By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

A divorce ends a marriage. It should not unnecessarily reduce a child’s relationship with either parent. When two parents can safely and effectively care for their child, Utah should begin with the expectation that both will remain substantial, everyday participants in that child’s life.

That principle belongs at the center of a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 physical custody and equal parent-time. It should apply from the temporary-order stage, when families first need a workable schedule, through the final custody determination. A parent seeking a different arrangement should identify the evidence supporting that departure, and the court should explain its decision.

Utah prides itself on being a family-centered state. We should be at the forefront of protecting children’s relationships with both parents after separation. Families seeking a Saratoga Springs divorce and child custody attorney or a Lehi child custody lawyer should encounter a legal framework that begins with meaningful participation by both parents and adjusts to the evidence in each family.

What Does a 50/50 Custody Presumption Actually Mean?

A rebuttable presumption establishes a starting point. It does not require equal time in every case or make parental preferences more important than a child’s safety. Courts must remain able to order a different schedule when the evidence establishes that equal time would not serve the child’s best interests.

Legal custody and physical custody are different. Joint legal custody concerns decision-making. Equal physical custody concerns the child’s actual time with each parent. A statute favoring shared decisions does not necessarily give a child equal access to both homes.

The distinction matters when comparing states. Some laws expressly presume equal time; others use approximately equal time. Neither should be confused with a general policy favoring frequent contact. The six states below illustrate enacted equal or approximately equal parenting presumptions in force as of this article’s date. Their exceptions, burdens of proof, and application to existing orders differ.

States That Have Adopted Equal or Approximately Equal Parenting Presumptions

Kentucky: Start With Both Parents, Including During Temporary Orders

Kentucky adopted its temporary-order presumption in 2017 and extended the approach through House Bill 528 in 2018. Current KRS 403.270 presumes joint custody and equally shared parenting time, subject to rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence and statutory safety protections.

Why the change? Supporters sought to reduce perceived gender bias and make continued involvement by both parents the starting point. A 2019 Kentucky Law Journal analysis describes those arguments, the earlier temporary-order reform, and the domestic-violence amendments negotiated during passage. The article also criticizes the presumption, making it useful context for the actual debate.

Kentucky’s current statute, effective July 15, 2026, retains equal parenting while requiring courts first to consider specified domestic-violence and child-abuse or neglect allegations and make written findings about their impact on the child. Utah can learn from both parts of that approach: preserve parental relationships and investigate safety concerns seriously.

Arkansas: Turn a Preference Into an Enforceable Starting Point

Arkansas enacted Senate Bill 18, Act 604 of 2021. Its enacted text establishes a joint-custody presumption for original divorce and paternity custody determinations. Under Arkansas Code § 9-13-101, joint custody means an approximately and reasonably equal division of time, rather than an inflexible mathematical split.

Why the change? Arkansas had already favored joint custody. The reform gave that preference a stronger evidentiary foundation: generally, clear and convincing evidence is required to establish that joint custody is not in the child’s best interest, with separate provisions for agreements and statutory exceptions. Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality’s account explains supporters’ goal of requiring evidence before courts depart from shared parenting. That is an advocacy perspective, not independent proof of the law’s effects.

The statute also addresses deliberate conflict intended to disrupt joint custody. The lesson for Utah is practical: a parent’s opposition should not, by itself, operate as a veto over the child’s relationship with the other parent.

West Virginia: Equal Time With Findings That Can Be Reviewed

West Virginia adopted its express 50/50 presumption through Senate Bill 463 in 2022. West Virginia Code § 48-9-102a makes equal custodial allocation presumptively in the child’s best interest, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.

Why the change? The reform gives concrete effect to the state’s declared policy of continuing parental contact and shared child-rearing responsibilities. That is the policy reflected in the statutory scheme; it should not be mistaken for a claim that every legislator supported the bill for the same reason.

Especially relevant to Utah, § 48-9-203 applies the presumption in temporary proceedings when either parent requests equal custody. An unequal temporary allocation requires specific factual findings based on hearing evidence and supporting legal conclusions. The state also provides expedited appellate review in specified circumstances. Temporary decisions receive meaningful procedural attention because their effects on children begin immediately.

Florida: Replace a Neutral Time-Sharing Baseline With Equal Time

Florida’s CS/HB 1301 took effect July 1, 2023. Florida Statutes § 61.13 now presumes equal time-sharing, subject to its exceptions and rebuttal by a preponderance of the evidence.

Why the change? The House’s final staff analysis documents the move from a framework without a specific time-sharing presumption to equal time as the starting position, while preserving best-interest factors and written findings. The existing public policy favors continuing contact and shared parental responsibilities after separation.

The Senate’s bill summary records passage by 105–7 in the House and 34–3 in the Senate. The American Bar Association’s review of 2023 family-law legislation discusses this change alongside other state reforms.

Missouri: Protect Meaningful Participation Before the Final Judgment

Missouri’s Senate Bill 35 took effect August 28, 2023. Missouri Revised Statutes § 452.375 presumes equal or approximately equal parenting time, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence.

Why the change? The statute expressly connects its custody policy to frequent, continuing, meaningful contact and both parents’ participation in decisions affecting their children. The official bill summary also highlights early temporary parenting plans and consideration of children’s input free from coercion or manipulation.

Missouri combines that starting point with individualized findings. Its statute also restricts local standardized default plans and generally requires notice and a hearing before interim custody provisions are imposed without agreement. Equal parenting and procedural fairness can work together.

Mississippi: A 2026 Reform That Expressly Reaches Initial Temporary Orders

Mississippi joined this movement through House Bill 1662, approved April 8, 2026, effective July 1, 2026. The enrolled legislation amending § 93-5-24 presumes joint custody and equally shared parenting time, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, and ordinarily requires reasons for departures.

The enacted language limits this presumption to initial temporary and initial final custody orders entered after July 1, 2026. It expressly excludes modifications of custody orders entered before or after that date. It is not a mechanism for automatically reopening every existing case.

Why the change? Mississippi Today’s reporting on the legislative debate describes supporters’ concern about unequal opportunities for fathers and their reliance on other states’ reforms. Opponents raised serious questions about domestic violence, breastfeeding infants, and judicial flexibility. Supporters responded that judges would retain authority to protect the child’s best interests. For Utah, the most useful feature is the express inclusion of temporary orders.

What the Research Says About Children and Both Parents

Time matters because relationships develop through repeated, ordinary care: homework, meals, school mornings, medical appointments, bedtime, and the small conversations that do not fit neatly into an occasional weekend.

A 2023 systematic review by Vowels and colleagues in PLOS ONE examined 39 studies of post-separation living arrangements across emotional, behavioral, relational, physical, and educational outcomes. Shared physical custody generally compared favorably with living primarily with one parent. Many studies found outcomes comparable to those of children living with both parents in an intact family, sometimes after accounting for other variables.

The limits matter. The review treated shared physical custody broadly, including arrangements in which a child spent 30%–70% of the time with each parent. The evidence was predominantly observational and cannot establish that ordering exactly 50/50 time causes better outcomes in every family. Income, parental relationships, conflict, and selection into shared custody can affect the comparisons.

A separate 2023 Ohio State report on research involving 1,173 low-income families found that responsive parenting by both mothers and fathers was associated with stronger prosocial behavior and receptive-language skills. Those benefits were observed regardless of whether the father lived with the mother and child. This supports preserving effective parenting by both adults; it is not itself a trial of a custody statute.

These findings support a sensible policy judgment: when both parents can safely provide care, the law should protect the opportunity for both relationships to flourish. An equal-parenting presumption translates that judgment into a starting point while leaving room for individual evidence.

Do Children Raised by Single Fathers Do Better Than Those Raised by Single Mothers?

Some comparisons favor father-headed households, particularly financially. Pew Research Center’s 2013 analysis of census data reported poverty rates of 24% for single-father households and 43% for single-mother households. Those are historical household statistics, not current rates or proof that fathers are inherently better parents. The groups also differed in cohabitation, age, and other characteristics; the data could not reliably distinguish full-time from part-time custody.

It would overstate the evidence to say that children raised by single fathers generally do better across the board. Douglas Downey’s study of eight educational outcomes found roughly similar school performance among children in single-father and single-mother families, with different resource disadvantages contributing to their difficulties.

The sound argument is that fathers are capable caregivers whose contribution extends well beyond financial support. Mothers should not receive an assumed advantage because they are mothers, and fathers should not receive one because they are fathers. Each parent’s actual parenting, the child’s needs, and reliable evidence should determine the outcome.

Utah Allows Equal Parent-Time, but That Is Different From Presuming It

Utah Code § 81-9-205 establishes a rebuttable presumption favoring joint legal custody, subject to exceptions. It distinguishes that decision-making arrangement from equal physical custody. Section 81-9-305 authorizes an equal parent-time schedule when the court finds it serves the child’s best interests, both parents have been actively involved, and both can effectively facilitate it.

Utah therefore already has the machinery for equal parent-time, including a 182/183-overnight schedule. What it lacks is the general rebuttable equal-time starting point advocated here. Section 81-9-204 also rejects a custody preference based solely on a parent’s gender. This proposal would strengthen that principle in practice by requiring evidence for unequal allocation, rather than claiming Utah currently has a statutory maternal preference.

Parents considering a schedule can review our discussion of child custody and parenting plans in Lehi. The practical questions include school access, transportation, work schedules, developmental needs, and each parent’s ability to provide daily care.

Why Utah Temporary Orders Should Begin With 50/50

Temporary custody orders immediately shape a child’s life. They allocate school nights, access to routines, and opportunities to remain involved. The concern is that an unequal interim arrangement can acquire practical momentum while the parties wait for a full trial. A parent may then face pressure to accept reduced time because that is the arrangement already operating.

That concern is an argument for reform, not a claim that every temporary order legally predetermines the final judgment. Nor are temporary hearings evidence-free. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 101 requires evidence supporting motions before commissioners to be presented through affidavits, declarations, or other admissible evidence. Those proceedings nevertheless differ from a full custody trial with developed discovery and tested witness testimony.

Neither parent should acquire an assumed entitlement to primary custody merely because the case has begun and a temporary schedule is needed. When both parents can safely exercise equal time, that should be the starting position. A request to depart should require child-specific evidence and findings. Where material credibility disputes could justify a substantial reduction in a parent’s relationship with the child, there should be a prompt opportunity to present and test the evidence.

This approach can improve the parties’ negotiating positions by removing the assumption that one parent controls access and the other must bargain to regain it. The intended benefit is better protection of the child’s relationships. Reduced litigation and more constructive negotiations are plausible policy benefits, not outcomes that can be guaranteed.

A Concrete Proposal for Utah

• Apply a rebuttable equal-parent-time presumption to initial temporary and final custody determinations. Clearly address both divorce and parentage cases.
• Require specific findings for departures. Use a stated evidentiary standard, such as preponderance of the evidence, and explain how the child’s circumstances justify the schedule.
• Provide prompt evidentiary review of contested substantial restrictions. Preserve immediate emergency protection where needed, followed by timely notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
• Preserve robust safety exceptions. Address domestic violence, coercive control, child abuse, neglect, dangerous substance misuse, and other demonstrated risks. A criminal conviction should not be a prerequisite to protection.
• Evaluate feasibility and developmental needs. Consider distance, school, infant feeding, health, prior care, and practical capacity. An appropriate phased schedule may serve a particular child better than an immediate equal split.
• Prevent litigation-created advantage. Do not treat an unequal temporary schedule, by itself, as proof that it should become permanent. Examine why it arose, including whether interference limited the other parent’s involvement.
• Respect appropriate agreements and preserve child support. Parents should remain able to propose a different child-centered arrangement. Equal time should not automatically eliminate financial support.

Legitimate protective conduct must not be mislabeled as obstruction. At the same time, unsupported accusations and manufactured conflict should not automatically defeat shared parenting. The answer is careful fact-finding, timely hearings, and orders tailored to the evidence.

A Family-Centered State Should Protect Both Sides of a Child’s Family

Utah’s commitment to family should continue after a marriage ends. A child can lose access not only to a parent but also to grandparents, siblings, traditions, and the ordinary experiences that sustain a sense of belonging. We should not accept that loss as the routine price of divorce when safe, workable shared parenting is available.

Equal parenting also requires equal responsibility. Both parents must handle school, illness, homework, transportation, and the less convenient parts of raising a child. The goal is a workable structure for parenting, supported by enforceable obligations. Both parents will need to be gainfully employed to financially support the child/ren. Divorce requires that each parent adapt to the new additional roles that each must take to responsibly parent the child/ren.

For families able to negotiate safely, divorce mediation in Lehi can help develop that structure. When an existing order is ignored, our article on violations of custody orders and parent-time enforcement explains why the terms of the order matter. Immediate safety concerns require a different response; see our discussion of emergency custody orders in Utah.

Utah should adopt a clear, rebuttable presumption of equal parent-time, beginning with temporary orders. Let the evidence justify departures. Give parents a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Protect children from actual danger. Preserve both parental relationships whenever that can be done safely.

Rifleman Law & Mediation assists parents seeking a Lehi divorce lawyer, an American Fork child custody attorney, or representation in Saratoga Springs and surrounding Utah communities. Call (801) 510-0503 to discuss custody, temporary orders, parent-time, or mediation.

This article advocates legislative reform and distinguishes that proposal from existing Utah law. Sources are linked throughout; laws and individual circumstances can change.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

There are some cases that force us to ask whether the legal system has become so focused on explanations, diagnoses, professional theories, and therapeutic objectives that it risks losing sight of something much more basic: what actually happened to the child.

The Lindsay Clancy murder case is one of those cases.

Clancy killed her three young children in Massachusetts. Her defense has centered on claims involving postpartum psychosis and mental illness, while prosecutors have contended that she understood what she was doing and acted deliberately. Whatever ultimately happens in the criminal proceedings, there is no dispute about the most important underlying fact: three children died at the hands of their mother.

Mental illness is real. Postpartum psychosis is real. Severe psychiatric disorders can alter perception, judgment, and behavior in profound ways. The law appropriately considers mental illness when determining criminal responsibility, treatment, and competency.

But explaining an adult’s behavior is not the same thing as erasing what the child experienced!

That distinction is increasingly important in family law, particularly in a Utah child custody and parent-time case involving allegations of abuse, severe mental instability, frightening parental conduct, or a child’s refusal to maintain a relationship with a parent.

At some point we have to ask a very simple question: when did protecting a child’s instinct for self-preservation become something secondary to that adults actions of abuse that caused the harm?

A Mental-Health Explanation Does Not Undo the Child’s Experience

One of the recurring problems in custody litigation is the tendency to focus heavily on why an adult behaved badly rather than on what the child experienced when the behavior occurred.

The adult may have been depressed. The adult may have experienced trauma. The adult may have suffered from psychosis, mania, PTSD, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, or another psychiatric condition. Those facts can be relevant. Sometimes they are critically important. But children do not experience diagnostic terminology.

A child does not experience “bipolar disorder with psychotic features.” The child experiences a parent screaming, striking someone, destroying property, threatening people, behaving unpredictably, or becoming someone the child no longer recognizes. A child does not experience “trauma-induced fight-or-flight behavior.” The child experiences fear. A child does not experience “emotional dysregulation.” The child experiences an adult who suddenly becomes unsafe.

