Utah Supreme Court
Does Utah's adoption statute apply to out-of-state sexual conduct? In re Adoption of J.M.S. Explained
Summary
A Pennsylvania man fathered a child with a 14-year-old when he was 18, leading to criminal charges in Pennsylvania. When the child was placed for adoption in Utah, the district court denied his motion to intervene under Utah Code section 78B-6-111, which bars fathers whose children were conceived through sexual offenses from challenging adoptions.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question about the territorial reach of Utah’s adoption laws in In re Adoption of J.M.S., 2015 UT 35. The case involved Utah Code section 78B-6-111, which prevents biological fathers from challenging adoptions when their children were conceived through conduct constituting a sexual offense.
Background and Facts
Jacob David Brooks, an 18-year-old Pennsylvania resident, had sexual contact with a 14-year-old in Pennsylvania, resulting in pregnancy. Pennsylvania law criminalized this conduct due to the age difference. Brooks was charged with statutory sexual assault but pled guilty to the lesser offense of indecent assault. When the birth mother placed the child for adoption in Utah, Brooks sought to intervene in the proceedings. The district court denied his motion, ruling that section 78B-6-111 applied because his conduct would have constituted a sexual offense under Utah law.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether section 78B-6-111 applies to sexual conduct between non-Utahns occurring outside Utah’s borders. The statute bars fathers from adoption proceedings when children were “conceived as a result of conduct which would constitute any sexual offense described in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4,” regardless of formal charges or convictions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 78B-6-111 does not apply to conduct lacking jurisdictional nexus to Utah. The court relied on three interpretive principles: the statute’s “regardless” clause suggesting all elements for a formal charge must be present, the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes, and the canon of constitutional avoidance given potential due process concerns. The court emphasized that Utah criminal law could not have sustained charges against Brooks for Pennsylvania conduct involving non-Utahns.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly limits section 78B-6-111’s application to cases with Utah connections. The court noted that other legal mechanisms remain available, including statutes from the state where conception occurred that may terminate parental rights based on criminal misconduct. On remand, parties must prove such grounds by clear and convincing evidence under Santosky v. Kramer standards.
Case Details
Case Name
In re Adoption of J.M.S.
Citation
2015 UT 35
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20120683
Date Decided
February 6, 2015
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Utah Code section 78B-6-111, which forecloses a biological father’s parental rights when a child was conceived through conduct constituting a sexual offense, does not apply to sexual activity between non-Utahns occurring outside of Utah.
Standard of Review
Correctness
Practice Tip
When challenging the application of Utah Code section 78B-6-111, carefully analyze whether the alleged sexual conduct has sufficient jurisdictional connection to Utah to trigger the statute’s application.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.