Utah Supreme Court
Can unwed fathers protect parental rights in interstate adoptions? Nevares v. M.L.S. Explained
Summary
Bobby Nevares filed a paternity petition after learning his child was born in Utah and placed for adoption, despite having no knowledge of the mother’s plans to come to Utah. The district court granted summary judgment against Nevares, finding he failed to establish parental rights under Colorado law as required by Utah Code section 78B-6-122.
Analysis
In Nevares v. M.L.S., the Utah Supreme Court addressed the complex intersection of interstate adoption law and paternal rights. Bobby Nevares had a brief sexual relationship with M.L.S. in Colorado, resulting in pregnancy. When M.L.S. informed Nevares of her pregnancy in August, she indicated plans to place the child for adoption. Nevares visited a Colorado adoption agency and filled out forms indicating his intent to contest any adoption.
Unknown to Nevares, M.L.S. traveled to Utah where she gave birth and placed the child for adoption. Two days after learning of the birth, Nevares filed a paternity petition in Utah district court. The respondents moved for summary judgment on two grounds: first, that the child was conceived through conduct constituting a sexual offense under Utah law, and second, that Nevares failed to establish paternal rights in Colorado as required by Utah Code section 78B-6-122.
The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The court interpreted Utah Code section 78B-6-122(1)(c)(i)(B) as merely incorporating Colorado law by reference, requiring only compliance with Colorado’s requirements for establishing paternal rights. Since Colorado law presumes an unwed father’s parental rights remain intact unless terminated through proper notice and hearing procedures, and no such proceeding occurred, Nevares’s rights were preserved.
Regarding Utah Code section 78B-6-111, which bars fathers whose children were conceived through sexual offenses, the court held this provision applies only to conduct with a jurisdictional connection to Utah. The court relied on three principles: the statute’s “regardless” clause suggesting all prerequisites for formal charges must be met, the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes, and constitutional avoidance given serious due process concerns about applying Utah law to conduct wholly outside the state.
This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling interstate adoption cases, emphasizing that Utah law will not impose requirements beyond those of the relevant out-of-state jurisdiction when fathers lack knowledge of Utah proceedings.
Case Details
Case Name
Nevares v. M.L.S.
Citation
2015 UT 34
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20120763
Date Decided
February 6, 2015
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Utah Code section 78B-6-122 merely requires compliance with the requirements of the mother’s home state law to protect a father’s interests, and Utah Code section 78B-6-111 does not apply to sexual activity between non-Utahns outside of Utah lacking jurisdictional connection to Utah.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment reviewed de novo
Practice Tip
When representing unwed fathers in interstate adoption cases, ensure compliance with the requirements of the mother’s last state of residence rather than attempting to satisfy optional paternity procedures.
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.