And a child who has experienced frightening conduct does not necessarily become willing to trust the parent merely because a therapist later provides a clinical explanation for why the conduct occurred.

This distinction matters for parents seeking a Saratoga Springs child custody lawyer, a Lehi child custody lawyer, or counsel in any contested Utah custody case involving mental-health concerns. A diagnosis may help explain conduct. It does not automatically restore trust.

The Family Court System Can Reverse the Question

The legal system is supposed to begin with the best interests of the child. Yet some high-conflict custody cases seem to begin somewhere else entirely.

The questions become:

How can we repair the parent’s relationship with the child? How can we get the child to engage? How can we overcome the child’s resistance? How can we get the child to lower emotional walls? What kind of therapy might help the child accept the parent again?

Those questions assume something very significant: that restoring the relationship is necessarily the correct objective. Sometimes it is. Sometimes a child has been improperly influenced by another parent. Sometimes there has been gatekeeping, manipulation, false information, or genuine parental alienation. A child may need assistance understanding a distorted family narrative.

But sometimes the child is not rejecting a parent because another adult created the problem. Sometimes the child remembers what happened. However, there is a push in Utah to ‘reunify’ that parent-child relationship at any cost – placing the aim at some idealistic relationship that just may not be in the child’s best interest. PGAL, counseling, and parental agendas often cloud the child’s true situation and voice in the matter.

A Child’s Fear May Be Evidence, Not Pathology

Consider a real-world type of scenario drawn from the facts of a Utah custody matter, with identifying information deliberately omitted.

An older child repeatedly states that she does not trust one parent after abuse is discovered. The court orders reunification therapy. She says that she does not presently want contact with that parent outside a therapeutic setting. She describes having previously felt unsafe during contact with that parent. She expresses prior abuse by that parent. She expresses a specific fear that if the parent experiences another serious psychiatric episode, she could be physically harmed.

The parent acknowledges prior episodes involving psychosis or mania, and abuse of the child. The parent acknowledges becoming physically aggressive toward other people during those episodes, including physical altercations. The parent then tells the child that she does not need to worry because if another episode develops, the parent will recognize the warning signs and take appropriate precautions.

From an adult therapeutic perspective, that may sound reassuring. From the child’s perspective, it may produce an entirely different question:

What happens if you do not recognize the warning signs next time? This places the burden on the child.

What if the child is experiencing ongoing trauma from the events?

That is not necessarily alienation from the parent and the child’s perspective must be considered and not swept aside.

It may be rational risk assessment.

Yet children expressing those concerns are sometimes characterized as resistant, rigid, avoidant, alienated, or even “just unsure”. Language matters. When we describe the child’s protective behavior as pathology, we subtly shift the problem from the adult who created the fear to the child who still remembers it.

Utah Reunification Therapy Law Recognizes That This Can Go Too Far

Utah law now expressly addresses what it calls reunification therapy.

Under Utah Code § 81-9-104, reunification treatment includes therapy or treatment “aimed” at reuniting or reestablishing a relationship between a minor child and an estranged or rejected parent or family member.(That language “aimed’ is critical. Providers, GAL’s, and courts often confuse this with outcome. We aim at goals all the time. Many are not reached. The foregone conclusion that the parent-child relationship will return to where it was prior to the estrangement is flawed logic. So many variables affect ‘aim’, including prior abuse, willingness to re-engage a parent, ongoing mental issues, trust and boundary issues, etc.)

The language itself reveals the objective: reunification or reestablishment of the relationship.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that objective. Children ordinarily benefit from healthy relationships with both parents. Utah custody law repeatedly recognizes the importance of meaningful parent-child relationships. But Utah lawmakers have also recognized that reunification cannot be treated as an unquestioned objective where violence or abuse has caused the estrangement.

The statute places restrictions around expert evidence, findings of abuse, and reunification-related treatment. Those restrictions are important because a therapeutic model intended to repair a damaged relationship can become dangerous if it assumes that the child’s resistance is itself the condition needing treatment.

That is particularly relevant in contested cases handled by a Eagle Mountain child custody lawyer, an American Fork child custody lawyer, or a Provo child custody lawyer, because allegations of abuse and estrangement can quickly become entangled with claims of parental alienation and requests for reunification therapy.

Reunification Should Not Mean Predetermined Reconciliation

There is a conceptual problem with some forms of reunification therapy. The very term can predetermine the desired outcome.If therapy is defined by the goal of reuniting the child and parent, what happens when the evidence demonstrates that the child’s refusal is based on actual frightening or abusive conduct? The therapy can cease being an investigation into whether trust should be restored and instead become a process designed to persuade the child that trust ought to be restored.

Those are not the same thing.

A legitimate therapeutic process should be able to conclude that the child needs distance, that the parent needs substantial treatment before contact expands, or that reconciliation must occur slowly and only when the child develops genuine confidence that circumstances have changed.

A process that considers only one acceptable outcome is not really evaluating the child’s interests. It is implementing an adult objective.

We Would Never Treat an Adult Victim This Way

The inconsistency becomes obvious when we compare children to adults. Imagine an adult woman whose partner becomes psychotic, physically aggressive, and terrifying. She leaves. Months later the partner receives treatment and says the episode was caused by mental illness. Would society tell her that because the medical explanation has now been identified, she must rebuild trust? Would we order her into therapy specifically designed to restore intimacy? Would we call her “resistant” because she remained cautious? Would we characterize her refusal to spend unsupervised time with the person as “stonewalling”?

Probably not. We would likely say trust has to be earned. We might say that treatment is encouraging but does not erase history. We might tell her she has a legitimate right to assess her own safety. Children deserve at least as much consideration.

Guardian ad Litem Does Not Mean Substitute Parent

Another point of tension arises when a private attorney guardian ad litem becomes involved in a contested Utah custody dispute.

Under Utah Code § 78A-2-705, a court may appoint a private attorney guardian ad litem in a district court action when custody or parent-time is at issue. The private attorney guardian ad litem represents the minor’s best interests. That does not mean the child’s stated wishes control. But it also does not mean they disappear.

Utah law expressly addresses the situation in which the child’s intent and desires differ from the private attorney guardian ad litem’s own determination of the child’s best interests. The statutory framework requires that distinction to be communicated to the court. That requirement is significant. It means the Legislature recognizes two separate concepts: what the child wants, and what the GAL believes is best. A court should be able to hear both.

The danger arises when the GAL’s “best interest” opinion becomes so dominant that the child’s actual experience gets filtered, minimized, or translated into professional language before it ever reaches the decision-maker.

The GAL’s Opinion Is Still an Opinion

A private attorney guardian ad litem has an important responsibility, but the title does not create omniscience. A GAL is still evaluating facts. The GAL may form a view of the family based on interviews, records, communications, therapeutic reports, and professional judgment. That opinion may be persuasive. It may even be correct.

But when a child consistently and articulately reports fear, distrust, and a desire for limited contact following documented frightening conduct, those statements should not simply be reinterpreted until they fit the professional’s theory of what the child needs. The child’s voice cannot become meaningful only when the child agrees with the adults.

This issue frequently arises in complex cases involving a Orem divorce lawyer and child custody attorney, Provo divorce lawyer and child custody attorney, or another Utah family law attorney dealing with contested parent-time, abuse allegations, or court-ordered therapy.

Best Interests Cannot Become an Empty Phrase

“Best interests of the child” is one of the most powerful phrases in family law. It is also one of the easiest phrases to misuse. Everyone claims to be acting in the child’s best interests. The parent seeking more contact says the relationship is in the child’s best interests. The parent seeking restrictions says safety is in the child’s best interests. The therapist says treatment is in the child’s best interests. The GAL says the GAL’s recommendation is in the child’s best interests. A custodial evaluator may present a professional opinion (based on statutory requirments) what the believe is the child’s best interests. The court must eventually decide. But the phrase should never become a substitute for analysis.

The question is not merely whether relationships with parents are generally beneficial. Of course they are. The question is whether this particular relationship, under these particular circumstances, in this particular form and at this particular time benefits this particular child.

That is the type of fact-intensive analysis required in a serious Saratoga Springs divorce and child custody case or a contested Lehi divorce and child custody case.

Relationship Preservation Is Not More Important Than Safety

I strongly support maintaining meaningful relationships between children and both parents.

In appropriate cases, I believe Utah courts should be more willing—not less willing—to provide substantial and even equal parent-time to two fit and involved parents.

Those principles are not inconsistent with what I am saying here. Healthy relationships should be preserved. Dangerous relationships should be treated differently. A parent should not lose a child merely because the other parent makes an allegation. Allegations require proof. Mental illness alone should not disqualify a parent. A past diagnosis does not establish present danger.

But neither should courts react to actual evidence of frightening or abusive conduct by immediately shifting the focus to how quickly the damaged relationship can be restored.

First determine why the relationship was damaged. Then determine whether the conditions causing the damage have actually changed. Then determine what level of contact is presently safe. Only then should the system decide how, whether, and at what pace greater contact should occur.

Trust Cannot Be Ordered

A court can order parent-time. A court can order therapy. A court can order exchanges. A court can order telephone calls. A court can order a child to attend counseling.

But a court cannot order trust. Trust is psychological, not judicial. A therapist cannot simply explain enough psychiatric terminology to make a child forget an experience that frightened the child.

The offending parent must often do the much harder work: accepting responsibility, demonstrating stability, respecting boundaries, showing consistency, and allowing enough time for the child to determine whether the change is real.

Attempts to rush that process can actually make reunification harder. If the child perceives that every adult in the system is insisting that the child stop being afraid, the child may conclude that no adult is actually listening. That does not build trust. It destroys it.

The Problem With Calling Everything Alienation

Parental alienation, gatekeeping, and estrangement is real.

There are parents who deliberately damage a child’s relationship with the other parent. They make false accusations, interfere with parent-time, disparage the other parent, manipulate the child’s perceptions, involve the child in litigation, and create loyalty conflicts.

That conduct can be extremely harmful. But the existence of parental alienation does not mean that every estranged child has been alienated. Sometimes a child has legitimate reasons for rejecting a parent. Failing to distinguish between the two can produce disastrous results.

If every child’s refusal is interpreted as evidence that the favored parent manipulated the child, actual abuse can be transformed into evidence against the protective parent. The abusive conduct causes the child to resist. The resistance is labeled alienation. The protective parent is blamed for the resistance. The child is ordered into reunification therapy. And the parent whose conduct originally caused the problem becomes the person the system is working hardest to rehabilitate relationally.

That is an inversion of common sense.

A Child Can Understand More Than Adults Sometimes Give the Child Credit For

Older children are especially important in this discussion. An adolescent is capable of observing patterns. A teenager may understand that a parent has periods of instability. The child may recognize when promises have been broken before. The child may remember incidents that professionals only know about through reports and interviews. The child’s analysis may be imperfect. Children can misunderstand events. They can be influenced.

But adults can also misunderstand events and be influenced. Professional credentials do not make an adult immune from confirmation bias. If the therapist begins with the hypothesis that the child is alienated, subsequent behavior may be interpreted through that lens. Silence becomes resistance. Fear becomes avoidance. Boundaries become rigidity. Distrust becomes pathology.

At some point we should consider another possibility: perhaps the child is telling the truth about how the child feels.

Sometimes “Common Sense” Is a Legitimate Starting Point

The legal profession appropriately values evidence, expertise, and careful analysis. But expertise should supplement common sense, not eliminate it.

When a child touches a hot stove and becomes reluctant to touch it again, we call that learning. When a person is bitten by a dog and becomes cautious around that dog, we understand why. When an adult is assaulted and avoids the attacker, we generally consider that self-protective. When a child experiences frightening conduct from a parent and becomes afraid of being alone with that parent, we should at least begin by asking whether the fear is rational.

We should not immediately assume that the child’s emotional response is something that needs to be corrected.

The Lindsay Clancy Case Illustrates the Larger Cultural Problem

The Lindsay Clancy case is an extreme example, but it highlights a broader social tendency. We have become very sophisticated at explaining adult behavior. Sometimes so sophisticated that we risk forgetting the victim. We talk about the offender’s trauma. We talk about diagnosis. We talk about medication. We talk about treatment failures. We talk about social pressures.

Those can all be important. But there must remain room to say: This happened. It harmed a child. And the child’s reaction to what happened is entitled to respect. Compassion for a mentally ill parent and protection of a child are not mutually exclusive. But when those interests actually conflict, the legal system should remember who the custody case is supposed to protect – the child.

Parents Have Rights, But Children Are Not Therapeutic Instruments

Parents possess fundamental constitutional rights regarding their children. Those rights matter enormously. A parent should not lose custody because someone dislikes the parent’s lifestyle, beliefs, personality, or parenting style. Courts should not casually interfere with families. But parental rights do not transform the child into an instrument for the parent’s rehabilitation.

A child does not exist so that a parent can prove recovery. A child does not owe a parent emotional reconciliation because the parent completed treatment. A child does not become responsible for restoring an adult’s sense of parental identity.

The legal system should protect parent-child relationships because those relationships ordinarily benefit children—not because biology creates an unconditional entitlement to access regardless of what has occurred.

Utah Child Custody Law Should Continue Moving Toward Evidence, Not Ideology

The correct approach is neither automatic reunification nor automatic estrangement. It is evidence. What actually occurred? Was there abuse? Was there violence? Was there severe mental instability? Has the condition been treated? How long has stability existed? What does the child report? What does the treating provider report? What do school records, medical records, witnesses, communications, and other objective evidence demonstrate?

Those questions belong at the center of a contested American Fork divorce and child custody case, Eagle Mountain divorce and child custody case, or any serious Utah custody dispute.

The goal should not be to prove a favored theory. The goal should be to determine what actually happened and what protects the child now.

Common Sense Is Not Anti-Therapy

None of this is an argument against mental-health treatment. Good therapists can be enormously valuable. Reunification therapy can help families when it is used appropriately. A competent guardian ad litem can provide the court with important information that parents are unable or unwilling to provide objectively. Custody evaluators can identify dynamics that attorneys and courts might otherwise miss.

The problem begins when professional systems become self-validating. The therapist assumes reunification is necessary because reunification therapy was ordered. The GAL supports therapy because the therapist supports reunification (or pushes the therapist towards a forced reunification). The court relies on the GAL because the GAL is the child’s representative. The child’s objection is then interpreted as additional evidence that more therapy is required.

That kind of closed feedback loop should concern anyone involved in Utah family law.

Children Need Advocates Who Are Willing to Listen

A child’s advocate should be willing to say that reunification is appropriate. The same advocate must also be willing to say that reunification is premature. A therapist should be willing to conclude that the child is irrationally resisting a healthy parent. The therapist must also be willing to conclude that the child’s distrust has a legitimate factual basis. A court should be willing to expand parent-time when allegations of danger are unsupported. It must also be willing to restrict parent-time when evidence establishes genuine danger. Otherwise the system is not performing an individualized best-interest analysis. It is applying ideology.

Utah Families Facing Abuse, Reunification Therapy, or GAL Issues Need Careful Legal Analysis

Cases involving alleged abuse, parental mental illness, child resistance, reunification therapy, or a private attorney guardian ad litem are among the most factually complicated matters in Utah family law. These cases cannot responsibly be reduced to slogans such as “children need both parents” or “believe the child.” Both ideas can be true in the appropriate case.

What matters is evidence, context, risk, history, and the individual child.

