Can an alleged father challenge paternity during an intact marriage under Utah law? R.P. v. K.S.W. and D.R.W. Explained

In a significant ruling on paternity challenges, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the strict standing requirements under Utah’s Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA) for challenging a presumed father’s paternity during an intact marriage.

Background and Facts

R.P., an alleged biological father, became involved with K.S.W., a married woman, who became pregnant during her marriage to D.R.W. When K.S.W. informed R.P. of the pregnancy and her intention to remain married, R.P. filed a petition to establish paternity. The parties entered a mediated settlement agreement, but complications arose when K.S.W. later sought to set aside the agreement and dismiss R.P.’s petition for lack of standing. The district court ultimately dismissed R.P.’s petition, ruling he lacked standing to challenge the husband’s presumed paternity.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether R.P. had standing under the UUPA to challenge the paternity of D.R.W., who was the presumed father under Utah Code section 78B-15-204(1)(a) because he was married to the mother when the child was born. R.P. argued that the common law Schoolcraft test should supplement the UUPA’s standing provisions, while the married couple contended that section 607 of the UUPA strictly limited standing to the presumed father and mother only.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals conducted a detailed statutory interpretation of UUPA section 607, which provides that paternity “may be raised by the presumed father or the mother at any time prior to filing an action for divorce.” Despite ambiguous language, the court concluded that this provision limits standing to only these two parties during an intact marriage. The court found that the UUPA’s comprehensive framework preempts the common law Schoolcraft analysis, noting Utah’s intentional deviation from the uniform act’s broader standing provisions. The court emphasized that this interpretation serves the legislative purpose of protecting marital stability and preventing disruptive challenges by outsiders to the marriage.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly restricts paternity challenges in Utah, marking a clear departure from the more flexible common law approach. Practitioners should note that the UUPA’s standing limitations apply regardless of factors that might have supported standing under Schoolcraft, such as an alleged father’s relationship with the child or payment of support. The ruling also demonstrates the importance of preserving objections, as R.P.’s failure to challenge the dismissal of the mother’s counterpetition waived his ability to proceed under that avenue for relief.