Can Utah courts terminate parental rights when another state has continuing jurisdiction? M.B. and K.B. v. C.E.H. Explained

Background and Facts

A mother and stepfather filed a petition in Utah juvenile court to terminate the biological father’s parental rights and allow stepparent adoption of E.H.H. The biological father had been divorced from the mother in California in 1995, with the California Superior Court granting the mother sole legal and physical custody and the father conditional visitation rights. When the Utah petition was served on the father in California, he moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), arguing that California retained continuing jurisdiction over custody and visitation matters.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a proceeding to terminate parental rights constitutes a proceeding to modify a “custody determination or visitation determination” under the PKPA. The parties agreed that California had properly exercised jurisdiction under the PKPA in making the initial custody and visitation determinations and that California retained exclusive jurisdiction to modify those determinations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that termination of parental rights unavoidably works a modification of prior custody and visitation determinations. The court relied on the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in In re R.J., which established that termination of parental rights means “the permanent elimination of all parental rights and duties, including residual parental rights and duties” such as visitation rights. The court reasoned that because termination cuts off all parental rights, an order terminating parental rights necessarily trumps all prior orders concerning that parent’s custody or visitation rights. The court declined to follow its earlier decision in In re R.N.J., which had held that termination proceedings were not custody determinations under Utah’s UCCJA, noting that the federal PKPA preempts state law and that R.N.J. had subsequently been legislatively overruled.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah practitioners must carefully examine whether another state has continuing jurisdiction over custody and visitation matters before filing termination petitions. The ruling reinforces the PKPA’s objective of preventing jurisdictional conflicts and forum shopping in custody matters. Attorneys representing clients in adoption proceedings must verify the jurisdictional status of any existing custody or visitation orders from other states and may need to file termination proceedings in the state that retains continuing jurisdiction rather than in Utah, even if the child currently resides in Utah.