Can a putative father challenge paternity when the child has a presumed father? Balentine v. Gehring Explained

In Balentine v. Gehring, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the complex issue of standing for putative fathers seeking to establish paternity when a child already has a presumed father through marriage.

Background and Facts

Corina Gehring was married when she became pregnant during a separation from her husband. After reconciling, she gave birth in December 2002, with her husband listed as the father on the birth certificate. Nearly a year later, the parties agreed to genetic testing, which confirmed Raymond Balentine could not be ruled out as the biological father. Gehring subsequently allowed Balentine weekend visitation and accepted child support payments. In January 2005, during marital difficulties, Gehring signed a notarized statement giving Balentine “temporary custody” as the “biological father,” but later revoked this arrangement when she reconciled with her husband.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether Balentine had standing to challenge paternity under Utah law and which version of Utah’s parentage statutes applied to the case. The trial court granted summary judgment against Balentine, concluding he lacked standing under both the new Utah Uniform Parentage Act and the Schoolcraft analysis.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding two critical errors. First, the trial court incorrectly applied the Utah Uniform Parentage Act, which became effective May 2, 2005, to a petition filed April 25, 2005. Under the controlling former Uniform Act on Paternity, putative fathers could petition for paternity determination without the restrictions found in the newer statute. Second, summary judgment was inappropriate for the Schoolcraft standing analysis because disputed material facts existed regarding the marriage’s stability and the potential impact on the child.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of determining which version of Utah’s parentage statutes applies based on filing dates. Practitioners should note that the Schoolcraft analysis requires factual findings about marriage stability and potential harm to the child, making summary judgment inappropriate when these facts are disputed. The case also demonstrates how a mother’s conduct in acknowledging paternity and allowing father-child relationships can create disputed issues of material fact affecting standing determinations.