notary public, without any certification of voluntariness by the notary public. Id. § 78B-6-124(3). S.A.S. claimed that there is no important governmental interest substantially advanced by this differing treatment based on gender, and asserted that the statute thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

¶9 The district court rejected each of S.A.S.’s claims. First, it determined that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because S.A.S. had failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claim or merit a hearing. In the district court's view, S.A.S. had only "alleged his conclusion that his consent was not voluntarily given[ ] and that he was subject to undue inducement, coercion, or fraud." (Emphasis added.) And his bare assertion that his decision had been influenced by the prospective adoptive parents’ (allegedly unkept) promise to provide him with the same level of contact that they had agreed to give the birth mother was insufficient. In fact, the district court found that the text messages in the record and affidavits submitted to the court "provide[d] substantial evidence that Birth Father considered 1) his claim to be the Birth Father, 2) the [adoptive parents’] desire to adopt the Child, 3) his contemplation of the best interests of the Child, and 4) his reasons for deciding to sign the Relinquishment after initially opposing it." The court thus determined that "[f]rom the evidence provided, the issue of Birth Father acting freely, knowingly and voluntarily is not disputed."

¶10 The district court then rejected S.A.S.’s argument that "the relinquishment [was] invalid because he was not notified of his right to paid, independent, unbiased, therapeutic counseling prior to making a decision to relinquish his parental rights" under Utah Code section 78B-6-119. The court concluded that any failure to give the required statutory notice "d[id] not invalidate [S.A.S.’s] relinquishment" or "form a basis to rescind it," because Utah Code section 78B-6-119(4)(c) expressly states that "[f]ailure by a person to give ... notice" of the right to counseling "shall not constitute grounds for invalidating a[ ] relinquishment of parental rights; or consent to adoption."

¶11 The district court thus rejected S.A.S.’s due process claim, characterizing it as an assertion that "[m]onetary damages for violation of a requirement designed to protect fundamental constitutional rights are not [a] sufficient substitute for the loss of a child, and therefore Utah Code section 78B-6-119(4)(c) as written (and as applied in this case) is unconstitutional in denying guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights." The court then determined that the question whether monetary damages is a sufficient remedy for violation of a statute protecting due process rights is "a legislative determination requiring the balancing of competing public policies." It pointed to the fact that "[m]oney damages often are based on violation of fundamental due process claims" and concluded that S.A.S. had "fail[ed] to develop an argument why in this case, the legislature [cannot] establish monetary damages as the remedy for violation of Birth Father's due process rights."

¶12 Finally, the district court rejected S.A.S.’s equal protection claim. The court reasoned that "the differing requirements for consent outlined by Section 78B-6-124 are appropriate based upon the differing circumstances which mothers and fathers face." The court concluded that in light of these differences, "the legislature's determination that [the birth mother] be afforded additional safeguards was reasonable" and furthered the important governmental interest of "the best interests of children." So the court found no equal protection violation.

¶13 After making this ruling and allowing the birth mother to sign a new relinquishment, the district court entered the adoption decree on March 23, 2018. S.A.S. filed this appeal in the court of appeals, which certified the case to this court.

¶14 At oral argument in this case we raised the question of S.A.S.’s standing to assert his equal protection claim. And we issued a supplemental briefing order asking the parties to address various questions related to standing.

II

¶15 Three questions are presented for our review: (A) whether the district court erred in determining that...