Must unwed fathers comply with Utah adoption laws if the mother temporarily resides in Utah? O'Dea v. Olea Explained

In O’Dea v. Olea, the Utah Supreme Court addressed the critical question of when unwed biological fathers must comply with Utah’s strict adoption statutes, even when they have already complied with other states’ paternity requirements.

Background and Facts

Cody O’Dea and Ashley Olea had an intimate relationship in Wyoming that resulted in pregnancy. After initially telling O’Dea she miscarried, Olea later revealed she was still pregnant and considering adoption. O’Dea registered with Wyoming’s putative father registry and attempted to maintain his parental rights. On June 15, 2006, Olea called O’Dea from Utah stating “I am in Utah” and that he would never see the child. Olea gave birth that same day and relinquished the child for adoption. O’Dea did not file paternity proceedings in Utah until August 14, nearly two months after receiving notice of Olea’s presence in Utah.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether O’Dea waived his parental rights by failing to strictly comply with Utah Code section 78-30-4.14(6) within twenty days of learning of a “qualifying circumstance”—namely, Olea’s temporary residence in Utah. O’Dea argued on appeal that Utah should give full faith and credit to his Wyoming registration, apply choice of law analysis, and that Utah’s adoption statutes were unconstitutional.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court first determined that O’Dea failed to preserve his constitutional and choice of law arguments because he never raised them in the district court. On the merits, the court held that Olea’s phone call stating “I am in Utah” provided sufficient inquiry notice of a qualifying circumstance. The court applied an objective standard, ruling that O’Dea’s knowledge that Olea was in Utah triggered his obligation to comply strictly with Utah law within twenty days, regardless of his prior compliance with Wyoming requirements. Since O’Dea failed to meet this deadline, he waived all rights relating to the child, including consent to adoption and notice of hearings.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes Utah’s strict compliance requirement for unwed fathers in adoption cases. Even compliance with another state’s paternity laws provides no protection once a father receives notice of the mother’s presence in Utah. The court’s adoption of an objective “inquiry notice” standard means that any indication the mother may be in Utah triggers the twenty-day compliance period. Chief Justice Durham’s dissent raises important questions about what constitutes “temporary residence” versus a brief visit, suggesting this area may see future litigation.