When can biological fathers challenge paternity in Utah family courts? Pearson v. Pearson Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about biological fathers’ rights to challenge paternity in Pearson v. Pearson. This case demonstrates how the Schoolcraft test protects children from disruptive paternity challenges while balancing competing parental interests.

Background and Facts

Kelly and Kimberlee Pearson were married when Kimberlee became pregnant through an affair with Peter Thanos. Despite knowing Thanos was likely the biological father, the couple attempted to save their marriage with Kelly agreeing to raise Z.P. as his own child. Kelly was listed as the father on Z.P.’s birth certificate and raised him for the first sixteen months. During this period, Thanos had minimal contact with Z.P., seeing him only about six times and providing no support. After the Pearsons separated when Z.P. was nine months old, Thanos sought to intervene in their divorce proceedings and establish his paternity.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Thanos had standing to challenge Z.P.’s paternity under the Schoolcraft test. This test examines two policy considerations: preserving marriage stability and protecting children from disruptive and unnecessary attacks on their paternity. The trial court also had to determine the appropriate custody arrangement based on the paternity determination.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Thanos lacked Schoolcraft standing to challenge paternity. Regarding the first prong, the court found that the Pearsons’ efforts to maintain their marriage after learning of Thanos’s paternity remained relevant even post-divorce. For the second prong, the court emphasized that Z.P. had formed strong paternal bonds with Kelly during Thanos’s absence. Expert testimony confirmed Z.P. identified Kelly as his father and shared a “secure, strong and healthy” attachment with him. The court determined Thanos’s challenge would be both disruptive to these established bonds and unnecessary given Z.P. already had a loving father figure.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that biological fathers can lose standing to challenge paternity through their own inaction. The court analogized Thanos’s situation to unmarried fathers who must act promptly to preserve parental rights before adoption. Family law practitioners should advise biological fathers that waiting too long to establish paternity—particularly after a child forms bonds with another father figure—may permanently bar their claims. The decision also reinforces that courts will prioritize a child’s established relationships over biological connections when applying the Schoolcraft test.