Can voluntary relinquishments of parental rights be enforced against married fathers? B.J.M. and A.F.M. v. B.S. Explained

In B.J.M. and A.F.M. v. B.S., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah’s Adoption Act permits enforcement of voluntary relinquishments of parental rights against married fathers and whether such enforcement requires consideration of the children’s best interests.

Background and Facts

Following their divorce, the father executed a voluntary relinquishment of his parental rights to facilitate adoption by the mother’s future husband. The father continued paying child support and exercising visitation for nearly two years. When the mother and stepfather eventually filed termination proceedings, a different judge enforced the relinquishment. The father challenged this decision on multiple grounds, including that the Relinquishment Statute should not apply to married fathers who had established relationships with their children.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed several issues: whether the law of the case doctrine prevented the second judge from enforcing the relinquishment; whether the Relinquishment Statute applies to married fathers; whether a best interests analysis was required before terminating the father’s rights; and whether equitable doctrines barred enforcement.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, looking first to the plain language of Utah Code section 78B-6-126. The statute provides that relinquishments are “effective when signed and may not be revoked,” without distinguishing between married and unmarried fathers. The court noted that other provisions of the Adoption Act expressly distinguish between married and unmarried fathers, indicating the legislature intended the general provisions to apply to both groups unless otherwise specified.

Regarding the best interests requirement, the court distinguished between termination proceedings and subsequent adoption proceedings. Unlike the Juvenile Court Act, the Adoption Act does not require a best interests analysis before enforcing voluntary relinquishments. The court acknowledged potential constitutional concerns about children’s rights but noted the father failed to raise such arguments.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that voluntary relinquishments under Utah’s Adoption Act are immediately effective against all fathers, regardless of marital status or relationship with the children. Practitioners should note the court’s policy concerns about creating “legal orphans” when involved parents’ rights are terminated without assurance of stepparent adoption. The decision also highlights the importance of raising constitutional arguments regarding children’s rights when challenging relinquishment enforcement, as statutory interpretation alone may be insufficient given the Act’s plain language.