Can Utah courts consider equity factors after finding fraud in paternity declarations? Scott v. Benson Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Benson clarifies an important procedural issue in paternity cases: whether courts can consider equitable factors under section 608 of the Utah Uniform Parentage Act after finding that a voluntary declaration of paternity (VDP) was fraudulent.

Background and Facts

Scott and Benson, an unmarried couple, knowingly signed a fraudulent VDP representing that Scott was the father of Benson’s child, even though both knew he was not the biological father. Scott had acted as a parental figure to the child for seven years. When Benson later cut off contact and sought to invalidate the VDP, Scott requested joint custody. The parties stipulated that genetic testing would exclude Scott as the biological father.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether a district court could apply section 608 equity factors after successfully challenging a VDP under section 307 for fraud and material mistake of fact. Benson argued that once fraud was established, the analysis should end in favor of the challenger. Scott contended that equity principles should prevent disruption of the established parent-child relationship.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court rejected the sequential two-step analysis proposed by the parties and court of appeals. Instead, the court found that section 308 requires VDP challenges to be conducted “in the same manner” as parentage adjudications under Part 6. Since section 608 allows courts to disregard genetic testing in appropriate circumstances during parentage proceedings, it remains available during VDP challenges. This creates a single-step inquiry incorporating both fraud analysis and equity considerations.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts paternity litigation strategy. Practitioners challenging VDPs cannot assume that proving fraud automatically terminates the proceeding. Courts retain discretion to consider the child’s best interests and established relationships under section 608. Counsel should prepare comprehensive evidence addressing both the validity of the VDP and the equitable factors governing parent-child relationships, including the length and nature of the relationship and potential harm from disruption.