assess his preservation of parental rights unless the father has "first shown that it was 'impossible' for [him] to [comply with Utah's adoption statutes, including the deadlines for filing contained therein], 'through no fault of his own.'" Wells v. Children's Aid Soc'y, 681 P.2d 199, 208 (Utah 1984). In fact, Utah courts have mandated a hearing, such as the one contemplated by the majority, only where the father asserts that it was impossible for him to comply with Utah statutes because he did not know and could not have known certain material facts: that the mother was pregnant, that she was living in Utah, or that she intended to place the child for adoption in Utah. See Ellis v. Social Servs. Dep't of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 615 P.2d 1250, 1256 (Utah 1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Beltran v. Allan, 926 P.2d 892,
holding that due process required a hearing so the putative father would have an opportunity to present evidence to show as a factual matter that he could not reasonably have complied with utahs statutory requirements or deadlines because he could not reasonably have expected his baby to be born in utah holding that because the defendant could not have reasonably believed that the third person would have been justified in using force the trial courts finding of guilt was supported by substantial evidence holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation holding that the trial court erred when it did not consider what the husband could have been reasonably expected to have earned  based upon the recent work history and other pertinent circumstances holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment