Utah Supreme Court
Can a biological father revoke his relinquishment of parental rights in Utah adoption cases? In re Adoption of B.B. Explained
Summary
S.A.S., a biological father, initially objected to the adoption of his daughter B.B. but later voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. He subsequently sought to revoke his relinquishment, claiming it was signed under duress and that he was denied due process by not being notified of his right to counseling. He also challenged the differential requirements for fathers’ versus mothers’ relinquishments under equal protection.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In In re Adoption of B.B., the Utah Supreme Court addressed a biological father’s attempt to revoke his relinquishment of parental rights in an adoption proceeding, clarifying important principles about voluntary relinquishment and due process rights in adoption cases.
Background and Facts
S.A.S., the biological father of B.B., initially objected to the proposed adoption and established his paternity while following all statutory requirements to preserve his parental rights. However, he later changed his mind and voluntarily relinquished his parental rights, texting the prospective adoptive parents that the decision was his “and only his” and that he felt “very good” about it. After signing the relinquishment before a notary, S.A.S. again changed his mind and filed a motion to revoke, claiming he signed under duress and was denied due process because he wasn’t notified of his right to counseling.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented three main issues: (1) whether S.A.S.’s relinquishment was truly voluntary, (2) whether failure to notify him of his statutory right to counseling invalidated the relinquishment under due process principles, and (3) whether Utah’s different relinquishment requirements for fathers versus mothers violated equal protection.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of S.A.S.’s motion. First, the court found that S.A.S. failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claim of involuntariness—his assertions were merely conclusory rather than providing specific factual basis for duress. Second, while acknowledging that parental rights are fundamental, the court rejected the due process challenge, explaining that Utah Code section 78B-6-119(4)(c) expressly provides that failure to give counseling notice “shall not constitute grounds for invalidating a relinquishment.” Finally, the court dismissed the equal protection claim for lack of standing, finding S.A.S. could not establish the necessary causal connection between the differential treatment and his injury.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that biological fathers seeking to challenge relinquishments must provide specific, factual allegations of involuntariness rather than bare conclusions. The ruling also clarifies that Utah’s statutory framework prioritizes finality in adoptions over procedural challenges based on counseling notifications, and establishes significant standing requirements for constitutional challenges to adoption statutes.
Case Details
Case Name
In re Adoption of B.B.
Citation
2020 UT 52
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20180239
Date Decided
July 23, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A biological father’s relinquishment of parental rights is valid when voluntary, and failure to notify him of statutory counseling rights does not invalidate the relinquishment under due process principles.
Standard of Review
The opinion does not explicitly state standards of review for the various issues presented
Practice Tip
When challenging a relinquishment of parental rights as involuntary, ensure factual allegations are specific and sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing, not merely conclusory assertions of duress.
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.