Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Path for Unwed Fathers to Establish Parental Rights

Originally published by Arizona Supreme Court

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Clint Bolick, the Arizona Supreme Court, in In re Termination of Parental Rights as to M.N., today clarified that two distinct statutory mechanisms exist for unwed fathers to establish parental rights—one for “potential fathers” and another for “putative fathers”— and that fathers satisfying the requirements for the first classification do not also have to satisfy the requirements for the second.

Arizona law provides two ways for unwed fathers to establish parental rights. One is Arizona Revised Statutes § 8-106 (“potential fathers” statute), which requires mothers to identify all potential fathers of her child, who may in turn file a paternity action and object to an adoption. Section 8-106.01 (“putative fathers” statute), allows fathers to file with the putative fathers registry. Failure to file results in a waiver of parental rights.

In this case, Mother initially identified her boyfriend as the only potential father. After the baby was born, the actual Father went to the hospital seeking to establish his paternity by a blood test but was not allowed to do so. Mother and her boyfriend agreed to a private adoption, and the adoption agency filed proceedings to terminate parental rights. Eventually, Mother identified Father as a potential father and a subsequent blood test confirmed that he was the father. However, the superior court terminated his parental rights because he failed to file a notice of a claim of paternity with the putative fathers registry.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that if a father complies with the statute for potential fathers, he does not need to also file a notice with the putative fathers registry. The Court noted that the potential fathers and putative fathers statutory classifications were adopted at different times and involve different rights and responsibilities.

The decision is important because it recognizes that although the statutes are intended to protect the integrity and finality of adoptions, they should not be construed to deprive fathers of their statutory or constitutional rights. So long as fathers fulfill the obligations of either the potential fathers statute or putative fathers statute, both interests are protected.

This case is returned to the trial court to consider other issues that were not resolved.

The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, Vice Chief Justice John Lopez, and Justices James Beene, William Montgomery, and Kathryn King. Now-retired Justice Robert Brutinel was recused from the case and retired Justice Rebecca Berch served in his stead.

This opinion summary is intended solely to notify the public about an Arizona Supreme Court opinion. It is not to be considered an official commentary by the Court or any member of the Court, nor may it be cited as legal authority for any reason or purpose. The full opinion is attached for those seeking details about the Court’s reasoning.