This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The difference between the words "may" and "shall" was at the center of arguments Tuesday in an adoption case before the Utah Supreme Court.
An unmarried father is appealing the denial of his request to intervene in the adoption of his child, who is referred to as Baby Q on the court docket. The man said he had intended to raise the child with the mother, but she placed the baby for adoption instead.
Court documents in the case are sealed, but according to statements by lawyers and the justices, the father had received a pre-birth notice from the mother listing what he needed to do under state law within 30 days to preserve his parental rights. Those steps include acknowledging paternity and filing an affidavit in court that details child care plans and agrees to payment of pregnancy and birth-related expenses.
The father did not complete the steps on time. His attorney, Asa Kelly, said the written notice was invalid because it said that his client "may" lose those rights — rather than "will" or "shall" — if he failed to comply with all requirements.
"May" and "shall" do not mean the same thing to a layperson, Kelly said.
But Julie Nelson, a lawyer for the adoptive parents, argued that the notice complied with the law and conveyed all the necessary information. She noted that the law does not require certain language in the notice and also said there is evidence the father understood the requirements.
The high court periodically holds arguments at different locations around the state and Tuesday's session was held at the Utah State Capitol's ceremonial Supreme Court chamber.
The justices took the arguments under consideration and will issue a ruling later.
Twitter: PamelaMansonSLC