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents parents in contested child custody, parent-time, modification, and enforcement matters throughout Utah County and surrounding communities. Families can review our local resources for a Saratoga Springs child custody attorney, Lehi child custody attorney, Eagle Mountain child custody attorney, American Fork child custody attorney, and Provo child custody attorney.

Additional information is available through our Utah family law service areas page and our discussion of modifying parent-time in Utah.

Final Thought: The Law Should Never Lose Sight of the Child

Parents deserve due process. Mental illness deserves serious treatment. Families deserve opportunities to heal. Healthy parent-child relationships should be preserved whenever reasonably possible. But there is one proposition that should remain nonnegotiable. The child is not the treatment plan.

The child is not evidence of the parent’s recovery. The child is not an obstacle to be therapeutically overcome. And a child’s fear should not automatically be diagnosed as resistance simply because adults dislike the conclusion the child has reached.

Sometimes common sense tells us something important. If a person repeatedly experiences danger, distrust may be rational. If trust has been broken, it must be rebuilt rather than ordered. If abuse caused a damaged parent-child relationship, the first task is not to correct the child. The first task is to address what damaged the relationship in the first place.

Utah law increasingly recognizes that distinction. Courts, therapists, guardians ad litem, custody evaluators, attorneys, and parents should recognize it too.

This article is commentary and is provided for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice regarding any particular Utah custody matter. The discussion of the Lindsay Clancy criminal case concerns publicly reported allegations, defenses, and procedural developments; criminal responsibility remains subject to the judicial process. Every Utah child custody case depends upon its particular facts, evidence, applicable statutes, and court orders.

Source

AI will change family law. (It already has.) It may dramatically change how lawyers work. But replacing the family law attorney is another matter entirely.
By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

I use artificial intelligence. Lawyers who refuse to learn how to use it are making a mistake.

AI can summarize documents. It can organize discovery. It can compare pleadings. It can identify issues. It can help draft motions, parenting plans, interrogatories, settlement proposals, and correspondence. It can analyze thousands of pages faster than any human being. Those are significant capabilities. But there is a leap being made from “AI can perform legal tasks” to “AI will eliminate lawyers.”

That ‘leap’ does not work—particularly in Utah divorce, child custody and parent-time, and other areas of family law.

The reason is fairly simple.

Family law is not merely an information-processing problem.

It is a system in which elected officials write laws, appellate courts interpret those laws, trial judges exercise discretion, witnesses disagree about what happened, parents have competing values, society continually changes its view of families, lawyers negotiate, judges assess evidence, and human beings make decisions that can affect children for the rest of their lives. AI will become an increasingly powerful tool inside that system. But the system itself remains profoundly human – often based on societal emotions, not rational computation, at any given time.

1. Politics Changes the Law—and When the Law Changes, the Outcome Changes

Artificial intelligence does not make family law. People do.

Legislatures are political institutions. Legislators run for office, campaign on issues, respond to constituents, pursue public-policy agendas, negotiate bills, amend statutes, and sometimes reverse what previous legislatures have done.

Family law is particularly susceptible to these changes because it involves some of the most politically and socially contested questions in society: marriage, divorce, custody, parental authority, child welfare, gender, domestic violence, support obligations, and the appropriate role of government in family relationships.

Utah provides an excellent example.

In 2021, the Legislature enacted what was then Utah Code § 30-3-35.2, creating an express statutory equal parent-time schedule. That provision has since been recodified as Utah Code § 81-9-305.

The current statute permits a court to order an equal parent-time schedule when the court determines that equal parent-time is in the child’s best interest, both parents have been actively involved, and both can effectively facilitate the schedule.

See Utah Code § 81-9-305.

That was a policy choice. The Legislature could change it again. It could create a presumption favoring equal custody. It could remove the equal parent-time schedule. It could add factors. It could subtract factors. It could change relocation law, alimony, child support, custody-evaluator requirements, or the authority of guardians ad litem.

An AI model can analyze the law after human beings change it. It cannot decide what the law ought to become. That decision occurs through politics, elections, lobbying, public debate, legislation, constitutional litigation, and judicial interpretation. And each time the governing law changes, the lawyer must reconsider the client’s strategy.

2. Society Keeps Redefining the Legal Meaning of “Family”

Family law sits directly at the intersection of law and culture. Consider how dramatically some of the most basic legal concepts involving the family have changed.

Marriage is an obvious example.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex.

The Supreme Court itself described marriage as an institution characterized by both continuity and change, discussing changes in society’s understanding of marriage over time.

See Obergefell v. Hodges.

Parental rights provide another example.

In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the Supreme Court confronted the tension between governmental power to determine a child’s best interests and the constitutional rights of a fit parent to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of that child.

See Troxel v. Granville.

Utah law now expressly states, in the grandparent-visitation context, that it is Utah public policy that a parent retains the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over a child’s care, supervision, upbringing, and education. Utah Code § 81-9-403; Section 80-2a-201,

Abortion provides another dramatic illustration of changing legal rules involving family autonomy and governmental authority. In 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and returned substantial regulatory authority over abortion to elected representatives.

These are not simply computational developments. They involve competing views about rights, morality, autonomy, children, government, marriage, parenthood, sexuality, and the family.

An AI system can summarize those debates. It can even present arguments on both sides. But AI does not possess political authority to decide them.

Society changes the law. The law does not change society by algorithm.

3. AI Itself Will Be Regulated—and That Regulation Will Limit What AI Can Do

There is another irony in predictions that AI will simply replace lawyers. Governments are already beginning to regulate AI. Utah is doing exactly that.

Utah Code § 13-77-101 expressly defines a “high-risk artificial intelligence interaction” to include personalized recommendations, advice, or information that could reasonably be relied upon to make significant personal decisions, including:

• financial advice;
• legal advice or services;
• medical advice; and
• mental-health advice.

See Utah Code § 13-77-101.

Utah Code § 13-77-103 also imposes disclosure requirements in specified circumstances involving generative AI. Utah separately regulates AI applications involving mental-health chatbots. Utah Code § 13-72a-203 requires such a chatbot to clearly disclose that it is artificial intelligence and not a human. And Utah has created an Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and statutory framework specifically devoted to AI regulation and experimentation. See Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 72.

What users already experience as “guardrails” in products such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and other systems can arise from several sources: company policy, safety design, insurance considerations, privacy requirements, reputational risk, and government regulation. Those things are not all the same. A platform rule is not necessarily a statute. But the direction is obvious.

The more consequential AI becomes, the more governments are likely to regulate what information it may collect, retain, disclose, recommend, or do.

That becomes especially important in family law because cases routinely involve children’s information, medical records, mental-health information, financial records, domestic-violence allegations, sexual allegations, and other highly sensitive material.

4. AI Is Only as Good as the Human Input It Receives

This may be AI’s most fundamental limitation. An AI system does not magically know the case. It knows what someone tells it.

Consider this prompt:

“My wife has kept my children away from me for three months. Can I get sole custody?”

That sounds straightforward. But what if the person asking leaves out that there is a temporary protective order? What if there was an alcohol-related incident? What if the children have refused contact? What if the other parent moved without permission? What if the father has been asking for parent-time every week and the mother has simply refused? What if there is already a custody order? Those facts completely change the analysis.

The Utah State Bar made essentially this point in its 2026 guidance on prompt engineering for lawyers: vague or incomplete prompts produce vague, incomplete, or unreliable results. The Bar advises lawyers to identify jurisdiction, define the issue, impose limits, and critically review AI output.

See the Utah State Bar’s Prompt Engineering for Lawyers: Getting Better Results from Generative AI.

This is why an experienced lawyer’s first meeting with a client often consists of questions the client did not know were important. AI answers the question it is given. A lawyer often discovers that the important question is a different one.

5. Family Law Is About Evidence, Not Simply Information

There is a substantial difference between knowing what the law says and proving a case. Utah Code § 81-9-204 requires custody and parent-time determinations to be made according to the child’s best interests and by a preponderance of the evidence.

See Utah Code § 81-9-204.

That means someone has to develop the evidence. Someone has to obtain school records. Someone has to subpoena employment records. Someone has to decide which text messages matter. Someone has to determine whether a witness is worth calling. Someone has to lay foundation. Someone has to cross-examine the other parent. Someone has to identify inconsistencies between deposition testimony and trial testimony. And someone has to persuade a judge that one version of disputed events is more credible than another.

Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111, is a good Utah example.

The district court believed the father’s employment would make equal parent-time difficult. But the Utah Court of Appeals reversed because the assumption was not supported by the evidence. The appellate court reiterated that a trial court cannot base a parent-time decision on “supposition or conjecture.”

See Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111.

AI could identify the governing rule. The lawyer’s job is to build the evidentiary record necessary to make that rule matter.

6. Family Law Contains Enormous Judicial Discretion

If family law operated like a tax table, AI might have a much easier time replacing attorneys. It does not.

Consider Utah’s custody statute.

Section 81-9-204 contains numerous considerations: abuse, psychological maltreatment, developmental needs, parenting skills, co-parenting abilities, personal care versus surrogate care, emotional stability, financial responsibility, historical caregiving, previous parenting arrangements, sibling relationships, the child’s wishes, emotional bonds, and other relevant circumstances.

The statute then permits the court to consider “any other factor the court finds relevant.”

That is not an algorithm. It is discretionary judicial decision-making. The Utah Court of Appeals reaffirmed that reality recently in Duffin v. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136. The court explained that although custody factors are important, they are not necessarily equal in weight. The district court generally has discretion, based on the particular facts, to decide how much weight a particular factor deserves.

See Duffin v. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136.

That is why two cases can contain superficially similar facts and still produce different outcomes. The strength of the evidence differs. The witnesses differ. The children differ. The history differs. The credibility findings differ. The weight assigned to each factor differs. A lawyer does not merely ask, “What does the statute say?”

The lawyer asks, “How do I prove that the factors most important in this case favor my client?”

7. Most Family Law Cases Are Negotiated, Not Decided by a Computer or Judge

One of the most overlooked realities of family law is that most cases eventually involve negotiation. Utah actually requires mediation in contested divorce cases. Utah Code § 81-4-403 establishes a mandatory domestic mediation program and generally requires parties with contested issues to participate in at least one good-faith mediation session.

See Utah Code § 81-4-403.

That makes sense because divorce settlements frequently involve trades that cannot be reduced to a formula.

For example:

One spouse may care deeply about keeping the house.

The other may care more about preserving retirement assets.

One parent may care about Christmas morning.

The other may care about uninterrupted summer vacation.

A business owner may accept more debt in exchange for keeping the company intact.

A parent may accept slightly less school-year parent-time in exchange for additional summer time and greater control over transportation.

Those are value judgments. Good negotiation also involves timing, leverage, personalities, fear, anger, risk tolerance, credibility, and knowing when someone has reached the point where another proposal will end rather than advance negotiations. AI can calculate settlement options. It can draft proposals. It can compare economic scenarios.

But a mediator or experienced Utah divorce lawyer negotiating a settlement is doing something different. The lawyer is reading people.

8. Lawyers Are Accountable for What They Tell the Court. AI Is Not.

This is one area where the legal profession learned an AI lesson the hard way.

In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), lawyers submitted judicial opinions that did not exist after relying on generative AI research.

The court imposed sanctions. The important point was not that using AI was itself prohibited. The problem was that attorneys submitted fake authorities without verifying them and continued defending the citations after their authenticity was questioned. The result included a $5,000 sanction. That case demonstrates the fundamental difference between software and counsel.

The lawyer signs the pleading. The lawyer represents that the authority exists. The lawyer owes duties to the client. The lawyer owes duties to the tribunal. And the lawyer can be sanctioned or disciplined when those obligations are violated.

Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly or recklessly making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal and requires disclosure of controlling adverse authority when required. Utah’s professional rules also impose supervisory responsibilities for outside assistance and require attorneys to ensure that work performed for them remains compatible with their professional obligations.

See Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 and Rule 5.3.

The ABA reached the same conclusion in Formal Opinion 512: lawyers using generative AI remain responsible for competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, communication, meritorious claims, and reasonable fees. AI can assist the lawyer. It cannot assume the lawyer’s professional license or professional responsibility.

9. AI Cannot Decide What the Client Values Most

People sometimes talk about legal representation as though every client has a mathematically identifiable “best outcome.” They do not.

Imagine a divorce involving a home with $300,000 in equity. One spouse wants the maximum amount of money possible. The other spouse wants the house because the children have lived there their entire lives and attend school nearby. There may be multiple economically rational settlements. Which one is best? That is not a mathematical question. It is a personal one.

The same thing occurs with custody. One client wants to litigate every available issue. Another wants to preserve enough of a co-parenting relationship to attend the child’s future wedding without open warfare. Another is willing to spend $30,000 litigating an issue worth $10,000 because the underlying principle matters to that person. An attorney may advise that client against it. But ultimately, important decisions belong to the client.

Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 expressly reflects that principle. A lawyer must abide by the client’s decisions regarding the objectives of representation, consult regarding the means used to accomplish those objectives, and abide by the client’s decision whether to settle.

See Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2.

AI can provide options. It cannot determine what kind of parent, former spouse, business owner, or human being the client wants to be after the litigation ends.

10. AI Will Replace Legal Tasks—But That Is Different From Replacing Lawyers

This is where I think the debate often goes wrong. AI probably will replace some of the traditional research and drafting work lawyers currently perform – with lawyer guided prompts and direction. That is not the same thing as replacing lawyers.

Years ago, lawyers paid associates to sit in libraries and Shepardize cases manually. Computers largely eliminated that task. Email dramatically reduced letter dictation. Electronic filing changed courthouse practice. Document automation reduced repetitive drafting. Electronic discovery transformed document review. None of those technologies eliminated lawyers. They changed what lawyers were paid to do. AI is likely to do the same thing on a much larger scale.

The Utah State Bar’s own 2026 AI guidance recognizes that artificial intelligence is already reshaping legal research, drafting, collaboration, and client advice. But its message is not that lawyers are unnecessary. Its message is that AI should be used thoughtfully, securely, and with professional oversight. That is probably the future. A family law attorney may spend less time formatting pleadings. Less time performing basic legal research. Less time reviewing repetitive financial records. Less time creating first drafts. And perhaps less time billing clients for work that software can complete in minutes.

But that leaves more time for what clients actually need lawyers to do:

• develop strategy;
• identify missing evidence;
• evaluate credibility;
• prepare witnesses;
• cross-examine witnesses;
• negotiate settlements;
• interpret changing law;
• evaluate judicial risk;
• advise clients through difficult decisions;
• and accept professional responsibility for the final work product.

The family law attorney of the future will probably use a great deal of AI. That does not make the attorney less important. It may make the attorney significantly more capable, analytical, and skilled at presentation.

The Better Prediction: AI Will Not Replace Lawyers. Lawyers Using AI Will Compete With Lawyers Who Do Not.

I do not believe the future of law is lawyer versus artificial intelligence. I think that is the wrong comparison.

The more realistic comparison is:

lawyer using AI versus lawyer who refuses to use it.

An experienced attorney armed with good AI tools can potentially review information faster, identify inconsistencies sooner, test more legal theories, produce better first drafts, compare more settlement scenarios, and spend more time on strategic judgment rather than clerical work. That is good for clients. But the attorney remains responsible for knowing whether the AI is wrong.

