Can fraudulent paternity declarations still establish parental rights under Utah law? Scott v. Benson Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a unique paternity question in Scott v. Benson: whether a man can maintain parental rights through a voluntary declaration of paternity that was admittedly fraudulent from inception.

Background and Facts

Scott began dating Benson when she was already pregnant with another man’s child. After the biological father died, Scott assumed a paternal role for several years. In 2018, both parties knowingly executed a fraudulent voluntary declaration of paternity, falsely claiming Scott was the biological father. When their relationship deteriorated in 2019, Benson denied Scott access to the child and challenged the declaration under Utah Code section 78B-15-307 for fraud and material mistake of fact.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Scott qualified as a declarant father under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act after executing a knowingly fraudulent declaration, and whether section 78B-15-608 could apply to preserve his parental rights despite the successful fraud challenge.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that Scott qualified as a declarant father because he formally claimed paternity when signing the declaration, regardless of his knowledge that the claim was false. The statutory definition of “claim” includes both good-faith and bad-faith assertions. More importantly, the court rejected the trial court’s finding that the declaration was “void ab initio.” The Act specifies only limited circumstances when declarations are void from inception, and successful section 78B-15-307 challenges are not among them. Instead, such challenges set aside declarations on a forward-looking basis, allowing courts to still consider section 78B-15-608 factors.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that fraudulent paternity declarations don’t automatically preclude equitable estoppel analysis. Practitioners should remember that even successful fraud challenges under section 78B-15-307 don’t render declarations void ab initio unless specific statutory void provisions apply. Courts retain discretion under section 78B-15-608 to preserve established parent-child relationships based on estoppel, equity, and best interests factors, even when the original declaration was fraudulent.