Can a putative father excuse non-compliance with adoption deadlines based on the mother's promises? In re B.Y. Explained

In In re B.Y., the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a putative father can excuse his failure to comply with statutory adoption requirements based on the mother’s fraudulent representations. The court’s unanimous decision reinforces the importance of strict compliance with Utah’s Adoption Act deadlines.

Background and Facts

Jake Strickland had a relationship with W.P., who became pregnant in 2010. When W.P. initially considered placing the child for adoption, Strickland objected. W.P. then promised that if Strickland agreed not to file a paternity action, they could raise the child together. Despite consulting an attorney who advised him to file a paternity action to protect his parental rights, Strickland relied on W.P.’s promise and did not file. W.P. subsequently placed the child for adoption without informing Strickland, who only learned of the adoption after it occurred.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78B-6-106’s strict compliance requirement violated Strickland’s constitutional rights when applied to excuse his non-compliance based on the mother’s fraudulent representations. Strickland raised challenges under procedural due process, substantive due process, equal protection, and other constitutional provisions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Strickland’s motion to intervene. The court emphasized that Utah Code section 78B-6-106 explicitly provides that parents “are not excused from strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter based upon any action, statement, or omission of the other parent or third parties.” The court distinguished this case from situations where compliance was impossible through no fault of the father, noting that Strickland had constructive and actual notice of his obligations under Utah law.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the absolute nature of Utah’s adoption deadlines. Practitioners must counsel putative fathers that informal agreements or promises cannot substitute for statutory compliance. While injured parties may pursue civil remedies for fraudulent representations, such claims do not excuse non-compliance with the Adoption Act’s requirements. The court’s holding protects the finality of adoption proceedings while maintaining clear, predictable rules for establishing parental rights.