Can parties stipulate to grant standing in Utah adoption proceedings? In re E.H. Explained

In In re E.H., the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether parties in an adoption proceeding could enter into a binding stipulation that granted a birth mother standing to participate in best interests determinations, even after she had relinquished her parental rights.

Background and Facts

Birth mother T.H. relinquished her parental rights to son E.H. to facilitate adoption by R.C. and S.C. After living with the adoptive family and observing concerning dynamics, T.H. challenged the adoption. The parties entered a stipulation agreeing that an independent psychologist would evaluate E.H.’s best interests and make binding custody recommendations. When the psychologist recommended custody return to the birth mother, the adoptive parents challenged the stipulation’s validity, and the trial court voided it, excluding T.H. from further proceedings.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed four primary issues: whether the stipulation constituted an impermissible delegation of judicial authority; the application of the law of the case doctrine to the trial court’s rejection of the stipulation; whether the birth mother had standing to participate in adoption proceedings after relinquishment; and the validity of her relinquishment of parental rights.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that the stipulation did not impermissibly delegate judicial authority because it preserved the court’s ultimate responsibility to determine the child’s best interests. The court distinguished between core judicial functions that cannot be delegated and procedural agreements that aid fact-finding. Regarding standing, the court ruled that Utah Code section 78-30-4.13(11) demonstrates legislative intent to ground intervention rights on the ability to present relevant evidence about a child’s best interests, not merely on parental status. The court found that standing acquired by stipulation is enforceable and that the birth mother met intervention requirements under Rule 24(a).

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that parties in adoption proceedings have considerable freedom to structure best interests determinations through stipulation, provided core judicial authority is preserved. Practitioners should carefully draft such agreements to ensure they serve the child’s interests while maintaining judicial oversight. The ruling also establishes that relinquishment of parental rights does not automatically preclude participation in adoption proceedings when authorized by stipulation or when a party can demonstrate relevant evidence concerning the child’s welfare.