Pursuant to Rule 24 (j), R. Utah S. Ct., defendant LDS Social Services hereby submits the following supplemental authority for Point III of its Respondents\u27 Brief, pertaining specifically to the validity of the presumption of abandonment in U.C.A. § 78-30- 4(3)(c)

Lindsay, Steve

Kirby, Matthew

Baris, Enis

Bos, Robert

Pursuant to Rule 24 (j), R. Utah S. Ct., defendant-respondent L.D.S. Social Services hereby submits a supplemental authority in support of its position taken in the briefs and oral argument. The case is Scheller v. Pessetto, 121 Utah Adv. Rep. 39 (Utah App. filed November 14, 1989). This case upholds the constitutionality of a statute that permits an unwed mother to inherit from her deceased illegitimate child under all circumstances, but accords the father the same right only if he demonstrates, in essence, a substantial relationship with the child. The Court of Appeals rejected the unwed father\u27s arguments that the statute violates the equal protection and due process provisions of the United States Constitution and the equal rights provision of the Utah Constitution, Art. IV, § 1. The court concluded that because  mothers and fathers of illegitimate children are not similarly situated,11 the two may be accorded different legal rights without violating equal protection. Id. at 41

Utah Supreme Court

bepress Legal Repository

Steven H. Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, John Doe, and Jane Doe : Unknown

Brigham Young University Law School

Brigham Young University Law SchoolBYU Law Digital CommonsUtah Supreme Court Briefs1988Steven H. Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, JohnDoe, and Jane Doe : UnknownUtah Supreme CourtFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1Part of the Law CommonsOriginal Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter LawLibrary, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generatedOCR, may contain errors.M. David Eckersley; Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler; Billy L. Walker; attorneys for plaintiff.David M. McConkie, Merrill F. Nelson; Kirton, McConkie & Poelman; attorneys for respondents.This Legal Brief is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme CourtBriefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available athttp://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at hunterlawlibrary@byu.edu withquestions or feedback.Recommended CitationLegal Brief, Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, No. 880384.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 1988).https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1/2337LAW OFFICES KIRTON, McCONKIE & POELMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE (801) 521-3680 MERRILL P. NELSON TELEX 3 8 8 - 3 8 5 KMP LAWYERS 3 3 0 SOUTH THIRD EAST TELECOP.ER (80.) 3 2 - 4 8 9 3 IJTAH SUPREME COURT*— c^u*~e«u iTAH KFU 45.9 S o C K & l N O i - ^ - ^ ' ' September 8, 1989 S E p 3 ] m .S9 Clerk, Supreme Oi'rt. U^J Geoffrey J. Butler Clerk of the Court Utah Supreme Court 332 State Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Re: Swayne v. LDS Social Services Case No. 880384 Dear Geoff: Pursuant to Rule 24 (j), R. Utah S. Ct., defendant LDS Social Services hereby submits the following supplemental authority for Point III of its Respondents1 Brief, pertaining specifically to the validity of the presumption of abandonment in U.C.A. § 78-30-4(3)(c). In the recently decided case of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 109 S. Ct. 2333 (June 15, 1989), the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute that "conclusively presume[s]" a child born of a married mother to be the issue of her husband. The child's natural father challenged the statute as violative of both procedural and substantive due process. The Court held that the statute did not violate procedural due process because the conclusive presumption merely stated a valid substantive rule of law. Id. at 2340. The Court rejected the substantive due process claim on the grounds that an unwed father who lacks a substantial relationship with his child has no fundamental constitutional right to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. Id. at 2341-45. Sincerely, KIRTON, McCONKIE & POELMAN Merrill F. Nelson MFN:gt 

English

Brigham Young University Law SchoolBYU Law Digital CommonsUtah Supreme Court Briefs1988Steven H. Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, JohnDoe, and Jane Doe : UnknownUtah Supreme CourtFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1Part of the Law CommonsOriginal Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter LawLibrary, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generatedOCR, may contain errors.M. David Eckersley; Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler; Billy L. Walker; attorneys for plaintiff.David M. McConkie, Merrill F. Nelson; Kirton, McConkie & Poelman; attorneys for respondents.This Legal Brief is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme CourtBriefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available athttp://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at hunterlawlibrary@byu.edu withquestions or feedback.Recommended CitationLegal Brief, Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, No. 880384.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 1988).https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1/2336u i « n bUKKtME COURT BRIEF KET'NO. LAW OFFICES MERRILL F. NELSON KIRTON, McCONKIE & POELMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3 3 0 SOUTH THIRD EAST SALT L A K E CITY, U T A H 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 52I -36SO TELEX 3 8 8 - 3 8 5 KMP LAWYERS TELECOPIER (801) 321-4893 January 9, 1990 JAN 101930 Geoffrey Butler Clerk of Utah Supreme Court 332 State Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Re: Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services Case No, 880384 Dear Geoffrey: Pursuant to Rule 24 (j), R. Utah S. Ct., defendant-respondent L.D.S. Social Services hereby submits a supplemental authority in support of its position taken in the briefs and oral argument. The case is Scheller v. Pessetto, 121 Utah Adv. Rep. 39 (Utah App. filed November 14, 1989). This case upholds the constitutionality of a statute that permits an unwed mother to inherit from her deceased illegitimate child under all circumstances, but accords the father the same right only if he demonstrates, in essence, a substantial relationship with the child. The Court of Appeals rejected the unwed father's arguments that the statute violates the equal protection and due process provisions of the United States Constitution and the equal rights provision of the Utah Constitution, Art. IV, § 1. The court concluded that because "mothers and fathers of illegitimate children are not similarly situated,11 the two may be accorded different legal rights without violating equal protection. Id. at 41. This additional authority pertains to Points II and III of Respondentsf Brief and to Point I of the Supplemental Brief of Respondents. Very truly yours, KIRTON, MCCONKIE & POELMAN ^>C^Jee ^ ^ ^ ^ Merrill F. Nelson MFNtgt 

LSHTM Research Online