An AI system can tell you what Utah Code § 81-9-204 says. An experienced Utah child custody attorney has to determine which facts matter under that statute, how those facts can actually be proven, which witnesses should testify, whether settlement makes sense, what the opposing party is likely to argue, and how the evidence should be presented to the court.

Those are different functions.

Family Law Is Ultimately About People and Relationships

A divorce is not simply a legal document. It is the legal restructuring of a family.

A custody dispute is not simply a list of statutory factors. It determines how parents will participate in their children’s lives.

An alimony case is not simply a spreadsheet. It involves competing claims about a marriage, earning capacity, financial dependence, sacrifice, fault where legally relevant, and future economic independence.

Mediation is not simply generating the midpoint between two numbers. It is trying to find an agreement that two human beings—often angry human beings—will actually accept and follow.

That is why I do not expect artificial intelligence to eliminate the family law attorney. AI will become better. It will become faster. It will become more deeply integrated into law firms and court systems. Some legal services will become less expensive. Some traditional legal work will disappear. Some lawyers who fail to adapt may find it increasingly difficult to compete. But family law itself will continue to involve politics, culture, evidence, discretion, negotiation, human values, professional responsibility, and the constantly changing institution we call the family.

AI can help us practice family law. It cannot decide what families, parents, legislatures, courts, and society ultimately believe family law should be.

Utah Divorce, Custody & Family Law Representation

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents individuals in Utah divorce cases, child custody and parent-time disputes, support matters, modifications, enforcement proceedings, and mediation throughout Utah County and the Wasatch Front.

For families in northern Utah County, visit our Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer and child custody attorney resource.

We use technology where it makes legal representation more efficient. But technology does not replace careful legal analysis, client communication, evidence development, negotiation, or professional judgment.

Rifleman Law & Mediation
Utah Divorce & Family Law 
801-510-0503
Free Consultation

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about Utah family law, artificial intelligence, and the legal profession. It is not legal advice regarding any particular case. Laws, court rules, AI regulations, and technology continue to change and should be reviewed in their current form before reliance.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

Family-law cases sometimes turn into a contest between two competing stories. One party says a payment was made. The other says it was not. One parent says a government agency confirmed an account was current. The other insists that the agency said something entirely different. Without an independent record, the court may be left deciding which witness is more credible.

A request under Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act—commonly called a GRAMA request—can sometimes replace that uncertainty with dated, objective government records.

That happened in a recent Utah family-law matter involving court-ordered childcare expenses. The identifying details have been omitted, but the evidentiary problem is one that arises regularly in divorce, child support, alimony, custody, and post-decree enforcement cases.

At a June 3 court hearing, one party represented that she had not received payment for childcare expenses. The other party maintained that he had already paid the amount through two electronic transfers. He had screenshots of the transactions, but the dispute was not merely whether money had moved from one account to another. The court also needed to know what the payments were for, whether the recipient recognized them as childcare payments, and whether the Utah Office of Recovery Services had reviewed and credited them.

Rather than continue arguing from memory, the paying party submitted a GRAMA request after the June 3 hearing, to the Utah Office of Recovery Services, or ORS. He requested payment documents, agency notices, and records of relevant telephone conversations.

ORS responded with considerably more than a generic account summary. The agency produced a proof-of-payment worksheet, formal notices concerning the payments, and transcripts of telephone conversations involving the parties and ORS employees.

The resulting records showed that ORS had reviewed two payments and determined that the payments should be credited toward the childcare – satisfying the judgment. More significantly, a transcript of a May 29 telephone call reflected that the payment recipient acknowledged that the transfers were for daycare and stated that she did not dispute that the other party had paid them.

That call occurred before the June 3 hearing. (In other words the recipient perjured herself in the hearing by affirming she was never paid the childcare amounts.)

At a later review hearing in July, when presented with the provided GRAMA responses, the opposing counsel objected that the ORS records and call transcript were hearsay. That objection raised an important question: does a document become admissible merely because it was obtained through GRAMA?

The answer is no. But that does not mean the evidence is inadmissible.

Facing Divorce in Lehi?

Request a FREE, no obligation, confidential consultation.

FREE CONSULTATION

GRAMA Provides Access to Records; the Utah Rules of Evidence Determine Admissibility

Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act governs access to records maintained by Utah governmental entities. GRAMA can be used to request many types of records, including government correspondence, payment histories, account notes, agency decisions, recordings, transcripts, emails, reports, photographs, and electronic data.

GRAMA is an access statute, however. It is not an automatic evidentiary exception.

A document produced by a government agency must still satisfy the Utah Rules of Evidence before it may be admitted in court. The evidence ordinarily must be relevant, authenticated, and either outside the definition of hearsay or covered by a recognized hearsay exception.

In the ORS childcare-payment example, the strongest evidentiary arguments arose under:

• Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), concerning statements of an opposing party;
• Utah Rule of Evidence 803(8), concerning public records;
• Utah Rule of Evidence 805, concerning hearsay within hearsay;
• Utah Rules of Evidence 901 and 902, concerning authentication; and
• Utah Rule of Evidence 1005, concerning copies of official public records.

These rules should be analyzed separately. Simply labeling the entire packet “hearsay” does not address the different kinds of evidence contained within it.

The Opposing Party’s Own Words May Not Be Hearsay

Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)

Under Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), a statement is not hearsay when it is offered against an opposing party and was made by that party in an individual or representative capacity.

This is frequently described as a “party admission,” although the statement does not have to be a confession or an express acknowledgment of wrongdoing. The rule applies to relevant statements made by the opposing party when those statements are later offered against that party.

In the childcare-payment matter, the relevant statements were straightforward. During the ORS call, the payment recipient acknowledged that the transfers were for daycare. She also indicated that she did not dispute that the payments had been made.

When those statements are offered against the person who made them, they fall within Rule 801(d)(2)(A). They are not excluded merely because they were made outside the courtroom.

The statements did not have to be made under oath. They did not have to be made to an attorney. They did not have to be against the speaker’s interests at the moment they were made. The central question is whether the opposing party made the statements and whether they are now being offered against that party.

The ORS Documents May Qualify as Public Records

Utah Rule of Evidence 803(8)

The next question concerns the government record through which the statement is being presented. In this case, ORS maintained the telephone record and produced a written transcript as part of its official response.

Utah Rule of Evidence 803(8) provides a hearsay exception for certain records or statements of a public office. The rule applies when the record sets out:

• The public office’s activities;
• A matter observed while under a legal duty to report; or
• In a civil case, factual findings resulting from a legally authorized investigation.

The exception does not apply if the source of the information or the circumstances surrounding preparation of the record indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

ORS payment worksheets, account histories, agency notices, adjustment records, caseworker entries, and determinations concerning direct payments may fall within Rule 803(8) because they document the official activities and findings of a Utah public agency.

The fact that ORS created or maintained the telephone transcript as part of its official activities can support admission of the government-record layer. But Rule 803(8) does not necessarily make every sentence appearing in a government file admissible for every purpose.

For example, a public report might contain a statement from a private citizen. The government record may qualify under Rule 803(8), but the private citizen’s embedded statement still requires its own evidentiary basis.

That is precisely why Rule 801(d)(2) was important in the ORS matter. The outer document was an agency record. The material statement inside it was made by the opposing party.

Hearsay Within Hearsay Does Not Automatically Require Exclusion

Utah Rule of Evidence 805

Opposing counsel may describe a government transcript as “double hearsay.” That characterization identifies an issue, but it does not resolve it.

Utah Rule of Evidence 805 provides that hearsay within hearsay is not excluded when each part of the combined statement satisfies an applicable hearsay exception or exclusion.

In the ORS example, the analysis can be stated as follows:

• The ORS record, notice, worksheet, or transcript may qualify as an official public record under Rule 803(8).
• The opposing party’s words within that record are not hearsay when offered against her under Rule 801(d)(2)(A).

Each layer has its own evidentiary basis. A blanket objection that “the transcript is hearsay” does not address that layered analysis.

The court may still exclude irrelevant passages, unsupported statements by third parties, legal conclusions, or portions that do not satisfy an exception. Counsel should therefore identify the precise statements being offered and the purpose for which each statement is offered.

The Statement May Also Be a Prior Inconsistent Statement

Utah has an additional rule that may apply when the person who made the statement testifies at the hearing and is subject to cross-examination.

Under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), a prior statement is not hearsay when the declarant testifies, is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony—or the declarant denies making it, claims not to remember it, or has forgotten it.

Unlike the corresponding federal rule, Utah does not require the earlier inconsistent statement to have been made under oath.

Thus, if a party testifies that no childcare payment was received, an earlier telephone statement acknowledging that the payments were received and were for daycare may potentially be admitted as substantive evidence, not merely as an attack on credibility.

Whether a later courtroom statement constitutes perjury is a separate question. Perjury ordinarily requires proof of a knowingly false, material statement made under oath. A contradiction may create substantial impeachment evidence without, by itself, establishing every element of a criminal offense.

Authentication Is Often the Real Evidentiary Battle

Obtaining a record through GRAMA does not eliminate the need to authenticate it.

Utah Rule of Evidence 901 requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims it to be. Rule 901 specifically recognizes authentication through evidence that a purported public record came from the office where records of that kind are maintained.

A GRAMA production letter can be important because it identifies the responding agency, the request, and the records the agency produced. Other indicators of authenticity may include:

• The agency case number;
• The date and time of the telephone call;
• The names of the agency employee and participants;
• Identity-verification questions during the call;
• Agency letterhead or identifying information;
• A records-officer signature;
• Matching payment amounts and account information; and
• The agency’s written description of the enclosed records.

Whenever possible, the requesting party should also obtain a certified copy or custodian certification. Rule 902 addresses categories of self-authenticating evidence, including certain certified public records.

Rule 1005 provides that a copy may be used to prove the content of an official record if the underlying record is otherwise admissible and the copy is properly certified, or if a witness testifies that the copy was compared with the original.

The better practice is to think about authentication when drafting the GRAMA request—not for the first time while standing at the podium during an evidentiary hearing.

Why a Party Might Use a GRAMA Request in a Utah Family-Law Case

The ORS childcare dispute is only one example. A carefully prepared Utah GRAMA request may uncover evidence relevant to many family-law issues including child abuse allegations (CPS/DCFS), law enforcement interactions, etc.

Child Abuse Allegations

DCFS (Division of Child and Family Services), or CPS (Child Protective Services), operated under DHHS (Division of Health and Human Services). Records from DCFS/CPS may help establish supported or false claims of abuse. They may help identify collateral witnesses. They may show communications relevant to your case.

Child Support and Childcare Payments

ORS records may help establish payment histories, account balances, direct-payment credits, income-withholding activity, caseworker communications, agency notices, or administrative adjustments.

These records can be particularly important in a support-enforcement proceeding where one party claims that payments were missed or were applied incorrectly. Parents facing similar disputes may benefit from consulting a Utah child support attorney before presenting the records to the court.

Rifleman Law & Mediation also maintains local resources for parents seeking a Saratoga Springs child support attorney, a Lehi child support attorney, or an Eagle Mountain child support attorney.

Enforcement of Divorce Decrees and Court Orders

A government record may establish whether a party complied with an obligation imposed by a divorce decree. Depending on the issue, relevant records might include proof of support payments, benefit determinations, licensing records, property records, inspection reports, or correspondence with a government employee.

When a former spouse has failed to comply with an existing decree, the evidence obtained through GRAMA may support a motion to enforce or an order to show cause. Additional information is available through the firm’s pages concerning divorce enforcement in Saratoga Springs, divorce enforcement in Lehi, divorce enforcement in American Fork, and divorce enforcement in Provo.

Police, Dispatch, and Incident Records

In custody or protective-order litigation, relevant government records may include incident reports, supplemental narratives, dispatch records, 911 recordings, body-camera footage, photographs, evidence logs, and communications between responding agencies.

Some information may be classified, protected, redacted, or withheld. A request should nevertheless identify the incident date, location, report number, responding agency, and the specific records requested.

School-District Records

Public-school and district records may be relevant to disputes involving attendance, enrollment, educational decisions, school communications, disciplinary events, transportation, or a child’s educational needs. Federal and state privacy laws may restrict access, particularly when the requester is not a parent or otherwise authorized to receive the records.

Government Emails and Agency Communications

Emails, internal correspondence, attachments, meeting notes, calendars, and messages maintained by a public agency may help establish when an agency received information, what action it took, and what it communicated to the parties.

A request for “all emails about my case” may be difficult to search and may produce unnecessary delay or expense. It is usually better to identify the employees, date range, subject matter, case number, and search terms. However, you may want to include all emails as a ‘catch all’ along with specific requests.

Licensing, Employment, and Benefits Records

Government records may sometimes provide relevant evidence concerning professional licensing, public employment, unemployment claims, public benefits, or agency determinations. Many of these records are private or protected, and access may depend on whether the requester is the subject of the record, has a valid authorization, or obtains a court order.

Under Utah Code Section 63G-2-202, the subject of certain private records may have a right to obtain those records even though they are not available to the general public.

How to Write a Useful GRAMA Request

The effectiveness of a GRAMA request often depends on how clearly the requested records are identified.

A governmental entity cannot reliably locate a telephone call, email, or case note when the request merely asks for “everything you have.” Broad language may also increase search time, review time, fees, and the likelihood that the agency will request clarification.

A useful request should ordinarily identify:

• The correct governmental entity;
• The full name of the person who is the subject of the records;
• Any case number, incident number, account number, or agency reference number;
• A specific date or reasonably limited date range;
• The names of known agency employees or participants;
• The telephone numbers or email addresses involved, when known;
• The particular categories of records requested;
• Relevant search terms or subject matter;
• The requested electronic format;
• A request for reasonably segregable portions if part of a record is withheld; and
• A request for certification when the record may be used in court.

Sample GRAMA Request Language

Example One: ORS Telephone Calls and Payment Records

Under Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act, Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 2, I request electronic copies of records maintained by the Utah Office of Recovery Services concerning ORS Case No. [CASE NUMBER] for the period of [START DATE] through [END DATE].

The requested records include:

1. Audio recordings of all incoming and outgoing telephone calls involving [FULL NAME], telephone number [NUMBER], and ORS personnel;
2. Any verbatim or substantially verbatim transcripts of those calls;
3. Call logs identifying the date, time, duration, participants, and assigned ORS employee;
4. Caseworker notes, contact notes, account remarks, case logs, and audit-trail entries concerning childcare payments or direct payments;
5. Payment histories, proof-of-payment submissions, direct-payment worksheets, agency notices, adjustment records, and determinations concerning whether payments were credited;
6. Emails, letters, attachments, and communications concerning the payments made on [DATES] in the amounts of $[AMOUNT] and $[AMOUNT]; and
7. Records identifying when the payment recipient was notified that the payments had been submitted, reviewed, accepted, disputed, or credited.

If the actual audio recordings cannot be released, please provide any available transcripts and identify in writing the legal or technical reason the recordings cannot be produced.

Please provide the records electronically in their native format or as searchable PDF files. Because these records may be used in a judicial proceeding, please provide certified copies or a records-custodian certification identifying the records as true and correct copies maintained by ORS.

If any portion is withheld, please identify the statutory basis for withholding it and produce all reasonably segregable, nonexempt portions.

