## Facts

- In January 2007, J.S. and T.C. had an intimate relationship, and T.C. became pregnant.
- In March 2007, T.C. told J.S. she intended to obtain an abortion, but she ultimately did not.
- In October 2007, T.C. gave birth to I.K. in Colorado and later signed a relinquishment and consent to adoption.
- Act of Love, a Utah adoption agency, placed I.K. with prospective adoptive parents P.K. and J.K.
- On November 4, 2007, an adoption agency in New Mexico contacted J.S. about an intended adoption; J.S. refused to consent and contacted an attorney to protect his parental rights.
- On November 11, 2007, P.K. and J.K. filed a petition to adopt I.K. in Utah.
- On November 20, 2007, J.S. filed a petition to establish paternity in New Mexico, but he did not file with Utah’s Putative Father Registry.
- J.S. did not learn of the Utah adoption case until January 23, 2008.
- On February 6, 2008, Act of Love filed a birth-father petition in Utah (to address the legal status of the birth father’s rights in connection with the adoption).
- J.S. moved to dismiss, arguing that his actions in New Mexico and his lack of earlier notice should preserve his ability to contest the Utah adoption.
- The Utah trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding J.S. failed to establish legal rights under Utah law before T.C. executed her relinquishment and consent.
- J.S. appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether J.S.’s New Mexico paternity petition could substitute for the steps Utah law requires an unmarried biological father to take to preserve the right to withhold consent to a Utah adoption.
2. Whether J.S.’s lack of knowledge of the Utah adoption proceedings until after the statutory time periods had passed excused his failure to take Utah’s required steps before the mother’s relinquishment.
3. Whether the trial court properly denied J.S.’s motion to dismiss the adoption-related proceedings based on his failure to timely satisfy Utah’s statutory prerequisites.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of J.S.’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that J.S. did not timely establish protected parental rights under Utah’s adoption statutes before T.C. executed her relinquishment and consent.
- The court concluded that J.S.’s out-of-state paternity filing in New Mexico did not satisfy Utah’s statutory requirements for an unmarried father seeking to preserve consent and contest rights in a Utah adoption.
- The adoption could proceed without J.S.’s consent because he did not take the Utah-required steps within the required time.

## Legal Principles

- Utah’s Adoption Act imposes specific, time-limited statutory steps on an unmarried biological father who seeks to preserve rights to notice and to withhold consent in an adoption.
- A putative father’s failure to timely complete the Utah-required steps before the mother’s relinquishment and consent can result in the father’s consent not being required for the adoption.
- Filing a paternity action in another state does not, by itself, satisfy Utah’s statutory scheme governing a Utah adoption, including requirements tied to Utah’s Putative Father Registry.
- A father’s later, actual notice of a Utah adoption proceeding does not revive rights that were lost by missing Utah’s statutory deadlines.

## Conclusion

In *In re I.K.*, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of J.S.’s motion to dismiss and held that J.S. could not block the Utah adoption because he did not timely take the steps Utah law requires for an unmarried father to preserve consent and contest rights; his New Mexico paternity petition and his late discovery of the Utah case did not substitute for those Utah statutory requirements.


In re I.K., 220 P.3d 464 (2009)