What happens when an alleged father abandons his paternity claim during proceedings? Hinkle v. Jacobsen Explained

In Hinkle v. Jacobsen, the Utah Supreme Court addressed the consequences of abandoning a paternity claim during legal proceedings. The case provides important guidance on waiver doctrine and the importance of maintaining consistent legal theories in family law appeals.

Background and Facts

Theresa Hinkle and Korey Jacobsen married in 2002 and separated in 2005. During the separation, Hinkle began a relationship with Jody Rhorer, and a child was conceived and born. Because Hinkle and Jacobsen remained married when the child was born, Jacobsen was the child’s presumed father under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA). When divorce proceedings began in 2012, Rhorer intervened, claiming to be the child’s biological father and seeking to establish paternity through genetic testing.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether Rhorer had standing to establish paternity under the UUPA and whether he had abandoned his paternity claim. The district court initially found Rhorer lacked statutory standing but provided an opportunity to develop facts for a potential constitutional challenge. However, rather than pursuing constitutional arguments, Rhorer began seeking “dual fatherhood” and shared parent-time without challenging Jacobsen’s presumed father status.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The district court concluded that Rhorer had abandoned his paternity claim by failing to brief constitutional issues adequately and by seeking a “hybrid role” that would grant him parent-time without establishing legal paternity. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court found that Rhorer had waived any challenge to the abandonment finding by failing to address it in his opening brief, addressing it only in his reply brief after the appellee raised the waiver argument.

Practice Implications

This case underscores the importance of maintaining consistent legal theories throughout family law proceedings. Practitioners must adequately brief all constitutional challenges when statutory standing is questionable and avoid shifting between incompatible legal theories. The decision also reinforces that waiver doctrine applies strictly—arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs will not be considered by appellate courts. The case demonstrates that even when favorable changes in law occur (as referenced in the companion Castro v. Lemus decision), parties who have waived their claims cannot benefit from those developments.