Example Two: Request for a Specific Telephone Call

I request the audio recording, transcript, call-detail record, contact note, and related caseworker notes for the telephone call occurring on or about [DATE], between approximately [TIME RANGE], involving [PERSON’S NAME] and [AGENCY EMPLOYEE, IF KNOWN].

The call concerned [BRIEF SUBJECT], including whether [SPECIFIC FACT OR PAYMENT] had occurred. The caller may have used telephone number [NUMBER]. The agency case or account number is [NUMBER].

If no responsive call is located on the stated date, please search the seven-day period before and after that date and provide any call records matching the identified participants and subject matter.

Example Three: Government Emails and Attachments

I request electronic copies of emails, attachments, memoranda, and internal messages sent or received between [EMPLOYEE ONE] and [EMPLOYEE TWO OR OUTSIDE PERSON] from [START DATE] through [END DATE] concerning [SUBJECT], [CASE NUMBER], or the following search terms: “[TERM ONE],” “[TERM TWO],” and “[TERM THREE].”

Please include the complete email thread, attachments, sender and recipient information, date-and-time information, and available metadata. Duplicate copies may be omitted.

Example Four: Police and Dispatch Records

I request records concerning Incident No. [NUMBER], occurring on [DATE] at [LOCATION], including the initial incident report, supplemental reports, CAD or dispatch logs, 911 recordings, body-worn-camera recordings, photographs, witness statements, evidence logs, and communications between responding officers and dispatch.

Please identify any record withheld or redacted and provide the specific statutory basis for the withholding or redaction.

Ask for the Record You Actually Need

A strong GRAMA request is usually specific enough to direct the agency to the record, but broad enough to capture related documents that may use a different title.

For example, an agency may not call its internal record a “caseworker note.” It may call it an account remark, contact entry, event history, activity log, chronological note, audit entry, or case narrative. Including several reasonable descriptions can prevent the search from becoming dependent on a single label.

The same principle applies to phone records. Requesting only an “audio recording” may produce nothing if the agency cannot release the audio but can provide a transcript. A more complete request asks for:

• The audio recording;
• Any transcript;
• The call-detail log;
• The employee’s notes;
• The case-history entry created after the call; and
• Any follow-up letter or email generated because of the conversation.

Request Certification Before the Hearing

When litigation is anticipated, the requester should consider asking the agency to certify the records when they are produced. A useful certification may identify:

• The agency maintaining the records;
• The records officer or custodian;
• The manner in which the records are ordinarily maintained;
• That the attached documents are true and correct copies;
• That the records were retrieved from the agency’s official system;
• Whether the transcript was generated from a stored recording; and
• Whether the original recording remains available.

If the agency does not provide certification through GRAMA, counsel may need a subpoena, records deposition, declaration, or testimony from a custodian or participating agency employee.

GRAMA Should Supplement, Not Replace, Formal Discovery

A GRAMA request can be an effective investigative tool, but it is not a substitute for every form of civil discovery.

GRAMA generally reaches records maintained by governmental entities. It does not require a private party to answer interrogatories, produce privately held documents, admit facts, or appear for a deposition. Those objectives ordinarily require formal discovery under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

A GRAMA request also should not automatically be treated as a litigation hold. If records may be deleted under an agency retention schedule, counsel should separately consider a preservation notice, subpoena, or court order.

Some records may be private, protected, controlled, privileged, or restricted by state or federal law. An agency may redact information concerning children, medical treatment, Social Security numbers, addresses, confidential sources, or unrelated third parties. A valid GRAMA request does not guarantee that every requested record will be released without restriction.

Build the Evidentiary Chain Rather Than Relying on a Single Document

In the ORS matter, the telephone transcript was not the only evidence. The complete evidentiary chain included:

• The electronic-payment confirmations;
• The payment descriptions identifying childcare;
• The ORS proof-of-payment worksheet;
• The agency notice acknowledging the submitted payment documentation;
• The ORS determination crediting the payments;
• The GRAMA response identifying the produced records;
• The call transcript containing the recipient’s acknowledgment; and
• The court record reflecting the later inconsistent representation.

Each record served a different purpose. The electronic transaction records showed that money was transferred. The ORS worksheet showed that the agency reviewed and credited the payments. The telephone transcript showed what the recipient knew and acknowledged before the court hearing.

That is substantially stronger than asking a court to choose between two unsupported recollections.

GRAMA Evidence Can Change the Direction of a Family-Law Case

A Utah GRAMA request can reveal what a government agency received, recorded, decided, and communicated. It can establish dates, amounts, identities, notice, knowledge, and prior statements. It may also expose a material difference between what a person told an agency and what that person later told the court.

The record is not automatically admissible merely because the government produced it. Counsel must still establish relevance, authentication, and an applicable hearsay exclusion or exception.

In an appropriate case, however, the legal analysis may be direct:

• The agency document qualifies as a public record under Rule 803(8);
• The opposing party’s statement is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2);
• Rule 805 permits the combined statement because each layer is independently admissible; and
• The agency response, certification, and surrounding circumstances authenticate the record under Rules 901, 902, and 1005.

For parties involved in a Saratoga Springs divorce or custody case, a Lehi family-law dispute, an American Fork divorce case, an Eagle Mountain custody or support proceeding, a Pleasant Grove divorce matter, or litigation requiring a Provo divorce lawyer, government records may provide evidence that is not otherwise available from the opposing party.

The important questions are not merely whether a GRAMA request should be made, but what records should be requested, how those records should be described, and how the resulting evidence will be authenticated and presented in court.

Speak With a Utah Family-Law Attorney About Evidence and Enforcement

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, modification, and enforcement proceedings throughout Utah County and the Wasatch Front. The firm assists clients in identifying relevant evidence, obtaining records, preparing exhibits, and presenting admissible proof in contested family-law proceedings.

For a confidential consultation, contact Rifleman Law & Mediation at 801-510-0503 or visit the firm’s contact page.

This article provides general information concerning Utah law and is not legal advice. Whether a particular government record is obtainable or admissible depends on the record’s classification, the purpose for which it is offered, the method of authentication, the statements contained within it, and the specific facts of the case.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

Moving closer to your children, improving communication with the other parent, or becoming more available may support a request to modify parent-time in Utah. But those facts do not automatically prove that the court should change an existing schedule. The parent asking for modification must connect the changed circumstances to a proposed schedule that will actually improve the children’s lives and serve their best interests.

The Utah Court of Appeals emphasized that distinction in Duffin v. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136. The father in Duffin proved changes sufficient for the district court to reconsider the existing arrangement. He nevertheless lost because the children were thriving, the requested changes were not shown to improve their circumstances, and the practical problems underlying the original parent-time decision had not been overcome.

For parents considering a Utah divorce decree modification, Duffin is an important reminder: proving that life has changed opens the door to review, but it does not establish what should be on the other side of that door.

The Current Utah Statutory Standard for Modifying Custody or Parent-Time

Utah Code section 81-9-208 gives Utah courts continuing jurisdiction to modify custody and parent-time orders. The current statute distinguishes between the two:

• To modify custody, the statute requires a substantial and material change in circumstances since entry of the order.
• To modify parent-time, the statute requires a change in circumstances since entry of the order.

See Utah Code § 81-9-208(1). That custody-versus-parent-time distinction is also reflected in Utah appellate decisions. See Blocker v. Blocker, 2019 UT App 82, ¶ 12, 444 P.3d 541; Erickson v. Erickson, 2018 UT App 184, ¶ 16, 437 P.3d 370; Jones v. Jones, 2016 UT App 94, ¶ 14, 374 P.3d 45. A request that changes only the timing or structure of parent-time may require a lesser threshold showing than a request that changes legal or physical custody. The label used in the petition, however, does not control. A court will examine what the requested order would actually do.

When modification would alter or terminate an existing joint legal or joint physical custody order, section 81-9-208 requires findings that a substantial and material change has occurred and that the modification would be both an improvement for and in the best interest of the child. The court must consider the statutory factors in Utah Code § 81-9-204 and, when joint custody is involved, Utah Code § 81-9-205. The court must also give substantial weight to the existing joint-custody order when the child is thriving, happy, and well-adjusted. Utah Code § 81-9-208(4).

Duffin applied the version of section 81-9-208 governing the proceedings in that case and involved a request for equal parent-time within an existing joint-custody structure. Its central lesson remains important under the current statute: even where the required change in circumstances is established, the requested schedule must still be justified by the children’s best interests and, where applicable, the statutory improvement requirement.

What Does “Improvement” Mean?

“Improvement” requires a comparison. The court is not simply deciding whether the requesting parent is loving, capable, or deserving of additional time. It compares the existing arrangement with the proposed arrangement from the child’s perspective. The evidence should explain how the requested change would improve stability, developmental support, school routines, the child’s relationship with each parent, transportation, decision-making, or another need important to that particular child.

A proposal is not necessarily an improvement merely because it gives both parents equal time, reduces one parent’s childcare costs, or seems more fair to an adult. In Duffin, the district court found no evidence that a parent-time change was needed to correct a problem affecting the children. That absence mattered.

What Does “Best Interest of the Child” Mean?

Best interest is a child-focused analysis, not a referendum on which parent is the better person. Section 81-9-204 identifies factors that may include the child’s physical and psychological needs; each parent’s demonstrated ability to meet those needs; the strength of the child’s relationship with each parent; the parents’ co-parenting skills; their willingness to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent; prior caregiving; stability; the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community; and other facts affecting the child. In a joint-custody analysis, section 81-9-205 also addresses matters such as the parents’ ability to communicate and cooperate.

No single fact automatically controls every case. The district court has discretion to decide which factors carry the greatest weight under the evidence before it. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136, ¶ 22 (citing Twitchell v. Twitchell, 2022 UT App 49, ¶ 20, 509 P.3d 806).

What Happened in Duffin v. Duffin?

The Original Divorce Trial and Parent-Time Order

James and Brandy Duffin married in 2015 and had two children. Their older son had autism spectrum disorder and special needs. James filed for divorce in 2018 and requested equal parent-time. The custody and parent-time issues were tried to the district court in March 2020; they were not merely accepted as an unexamined private stipulation.

The court awarded joint legal custody, designated Brandy as the primary physical custodian, and gave her final decision-making authority if the parents could not agree. James received five overnights during each two-week period under what is now Utah Code § 81-9-303—more than the minimum schedule, but less than equal parent-time. The decree provided a right of first refusal only when overnight care was needed.

The court found both parents involved and bonded with the children. But it also found that routine and fewer transitions were especially important for the older child, Brandy had been more involved in arranging his therapy, and James lived approximately forty minutes away. The court therefore rejected equal parent-time after adjudicating the issue under the facts then existing.

What the Father Asked the Court to Modify

Approximately five months after entry of the decree, James petitioned to modify. He had moved to within four miles of Brandy and closer to the children’s school. He again requested equal parent-time.

He later amended his petition after Brandy obtained full-time employment and enrolled the children in full-time daycare. James asked the court to expand the overnight right of first refusal so that either parent would have the opportunity to care for the children whenever the other parent would be unavailable for more than four hours. He also moved to enforce the decree, arguing that daycare enrollment was a joint legal-custody decision Brandy should have discussed with him.

What the District Court Found After the Modification Trial

Following a two-day trial in May 2023, the district court found that James’s move closer to the children and the parents’ less hostile communication together constituted a material change sufficient to revisit custody and parent-time.

That finding did not end the analysis. The court found:

• The children were thriving under the existing arrangement.
• Both parents were actively involved in school conferences and therapy.
• The parents’ communication had improved but was still poor, and James was sometimes slow to respond or did not respond.
• The original findings supporting the 2020 custody and parent-time decision otherwise remained unchanged.
• There was no evidence that changing parent-time would resolve the younger child’s tantrums or correct another problem affecting the children.

The court concluded that maintaining the status quo was in the children’s best interests. Although the court stated that a 50/50 schedule requires mutual respect, flexibility, and frequent communication, it did not treat communication as the sole factor. The children’s success under the existing schedule was the court’s “biggest factor.”

The court also denied the expanded right of first refusal. It found that requiring repeated coordination about daily care would create uncertainty for the children and make dependable daycare arrangements difficult. Finally, it held that selecting surrogate care during a parent’s own parent-time was, on this record, a day-to-day physical-custody decision rather than a major joint legal-custody decision. Brandy therefore was not in contempt for enrolling the children in daycare without James’s agreement.

What the Father Argued on Appeal

James raised two principal issues before the Utah Court of Appeals.

First, he argued that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by treating frequent communication as a prerequisite to equal parent-time. He noted that the equal parent-time schedule and the alternative schedule involved a similar number of exchanges and contended that poor communication should not have defeated his request.

Second, he challenged the daycare rulings. He argued that daycare was a joint legal-custody decision because he was available to care for the children and because daycare allegedly involved education and facilitated the older child’s therapy. He also challenged the denial of a daytime right of first refusal and the requirement that he share work-related childcare expenses.

What the Utah Court of Appeals Held

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in all respects addressed on the merits.

Communication Was a Permissible Factor, Not a Categorical Prerequisite

The appellate court rejected the argument that the district court had made “frequent communication” a legal prerequisite to equal parent-time. Read in context, the district court had considered multiple factors. Communication was relevant because Utah law permits a court to consider co-parenting skills and the ability to communicate appropriately. But the children’s thriving condition under the existing schedule was the central reason for maintaining it.

The appellate court emphasized that Utah Code section 81-9-208 directs a court to give substantial weight to an existing joint-custody order when children are thriving, happy, and well-adjusted. Because the original equal-parent-time request had been adjudicated and the district court found no child-centered need for change, it acted within its discretion by denying the renewed request. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136, ¶¶ 23–27.

Daycare Was a Day-to-Day Decision on This Record

The Court of Appeals explained that legal custody concerns major decisions in a child’s life, while physical custody includes day-to-day decisions. Utah Code section 81-9-203(12) allows each parent to make decisions regarding day-to-day care and control while the child resides with that parent.

The evidence did not establish that this daycare served as the children’s school or provided specialized medical treatment. The older child’s therapist was not affiliated with the daycare and traveled to wherever the child happened to be. The father also had full-time employment by trial and proposed using relatives or neighbors when he was unavailable. On that record, Brandy’s use of daycare was not materially different from James arranging for a family member to provide care during his time. The court carefully limited its holding to the facts of the case. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136, ¶¶ 29–33.

A Right of First Refusal Is Not Automatic

Utah Code § 81-9-202(13) states an advisory preference for parental care over surrogate care and encourages cooperation when the other parent is willing and able to provide childcare. But the guideline does not create an automatic entitlement to a right of first refusal. See Wight v. Wight, 2011 UT App 424, ¶ 22, 268 P.3d 861; Childs v. Childs, 967 P.2d 942, 946 (Utah Ct. App. 1998).

Because a daytime right of first refusal would have complicated stable childcare, required more communication, and created uncertainty about where the children would be before and after school, the district court acted within its discretion by denying it. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136, ¶¶ 34–37.

The Childcare-Cost Argument Was Not Preserved

The decree required the parties to share reasonable work-related childcare expenses. James had not asked the district court to modify that provision in his petition. The Court of Appeals therefore declined to consider that challenge because it had not been preserved. Duffin, 2025 UT App 136, ¶¶ 38–39. This is a practical pleading lesson: a petition should identify each provision the party actually wants modified.

Was the Existing Provision Adjudicated or Merely Stipulated?

Before filing a petition, determine how the existing provision came into being. In Duffin, equal parent-time had been requested, tried, and rejected after factual findings. The father was therefore asking the same court to revisit a question it had already adjudicated, and many of the underlying findings remained unchanged.

A stipulated or otherwise unadjudicated custody term presents a different concern. Utah appellate courts have explained that the res judicata policy behind the changed-circumstances rule is weaker when a custody provision was not the product of judicial fact-finding about the child’s best interests. See Taylor v. Elison, 2011 UT App 272, ¶¶ 13–16, 263 P.3d 448; Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599, 603–05 (Utah 1989). A court should not treat an unlitigated clause as though the child’s present best interests were already objectively adjudicated.

That does not mean every stipulated provision is freely reopened or that a parent can ignore the statutory threshold. It means the history matters. Counsel should identify:

• whether the precise parent-time or custody term was tried;
• whether the court made findings supporting it;
• whether the claimed new facts were contemplated when the order was entered;
• whether the real-world schedule differs from the written decree; and
• whether enforcing or changing the provision would preserve or disrupt the child’s actual stability.

Parents researching this threshold can review our discussion of what qualifies as a substantial change for a Utah divorce modification.

What a Parent Seeking More Parent-Time Should Be Prepared to Prove

1. Identify Exactly What Will Change

Distinguish a modification of parent-time from a modification of physical or legal custody. Specify overnights, exchanges, transportation, holidays, school days, childcare, and decision-making. If the requested schedule would change the existing custody classification or terminate joint custody, the more demanding statutory requirements may apply.

2. Prove the Relevant Change Since the Controlling Order

Evidence may include a sustained work-schedule change, relocation closer to the child, new educational or medical needs, persistent interference with parent-time, a material change in a parent’s ability to care for the child, or an established schedule different from the written order. But the change must be tied to the relief requested. Moving closer may remove one reason the prior court denied equal time, yet Duffin shows that removing one obstacle does not necessarily overcome the remaining findings or the child’s successful status quo.

3. Show Why the Proposed Schedule Is Better for This Child

Present evidence of benefit, not simply parental fairness. A useful proposal explains how it will improve school attendance, routines, therapy participation, transportation, parent-child relationships, sibling relationships, supervision, or another concrete aspect of the child’s welfare. The plan should be workable on ordinary school days, not merely attractive on a calendar.

4. Address the Child’s Current Success Honestly

If the child is thriving, the court must take that seriously. A parent should not manufacture problems or minimize the child’s success. The better question is whether the proposed schedule preserves what is working while adding a demonstrable benefit. If there is no child-centered problem to solve and no improvement to establish, Duffin suggests the court may preserve the existing order.

5. Demonstrate That the Plan Can Function

Equal parent-time under Utah Code § 81-9-305 is not defeated by conflict as a categorical rule. Still, evidence of communication, flexibility, reliable exchanges, school proximity, and the ability to support the other parent’s relationship with the child may determine whether the proposed plan is practical and in the child’s best interest.

6. Plead Every Provision You Want Changed

If childcare expenses, decision-making authority, transportation, or a right of first refusal must change for the proposed plan to work, those requests should be expressly raised and supported. An issue omitted below may not be available on appeal.

Local Help With Utah Parent-Time Modifications

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents parents seeking or opposing custody and parent-time modifications throughout Utah County and surrounding communities. Learn more from our Saratoga Springs divorce and custody, our Saratoga Springs divorce modification page, or our city resources for a Lehi divorce lawyer, Eagle Mountain child custody lawyer, American Fork divorce lawyer, and Provo child custody attorney.

If your present parent-time order no longer fits your child’s needs, the proper analysis begins with the language and history of the existing decree, the circumstances that have actually changed, and the evidence showing why your proposed plan will improve the child’s life. Contact Rifleman Law & Mediation at 801-510-0503 to schedule a confidential consultation.

This article provides general information about Utah law and is not legal advice. Modification standards depend on the precise relief requested, the controlling order, the history of the case, and the evidence presented.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

Few subjects in Utah family law generate more controversy than reunification therapy. The very phrase suggests hope—a process designed to restore a fractured relationship between a parent and a child. In many cases, that hope is justified. Children deserve meaningful relationships with both parents whenever those relationships are safe, healthy, and in the child’s best interests.

But there is another side of this discussion that deserves equal attention.

What happens when the child is not estranged because of manipulation, coaching, or parental alienation? What happens when the child’s fear is the product of actual abuse? What happens when the Utah Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), law enforcement, therapists, or even the court itself concludes that abuse occurred?

At that point, I believe we should ask a difficult question: Is it truly in the child’s best interest to require that child to participate in reunification therapy with the very parent from whom the child needed protection?

As a Utah family law attorney, I believe this question deserves far more discussion than it currently receives.

Reunification Therapy Is Not Inherently Bad

Before going further, let me be clear. I am not opposed to reunification therapy. Quite the opposite. I have represented many parents who were victims of false allegations, malicious gatekeeping, or genuine parental alienation. In those situations, reunification therapy can be an extraordinarily valuable tool. Children deserve the opportunity to rebuild relationships that have been damaged by manipulation or unnecessary conflict. When a loving, capable parent has been unfairly pushed out of a child’s life, reunification therapy may help restore a relationship that never should have been broken. Those cases exist.Unfortunately, they are not every case.

The mistake I sometimes see is assuming that every child who resists contact with a parent is alienated. Sometimes resistance is manipulation. Sometimes resistance is survival from abuse.

There Is a Difference Between Alienation and Protection

One of the most important distinctions in family law is the difference between parental alienation and justified estrangement. A child who refuses to visit a parent because the other parent has manipulated the child presents one set of issues. A child who refuses because that parent physically abused, sexually abused, terrorized, neglected, or psychologically harmed the child presents an entirely different situation.

Those two children may exhibit similar behaviors.

• Both may refuse visits.
• Both may become anxious.
• Both may cry before exchanges.
• Both may say they never want to see the parent again.

The behaviors may look similar. The reasons could not be more different. One child is reacting to manipulation. The other may be reacting to trauma. Treating both children with the same therapeutic model risks causing profound harm.

Utah Law Has Begun to Recognize This Distinction

The Utah Legislature has increasingly emphasized that child safety must remain paramount in custody cases involving abuse allegations.

Utah Code § 81-9-104 specifically addresses expert testimony, findings involving domestic violence or abuse, and reunification treatment. The statute reflects a growing recognition that courts must exercise caution before ordering reunification efforts in cases involving abuse.

Among other protections, the statute provides that where there is reasonable cause to believe domestic violence, child abuse, or an ongoing risk exists, reunification treatment should not be ordered unless there is generally accepted proof that the treatment is physically and psychologically safe, therapeutically effective, and not associated with causing harm to children. It further directs that efforts to address a child’s resistance toward an abusive parent should primarily focus on the abusive parent’s behavior rather than attempting to change the child’s response.

That is an important policy statement.

It recognizes something courts have sometimes struggled with for years:

The solution to abuse is not simply persuading the child to feel differently about the abuse. (That would be like persuading an abused spouse to ignore the domestic abuse, or at least minimize it, and ask the victi to go back to the abuser as if the abuse never occurred or have significant impact on the victim.)

Can Trust Be Ordered?

This raises the question that I believe deserves greater discussion. Can trust actually be ordered by a judge? A court can order parent-time. A court can order counseling. A court can order evaluations. A court can order therapy.

But can any court order a child to trust someone? I do not believe it can. Trust is earned. It cannot be compelled. When trust has been destroyed through abuse, accountability—not judicial compulsion—is what begins the healing process.

An Analogy Worth Considering

This is where I believe family law sometimes finds itself in an uncomfortable position.

Imagine an adult victim of domestic violence. A protective order has been entered. The court has found that abuse occurred. No one would seriously suggest that the victim should immediately begin counseling designed to rebuild emotional intimacy with the abusive spouse simply because marriage vows once promised “until death do us part.” Most people would recognize how inappropriate that would be.

The focus would instead be on safety. On accountability. On whether the abusive spouse has accepted responsibility. On whether meaningful behavioral change has occurred. Only then might reconciliation even become a possibility—and only if the victim freely chose it.

Children, however, rarely possess that same freedom of choice. And, there is currently a push to force reunification at any and all costs. 

When the Child Is the Victim

As lawyers, judges, guardians ad litem, therapists, and parents, we often talk about the importance of preserving the parent-child relationship. That principle is deeply rooted in Utah law. Children generally benefit from having meaningful relationships with both parents, and our courts strive to preserve those relationships whenever possible. (The law still has a long way to go to ensure a fair starting point in custody actions with assumptions of 50/50 joint and physical custody.)

But what if the parent-child relationship was not broken by divorce? What if it was broken by abuse? That question changes everything.

When DCFS substantiates abuse, when a juvenile court makes findings of abuse or neglect, or when a district court finds credible evidence that a parent has physically, emotionally, or sexually abused a child, the child’s fear should not automatically be viewed as a problem to solve. Sometimes fear is exactly what keeps children safe.

Trauma is not defiance. A child who recoils from an abusive parent may not be rejecting love. The child may simply be remembering pain.

Who Should Carry the Burden of Repair?

This is where I believe the conversation often becomes backwards.

In many custody disputes, courts understandably focus on restoring the relationship between the child and the rejected parent. That objective may be entirely appropriate when the rejection stems from false allegations, manipulation, or parental alienation.

But if the relationship was damaged because one parent abused the child, why does the therapeutic process sometimes appear to begin with changing the child’s behavior rather than first requiring the offending parent to demonstrate lasting change?

That is not merely a legal question. It is a moral one. The parent who caused the damage should bear the primary responsibility for repairing it. The child should not.

Fortunately, Utah’s Legislature appears to recognize this principle. Utah Code § 81-9-104 now provides that when a court has reasonable cause to believe domestic violence, child abuse, or an ongoing risk exists, any effort to remediate a child’s resistance toward an abusive parent should primarily address the abusive parent’s conduct and contribution to that resistance. The statute also requires courts to prioritize the child’s physical and psychological safety.

That language is significant. It recognizes that the source of the problem matters. However, in practice some overzealous actors still place the ‘reunification aim’ to resestablish the relationship above the child’s safety.

Healing Cannot Be Built Upon Denial

One of the greatest obstacles to meaningful reunification is the refusal of an abusive parent to acknowledge what occurred. If a parent insists that the abuse never happened, blames the child, accuses the other parent of coaching, or portrays himself or herself as the true victim, meaningful reunification becomes extraordinarily difficult.

Children are remarkably perceptive. They know when adults are minimizing their experiences. They know when no one is taking responsibility. Therapy cannot erase that reality. Trust begins with accountability. Without accountability, reunification risks becoming little more than an exercise in asking the child to suppress legitimate feelings in order to satisfy the adults involved in the litigation.

Children Should Not Feel Responsible for Adult Decisions

Children frequently internalize responsibility for circumstances they did not create.

When a court orders reunification therapy after abuse has been substantiated, some children understandably conclude that the adults around them believe they are part of the problem.

That perception can be devastating.

The child may wonder:

• Did no one believe me?
• Was the abuse really that serious?
• Am I expected to pretend everything is normal?
• Am I disappointing the judge if I remain afraid?

Those questions may never be spoken aloud. Yet they can shape a child’s emotional development for years. Courts should be cautious not to unintentionally communicate that a child’s protective instincts are symptoms requiring correction.

The Difference Between Forgiveness and Safety

Our society often celebrates forgiveness. Forgiveness can be healthy. Forgiveness can be freeing. But forgiveness is not the same as trust. Nor is forgiveness the same as safety.

A child may someday forgive an abusive parent while still recognizing that a close relationship is neither safe nor emotionally healthy. Family courts should be careful not to confuse those concepts. The law cannot require forgiveness. More importantly, it should never require a child to ignore legitimate safety concerns in pursuit of an idealized parent-child relationship.

Not Every Broken Relationship Should Be Repaired Immediately

One of the realities lawyers learn over years of practice is that timing matters. Some relationships can be repaired quickly. Others require years of demonstrated change. Some may never be capable of becoming healthy. Judges understandably hope families can heal. Therapists generally believe relationships are worth preserving. Parents often desperately want reconciliation. Those are admirable goals. But hope should never replace evidence.

Before asking a child to participate in rebuilding trust, courts should carefully examine whether the offending parent has accepted responsibility, completed meaningful treatment, demonstrated sustained behavioral change, complied with all recommendations, and shown by actions—not merely words—that the child’s emotional and physical safety comes first.

Absent those factors, reunification risks becoming aspirational rather than therapeutic.

A Better Starting Point

Perhaps the question should not be:

“How do we convince this child to restore the relationship?”

Perhaps the better question is:

“What has the offending parent done to earn the opportunity to rebuild that relationship?”

That subtle shift changes the entire framework. It places responsibility where responsibility belongs. It respects the child’s lived experience. And it remains consistent with Utah’s increasing emphasis on protecting children while requiring courts to carefully evaluate reunification treatment in cases involving abuse.

Protecting Children and Preserving Families Are Not Always the Same Objective

One of the most difficult realities in family law is acknowledging that protecting children and preserving families are not always identical objectives. Most of the time, they are.

Children generally benefit from having healthy, meaningful relationships with both parents. That principle has long been recognized by Utah courts and is reflected throughout Utah’s custody statutes. However, there are cases where those objectives diverge.

When abuse has been substantiated, the primary objective should no longer be restoring a relationship at all costs. The primary objective should be protecting the child while determining whether the offending parent has demonstrated sufficient change to safely earn another opportunity.

That distinction is critical. The law should never assume that every fractured parent-child relationship must immediately be repaired. Some relationships require significant healing before reunification is appropriate. Others may require permanent boundaries to protect the child’s emotional or physical well-being.

The Role of Judges, Guardians ad Litem, and Therapists

Family law professionals face extraordinarily difficult decisions. Judges often have limited time and incomplete information. Guardians ad litem are asked to balance competing narratives while advocating for the child’s best interests. Therapists frequently become involved after significant damage has already occurred. Each professional brings valuable experience to the process. Yet each should remain mindful of one fundamental principle: the presence of a parent-child relationship is not, by itself, evidence that continuing or restoring that relationship is presently in the child’s best interests.

Likewise, a child’s reluctance to engage with a parent should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of parental alienation. Sometimes a child’s resistance reflects manipulation.

Sometimes it reflects trauma. The challenge for every professional involved is to distinguish between those two very different circumstances. That determination requires careful investigation, trauma-informed evaluation, and a willingness to consider objective evidence rather than assumptions.

Every Case Must Be Evaluated Individually

This article should not be interpreted as suggesting that reunification therapy is never appropriate. Far from it. There are many cases in which a child has been improperly influenced to reject a loving parent. In those situations, reunification therapy can provide tremendous benefits and may restore a relationship that should never have been interrupted.

Likewise, there are situations in which a parent who once engaged in abusive or harmful conduct has accepted responsibility, completed treatment, demonstrated meaningful behavioral change over an extended period of time, and genuinely earned the opportunity to rebuild trust. Those cases exist as well.

The point is not that reunification therapy should never occur. The point is that courts should carefully distinguish between children who are alienated from a safe parent and children who are protecting themselves from an unsafe one. Those are fundamentally different cases requiring fundamentally different approaches.

A Question Worth Asking

As our understanding of childhood trauma continues to evolve, perhaps family courts should ask a different question before ordering reunification therapy:

Has the parent seeking reunification demonstrated, through consistent actions rather than promises, that rebuilding this relationship is presently safe for the child?

If the answer is yes, reunification therapy may become a valuable part of that process.

If the answer is no, compelling the child to participate may unintentionally shift responsibility away from the adult whose conduct created the problem in the first place. Children should never be expected to carry that burden.

Final Thoughts

Family courts perform one of the most difficult functions in our justice system. Judges make life-changing decisions based upon imperfect information, often while trying to balance competing constitutional rights, parental interests, and the welfare of children. Reasonable people can disagree about where that balance should be struck.

My concern is not with reunification therapy as a concept. It is with ensuring that the therapy is used for the right reasons, in the right cases, and at the right time.

When abuse has been substantiated, the first priority should be accountability, demonstrated change, and child safety. Rebuilding trust should be the product of those efforts—not the starting point. Trust cannot be ordered. Relationships cannot be legislated. And children should never feel responsible for repairing damage they did not cause.

Need Advice About a Utah Child Custody or Reunification Therapy Case?

Custody disputes involving allegations of abuse, parental alienation, reunification therapy, or DCFS investigations require careful legal analysis. Every case is unique, and outcomes depend upon the specific facts, the applicable law, and the evidence presented to the court.

If you are facing a custody dispute involving reunification therapy or allegations of abuse, understanding your rights under Utah law is essential.

Learn more about our child custody resources:

• Utah Child Custody & Parent-Time
• Saratoga Springs Child Custody Lawyer
• Lehi Child Custody Lawyer
• American Fork Child Custody Lawyer
• Eagle Mountain Child Custody Lawyer
• Utah Divorce Resources

Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s opinions regarding public policy and family law practice. It is intended for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every custody case presents unique facts and legal issues that should be evaluated individually.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

People often ask me, “Jeff, What is your story?” Usually, that question comes after I post or comment about Utah child custody, joint physical custody, protective orders, guardian ad litem involvement, DCFS safety plans, mandatory services, or the way the family court system can affect fit parents and children.

My story is personal before it is professional.

I was married years ago. I wanted a family – but I never expected to become a litigant in a divorce and custody battle. I was divorcing my wife – not my child. I did not expect to spend years in court. I did not expect to spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting for meaningful access to my own child. I did not expect the appointed guardian ad litem would not address concerns, or even perform due diligence to investigate claims, collateral witnesses (doctors, therapists, school personel, neighbors) and facts presented for review. I certainly did not expect to learn, from the inside, how easily custody processes can be used as leverage by one parent against the other, and how often the system often rewards established process and aging biases over truth. I did not expect to learn that politics and money were often behind policies and legislative law affecting custody, child support, and other programs that became legislatively dependent on federal rules that used disparity in custody and income to enhance rewards from federal incentive funds. I did not expect to learn that the state had significant funding allocated to child support collection – and little, if no budget, to enforce what was then called ‘visitation’. I did not expect law enforcement to directly disregard orders from the court.

My experience was eyeopening and in the end I was left with a piece of paper that delegated statutory ‘visitation’ with my son. Trying to enforce that paper  (divorce decree) was like throwing punches in the wind. There was little, if no, accountability for violating a parent’s court ordered parent time. I spent years with advocacy groups trying to get attention for parents and seeking answers for ‘best interests’ that excluded equal access. Then in a meeting in August of 2007 at the Salt Lake City Library, then Utah Lt. Governor Greg Bell stated verbally what was known all along, that a move towards equal parent-time custody would be economically unfeasable for the state (not in its best interest),

” …I’m just saying that there’s no way you’re going to walk off hundreds of millions of child support … it’s a huge economic and social shift [for the state]. and you know whether you and I and all the Angels agree or not, we’re not going to get the governor and 103 other people you know to move there overnight…“. – Lt. Gov. Greg Bell.  (In other words, the State’s best interest was in the economics attached to children, not the child’s best interest to maintain and maximize relationships with parents.) See video below from that meeting.

My divorce and the subsequent experiences with a jaundiced bureaucracy changed the direction of my life and lead me to law practice.

Today, as a Utah child custody and parent-time lawyer, I represent parents in divorce actions, parent-time disputes, custody modifications, child support actions, enforcement actions, DCFS actions, and guardian ad litem disputes throughout Utah County, Salt Lake County, Tooele County, and the Wasatch Front. My position is not complicated: children generally deserve meaningful access to both fit parents. The law has begrudingly moved in that direction over the last twenty years, but the system still has substantial work to do when it comes to reforming the process to ensure a just and fair outcome for the parties and the children – in the best interests of the children – not the interest of the State for its own self-serving economic and politically motivated programs.

The Old Practical Assumption: One Parent Had Custody and the Other Had “Visitation”

For many years, the practical assumption in custody litigation was that one parent would be treated as the “real” custodial parent, while the other parent received limited visitation. Even when the law used neutral language, courtroom culture often lagged behind. Fathers were often treated as secondary parents. Mothers were often assumed to be the default caretakers. And children were frequently placed into orders that gave one parent the child’s ordinary life and the other parent alternate weekends – and a hefty child support payment that the custodial parent would not be required to give an accounting. 

That model did not fit every family. The assumptions were antiquated. There was no accounting that both parents have need to rearrange each’s approach toward parenting and take on new challenges in each’s separate life for the financial and day-to-day needs for the child(ren).

Many Utah families have two actively involved parents. Both parents work to provide finanically for the family. Both parents take children to school, medical appointments, church, sports, and activities. Both parents help with homework. Both parents know the teachers, coaches, doctors, and daily routines. When a family separates, the court should not automatically convert one fit parent into a visitor. The court must assume that roles will be changed (for both parents) and routines for the children will also likely change. The question is whether or not the parent (post separation) is capable of taking on the increased roles and needs. It should not be assumed that one parent will continue on being the primary caretaker, or the primary financial provider.

That is one reason the modern discussion around joint physical custody in Utah, equal parent-time, and 50/50 custody matters. It is not about parental entitlement. It is not about politically motivated outcomes. It is about whether the child benefits from maintaining strong, continuing relationships with both parents when both parents are safe, capable, and involved – along with the required adjustments that will enter as parties separate or divorce. 

Utah Law Now Recognizes Broader Parent-Time and Joint Custody Options

Utah law has moved (albeit slowly) in the right direction. Current Utah custody law recognizes that, absent real harm or substantiated potential harm, children benefit from frequent, meaningful, and continuing access to each parent after separation or divorce. Utah Code § 81-9-204 states that, absent the required showing of harm, it is in the child’s best interest to have frequent, meaningful, and continuing access to each parent and to have both parents actively involved in parenting.

That statutory language matters. It signals a move away from the outdated idea that one parent should automatically be pushed to the margins. It also gives parents and attorneys a stronger framework to argue for meaningful parent-time when the evidence shows that both parents have been actively involved. It allows for the premise that each parent is capable of making adjustments to accomodate a flexible schedule that maximizes time for the child(ren) with each parent.

Utah law also states that custody determinations do not create a preference for either parent based solely on gender. It further states that there is no preference for or against joint physical custody or sole physical custody, but that the court and the family should have the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that serves the child’s best interest. See Utah Code § 81-9-204.

That is a significant statutory statement. It does not mean every case should be 50/50. It does not mean courts should ignore abuse, neglect, domestic violence, addiction, instability, or practical limitations. But it does mean that fit, involved parents seeking a 50/50 schedule as a starting point should not be dismissed simply because one parent wants control, refuses to aknowledge the child’s best interest to have both parents equally involved, or because the old custody template is easier to administer.

Joint Legal Custody and Joint Physical Custody Are Different

Parents often confuse legal custody with physical custody. Joint legal custody concerns decision-making authority. It addresses major decisions involving education, medical care, religion, and general welfare. Joint physical custody concerns the residential schedule and the amount of time the child spends in each parent’s care.

Utah law contains a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interest, subject to exceptions involving domestic violence, abuse, neglect, special needs, distance, and other relevant factors. See Utah Code § 81-9-205.

Joint physical custody is not automatic, but Utah law expressly recognizes that joint physical custody may result in equal or nearly equal periods of physical custody and access when that arrangement serves the child’s best interest. For parents seeking a Lehi child custody lawyer, a Saratoga Springs child custody lawyer, or an Eagle Mountain child custody attorney, this distinction is often critical.

Utah’s Parent-Time Options Are Broader Than the Old Minimum Schedule

Utah parent-time law now gives courts and parents several statutory frameworks. The basic minimum parent-time schedule still exists. But the law also includes an optional increased parent-time schedule and an equal parent-time schedule.

The optional increased parent-time schedule under Utah Code § 81-9-303 is calculated at 145 overnights. This is important because, for many families, the minimum schedule is not enough to preserve the child’s relationship with an actively involved parent.

Utah’s equal parent-time statute, Utah Code § 81-9-305, creates a statutory equal parent-time schedule that results in 182 overnights for one parent and 183 overnights for the other. The statute describes a rotation where one parent exercises parent-time from Monday morning to Wednesday morning, the other from Wednesday morning to Friday morning, and the parents alternate weekends.

That is a major development in Utah custody law. It gives lawyers and parents a statutory structure to discuss equal parent-time in Utah. It also creates a framework for judges to consider when both parents have been actively involved and can effectively facilitate the schedule.

Why 50/50 Custody Should Be Seriously Considered As The Starting Point

I have long believed that 50/50 custody should be the starting point for discussion when both parents are fit, safe, available, and actively involved. That does not mean every case should end there. It means the court should not begin from the assumption that one parent owns the child’s ordinary life and the other parent must prove why he or she deserves more than alternate weekends.

The better question is this: what schedule best protects the child’s relationship with both parents while preserving stability, school success, emotional health, and practical workability?

For some families, a week-on/week-off schedule works. For others, a 2-2-3 schedule works better. Some children need a 60/40 schedule. Some parents live too far apart for equal time. Some work schedules make equal time impractical. Some cases involve safety issues that require restrictions. But the analysis should be evidence-driven, not stereotype-driven.

When a parent has historically been involved in school, medical care, daily routines, discipline, transportation, extracurricular activities, and emotional support, that parent should not be treated as optional. That is why documentation matters. Calendars, school records, text messages, medical records, photographs, activity schedules, and witnesses often become important in custody litigation.

For parents in northern Utah County, local issues also matter. A child custody case in American Fork, Lehi, Saratoga Springs, or Eagle Mountain often involves school boundaries, commuting, newer subdivisions, blended families, and dual-income households. A well-drafted parenting plan should reflect the actual family, not a boilerplate schedule.

The Problem With Weaponized Process in Utah Custody Cases

Protective orders, DCFS safety plans, reunification therapy, custody evaluations, guardian ad litem appointments, mandatory education programs, and court-ordered services may be necessary in some cases. Real abuse must be taken seriously. Real danger must be addressed. Children must be protected.

But process can also be weaponized by hiding behind the war cry “It’s in the Child’s Best Interest” – when the best interests have not yet been fairly evaluated.

In some custody cases, one parent uses allegations, services, or court procedures as leverage to delay parent-time, increase expense, or create a record that makes the other parent look unsafe or uncooperative. The parent who is falsely accused or unfairly restricted is then forced to spend money, time, and emotional energy proving the obvious: that he or she is a fit parent who should have meaningful access to the child.

That is not justice. That is litigation by attrition.

Mandatory programs can also become box-checking exercises. Parents participate because they want the court, agency, therapist, evaluator, or guardian ad litem out of their lives. Compliance may be necessary, but compliance does not always mean the program helped the family. Sometimes it only means the parent had no realistic choice.

This is why strategic representation matters. A parent involved in a custody dispute needs more than general encouragement. The parent needs risk assessment, documentation, procedural discipline, and a clear theory of the case. That is true whether the issue is initial custody, enforcement, modification, or alleged noncompliance with court orders. For related issues, see our pages on Utah enforcement of court orders and Utah divorce decree modification.

Guardian ad Litem Reform in Utah: A Move in the Right Direction, But Not Enough

Few issues in custody litigation are more frustrating than guardian ad litem involvement when the guardian does not meaningfully investigate the case. A guardian ad litem can have enormous influence over custody, parent-time, reunification, therapy, school issues, and the child’s relationship with each parent.

A good guardian ad litem can help a court understand a child’s circumstances. A poor guardian ad litem can distort the case, amplify one parent’s narrative, ignore evidence, or make recommendations without enough direct knowledge of the child or family.

Utah’s updated guardian ad litem statutes are a move in the right direction. Under Utah Code § 78A-2-803, an attorney guardian ad litem must conduct an independent investigation regarding the minor, the family, and the child’s best interest. The statute now requires disclosure of the activities and sources of the GAL’s independent investigation and the factors forming the basis of the recommendation when the GAL makes a best-interest recommendation. It also requires an attorney guardian ad litem to respond to case-related discovery, while protecting the child from interrogatories, requests for admission, or depositions.

Those changes matter. They create more transparency than existed before. They also recognize a basic reality: a GAL recommendation should not be treated as magic simply because it came from a court-appointed lawyer.

But the reforms do not go far enough.

Disclosure Is Not the Same as Meaningful Evidentiary Testing

There remains a major difference between requiring a GAL to disclose activities and sources and giving parties a meaningful opportunity to test the recommendation like any other consequential opinion affecting custody.

A custody evaluator can be challenged. An expert witness can be cross-examined. A therapist’s role, records, opinions, and foundation can often be litigated. But a guardian ad litem occupies a unique space. The GAL is an attorney, a court-appointed participant, and an advocate for what the GAL claims is the child’s best interest. That role creates practical barriers when a parent wants to challenge the GAL’s factual assumptions, investigation, bias, omissions, or methodology.

The statutes require more disclosure and discovery than before. But they still do not create an ordinary, clean, trial-tested mechanism allowing parents to direct examine the GAL as a witness and test every premise of the GAL’s recommendation in the same way a party would examine an expert or custody evaluator. That is the accountability gap.

If a guardian ad litem recommendation can materially affect a parent-child relationship, then that recommendation should be subject to serious evidentiary scrutiny. A parent should be able to challenge whether the GAL met with the child enough, spoke to necessary witnesses, reviewed relevant records, understood the family system, considered alienation dynamics, recognized false allegations, or properly distinguished safety concerns from litigation strategy.

Private Guardian ad Litem Immunity Creates Another Accountability Problem

The private guardian ad litem statute creates additional concerns. Under Utah Code § 78A-2-705, a private attorney guardian ad litem must conduct or supervise an ongoing, independent investigation, interview witnesses, review relevant records, and personally meet with and interview the minor unless statutory exceptions apply.

The same statute requires the private attorney guardian ad litem to disclose the factors forming the basis of a best-interest recommendation. That is positive.

But Utah Code § 78A-2-705 also provides that a private attorney guardian ad litem is immune from civil liability for acts performed within the scope of the GAL’s duties. In practical terms, that means civil malpractice-style accountability is extremely limited when the complaint concerns work performed within the GAL appointment.

That should concern parents and lawyers. If a professional can influence whether a parent sees a child, how often the parent sees the child, whether therapy is ordered, whether reunification occurs, or whether the child’s stated wishes are credited, then the professional should be subject to meaningful accountability. Immunity may protect GALs from retaliatory litigation, but it can also leave families with limited recourse when the GAL fails to do the work required by statute.

A Guardian ad Litem Is Not a Substitute Parent

A guardian ad litem should not be treated as a substitute parent. A GAL is not a third parent. A GAL is not above the parental rights. A GAL is a court-appointed participant entering an existing family relationship.

That relationship belongs first to the child and the parents. The government, the court, lawyers, therapists, evaluators, and GALs are guests in that relationship. Sometimes intervention is necessary. But when the state intrudes into a family, the intrusion should be respectful of the parental rights, limited, justified, evidence-based, and accountable.

Parents do not stop being parents because a custody case is filed. A fit parent does not become less important because the other parent is angry. A child’s relationship with a parent should not be damaged because a court-appointed professional failed to investigate thoroughly or accepted one parent’s narrative without proper testing.

What This Means for Utah Parents in Custody Litigation

For parents involved in a custody case, the lesson is direct: evidence matters. General statements such as “I am a good parent” are not enough. Courts need facts. Lawyers need documents. If a guardian ad litem is involved, the record needs to be developed early and carefully.

Parents should be prepared to document school involvement, medical involvement, parent-time history, communication patterns, decision-making, transportation, extracurricular activities, and the other parent’s willingness or refusal to support the child’s relationship with both parents.

When a GAL is appointed, parents should also focus on whether the GAL is complying with statutory obligations. Did the GAL meet with the child? Did the GAL speak with both parents? Did the GAL review school records, medical records, therapy records, police reports, DCFS materials, or other relevant documents? Did the GAL disclose the activities and sources supporting the recommendation? Did the GAL respond to case-related discovery where required? Did the GAL identify facts, or merely repeat allegations?

Those questions matter because custody outcomes often turn on the quality of the record. A disciplined approach can make the difference between a vague complaint and a legally useful challenge.

Local Custody Representation Across Utah County, Salt Lake County, and Tooele County

Rifleman Law & Mediation (managed by attorney Jeff D. Rifleman) represents parents in custody and parent-time cases throughout northern Utah. If you are searching for a Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer, Lehi divorce lawyer, Eagle Mountain divorce lawyer, American Fork divorce lawyer, Provo divorce lawyer, or Tooele divorce lawyer, the same core issues often appear: parent-time, decision-making, school placement, child support, enforcement, modification, and practical parenting logistics.

For more focused custody resources, see:

• Utah Child Custody and Parent-Time Lawyer
• Saratoga Springs Child Custody Lawyer
• Lehi Child Custody Lawyer
• Eagle Mountain Child Custody Lawyer
• American Fork Child Custody Lawyer
• Tooele Child Custody Lawyer

You may also find these related articles helpful:

• Top 5 Child Custody Issues in Utah Divorce
• Who Decides Where a Child Goes to School After Divorce in Lehi, Utah?
• What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah?
• Understanding the Utah Divorce Timeline
• Getting Your Attorney Fees in Family Law Matters in Lehi

Final Thought: Reform Is Moving, But Parents Still Need Strategy

Utah custody law has improved. The law now recognizes broader options for parent-time, including increased parent-time and equal parent-time. It acknowledges that children generally benefit from frequent, meaningful, and continuing access to both parents when there is no showing of real harm or substantiated potential harm. It also requires more transparency from guardians ad litem than existed before.

But the system is still imperfect.

Parents can still be forced through expensive, frustrating processes. Protective orders and allegations can still be misused. Mandatory services can still become procedural theater. Guardians ad litem can still exercise enormous influence without enough practical accountability. And fit parents can still find themselves fighting uphill simply to preserve a meaningful relationship with their children.

That is why this work matters to me.

I help clients navigate the system as it exists, not as we wish it existed. That means risk assessment, reality checks, documentation, strategy, and disciplined advocacy. It also means continuing to push for a system that gives children meaningful access to both fit parents, protects real victims, rejects false narratives, and holds court-appointed professionals to meaningful standards.

If you are involved in a Utah child custody, parent-time, guardian ad litem, enforcement, or modification dispute, the earlier you begin building the record, the better positioned you are to protect your relationship with your child.

Rifleman Law & Mediation
Based in Saratoga Springs. Serving clients in Lehi, Eagle Mountain, American Fork, Provo, Tooele, and throughout the Wasatch Front.
Contact Rifleman Law & Mediation to schedule a confidential consultation.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Custody outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, procedural posture, and applicable law in each case.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

One of the most frustrating parts of a family law case is the cost of enforcing rights that should already be protected by court order. Whether the issue involves divorce, child custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, property division, or enforcement of a decree, attorney fees can become a major concern for families in Lehi and throughout Utah County.

Many clients assume that each party must always pay their own attorney fees. That is not always correct. Utah law allows attorney fees in several family law situations, including divorce and custody litigation, enforcement of existing court orders, bad-faith litigation, and discovery violations.

At Rifleman Law & Mediation’s Lehi divorce and child custody page, we help clients evaluate whether attorney fees may be available and how those requests should be presented to the court.

Utah Code § 81-1-203: Attorney Fees in Domestic Relations Cases

The primary attorney fee statute in Utah family law cases is Utah Code § 81-1-203. This statute applies to domestic relations cases, including divorce, custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, protective order-related proceedings, and division of property.

Under Utah Code § 81-1-203(1), the court may order one party to pay the attorney fees, costs, and witness fees of the other party to enable that party to prosecute or defend the case. This is the traditional attorney fee provision used in divorce and custody litigation.

In practical terms, this means that if one spouse or parent has substantially greater access to financial resources, the court may consider whether the other party needs assistance with attorney fees in order to participate meaningfully in the case.

Need-Based Attorney Fees in Divorce and Custody Cases

In an initial divorce or custody case, attorney fees are often analyzed based on financial need, ability to pay, and reasonableness of the fees requested. This type of request may arise when one spouse earns significantly more than the other, controls the marital finances, owns a business, or has access to resources that the other spouse cannot access.

These attorney fee requests are common in contested divorce, child custody disputes, child support litigation, alimony disputes, property division cases, and temporary order proceedings. The purpose is not necessarily to punish either party. The purpose is to ensure that both sides have a fair opportunity to present their case.

For more information about divorce and custody litigation in Lehi, visit our Lehi divorce lawyer and child custody attorney page.

Enforcement of Court Orders Is Different

Attorney fees in enforcement cases are different from ordinary need-based attorney fee requests. Once a court enters an order, the parties are expected to follow it. A divorce decree, custody order, parent-time order, child support order, alimony order, or property division order is not optional.

When one party violates an existing order, the other party may be forced to return to court to seek enforcement. Common enforcement issues include denied parent-time, failure to follow custody orders, unpaid child support, unpaid alimony, refusal to transfer property, failure to divide retirement accounts, failure to refinance debt, and violations of a divorce decree.

Under Utah Code § 81-1-203(2), in an action to enforce an order of custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, or division of property in a domestic case, the court may award attorney fees and costs if the party substantially prevailed on the claim or defense.

This provision is important because a party should not automatically bear the full cost of forcing the other party to comply with an order that already exists.

For more information about enforcement remedies, visit our Lehi divorce enforcement lawyer page.

Enforcement Attorney Fees Are Not the Same as Need-Based Fees

The most important distinction is that enforcement-based attorney fees are not analyzed the same way as traditional need-based attorney fees.

Before the change, Utah Code § 81-1-203(2) said the court “may award” fees in enforcement actions if the party “substantially prevailed.” The 2026 amendment changed that to “shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs” when the party “prevailed” on the claim or defense.  Enforcement attorney fees are no longer merely discretionary in the same way. In actions to enforce custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, or property division orders, Utah Code § 81-1-203 now directs the court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party, subject to the statute’s limited exceptions.

In a divorce or custody case under Utah Code § 81-1-203(1), courts generally consider financial need, ability to pay, and the reasonableness of the fees requested.

In an enforcement action under Utah Code § 81-1-203(2), the focus shifts. The central issues are whether a valid order existed, whether enforcement became necessary, and whether the moving party substantially prevailed.

This means the party seeking enforcement is not required to prove the same type of financial need that would ordinarily be required in a traditional divorce or custody fee request. The enforcement provision is tied to compliance with an existing court order.

The statute still gives the court discretion in appropriate circumstances. The court may award no fees or limited fees if the court finds that a party is indigent or otherwise places the reason for limiting fees on the record. But the enforcement fee analysis is not the same as the need-based analysis used in the original divorce or custody case.

Attorney Fees for Parent-Time Violations in Lehi

Parent-time violations are one of the most common reasons a parent may need to seek enforcement. A parent may deny weekend parent-time, interfere with holidays, refuse summer parent-time, change exchange locations, fail to produce the children, or repeatedly create conflict around the court-ordered schedule.

When parent-time is denied, the affected parent may seek enforcement of the custody and parent-time order. Attorney fees may also be requested under Utah Code § 81-1-203 if the parent substantially prevails in the enforcement action.

Depending on the facts, the court may also consider make-up parent-time, transportation expenses, child-care costs, lost wages, counseling-related remedies, and other appropriate relief.

For more information about custody and parent-time issues, visit our Lehi child custody lawyer page and our article on child custody and parenting plans in Lehi.

Attorney Fees for Enforcement of Divorce Decrees in Lehi

Enforcement issues are not limited to custody and parent-time. Former spouses frequently return to court because a divorce decree has not been followed.

Common decree enforcement issues include failure to pay alimony, failure to pay child support, refusal to transfer real property, failure to divide retirement accounts, failure to refinance debt, refusal to sell property, or failure to comply with provisions of a settlement agreement incorporated into the decree.

Utah Code § 81-1-203(2) specifically includes enforcement of orders involving custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, and division of property. That means attorney fees may become a significant remedy when a former spouse refuses to comply with the decree.

If you are dealing with violations of a decree, visit our Lehi divorce enforcement lawyer page.

Attorney Fees in Modification Cases

Attorney fees may also become relevant in modification cases. After a divorce or custody order is entered, a party may seek to modify custody, parent-time, child support, or alimony based on changed circumstances.

Some modification requests are legitimate and necessary. Others are filed without sufficient factual or legal support. In appropriate cases, a party may request attorney fees where modification litigation is pursued in bad faith, lacks merit, or is being used to harass the other party.

For more information about post-decree changes, visit our Lehi divorce modification lawyer page.

Bad Faith Litigation and Utah Code § 78B-5-825

Attorney fees may also be available when a party engages in frivolous or abusive litigation conduct. Utah Code § 78B-5-825 allows a court to award attorney fees to a prevailing party in a civil action if the court determines that the action or defense was without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith.

In family law cases, this issue may arise where a party files unsupported claims, brings repeated meritless motions, uses litigation to harass the other party, or takes positions that have no reasonable basis in law or fact.

Courts do not award attorney fees simply because a case is emotional or contentious. Family law disputes are often difficult. But when conduct crosses the line into bad faith, attorney fees may become part of the remedy.

Discovery Violations and Rule 37 Attorney Fees

Attorney fees may also be awarded when a party fails to comply with discovery obligations. Rule 37 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to address discovery disputes, discovery abuse, and failures to provide required information.

In family law cases, discovery violations may involve failure to provide financial documents, refusal to answer discovery, failure to disclose evidence, failure to provide records, or failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery.

When discovery misconduct causes the other party to incur unnecessary attorney fees, the court may award fees and impose other appropriate remedies. In serious cases, discovery violations may also affect what evidence a party is allowed to present.

Documentation Is Critical When Requesting Attorney Fees

A request for attorney fees must be supported. It is not enough to simply ask the judge to make the other party pay. The request should identify the legal basis for the award, explain why fees are justified, and provide documentation showing the work performed, the hourly rate, the time spent, and why the fees are reasonable.

In an enforcement case, the evidence should clearly identify the order, the violation, the efforts to obtain compliance, and the fees incurred because enforcement became necessary.

In a need-based fee request, the evidence may include financial declarations, income information, monthly expenses, debts, assets, and documentation showing why one party needs assistance and why the other party has the ability to contribute.

Why Attorney Fees Matter for Lehi Families

Attorney fees matter because court orders must mean something. If one party can repeatedly violate parent-time, ignore support obligations, refuse to divide property, or disregard a decree without consequence, the court order loses practical force.

Utah law provides attorney fee remedies so that, in appropriate cases, the burden of enforcement does not fall entirely on the party who was trying to follow the order.

For Lehi families, this can be particularly important in high-conflict custody cases, post-divorce enforcement disputes, and cases where one party is using delay or noncompliance as leverage.

Speak With a Lehi Family Law Attorney About Attorney Fees

If you are dealing with divorce, child custody, denied parent-time, unpaid child support, unpaid alimony, property division problems, decree violations, or post-decree modification issues, attorney fees may be an important part of your case strategy.

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in Lehi, Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, and throughout Utah County in divorce, custody, enforcement, modification, mediation, and related family law matters.

To learn more, visit our Lehi family law page, our Lehi enforcement page, or our Lehi modification page.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

People occasionally ask what a typical day looks like as a Lehi divorce lawyer (and surrounding communities). I suspect many imagine something resembling television. A dramatic courtroom entrance. A surprise witness. A brilliant cross-examination. A judge immediately ruling from the bench while everyone in the gallery gasps in amazement. The reality is somewhat different.

The practice of family law is less about dramatic moments and more about preparation, organization, problem solving, and helping people navigate some of the most difficult periods of their lives. It is often stressful. It is occasionally chaotic. It is rarely predictable. And, despite what television would have us believe, most successful outcomes are not created by dramatic speeches in court. They are built through preparation, strategy, experience, and a tremendous amount of work that nobody ever sees.

For those who have ever wondered what happens behind the scenes at a small family law firm, this is my attempt to pull back the curtain.

The Day Usually Starts Before the Day Starts

Most mornings begin the same way.

The alarm goes off. Before the feet hit the floor, I am already mentally reviewing the calendar. What hearings are scheduled? Which clients need to be called? What motions need to be finalized? Which deadlines are approaching? What fires started overnight? Family law has a way of generating fires.

A parent may have withheld parent-time. A child may have been enrolled in a different school. A custody exchange may have gone poorly. A financial disclosure may have arrived at the last minute. A settlement proposal that appeared impossible yesterday may suddenly become viable today.

The calendar never tells the entire story.

By the time I arrive in the office, emails have already started arriving. Text messages are waiting. Voicemails have accumulated. New consultation requests are sitting in the inbox. Existing clients have questions regarding their cases.

Some are dealing with a divorce in Lehi. Others need assistance modifying a custody order, enforcing parent-time, establishing paternity, dividing property, or addressing support issues.

Every client arrives with a different problem. Every case presents a unique challenge.

Before leaving for court, the correct files need to be loaded, hearing notes reviewed, exhibits organized, and legal arguments refreshed. Walking into court with the wrong file would be embarrassing. Walking into court underprepared would be far worse. Court appointments can be virtual, but often travel to the disctrict courthouse in the various counties is required.

The Practice of Family Law Is Ultimately About People

One thing that becomes clear after years of practicing family law is that most clients are not dealing with legal problems. They are dealing with life problems that happen to have legal consequences.

A divorce is not simply the termination of a contract. It is often the end of a relationship that may have lasted years or decades.

A custody dispute is not merely a legal disagreement. It concerns a parent’s relationship with his or her child.

An alimony dispute may determine whether someone can remain financially stable after a marriage ends.

A modification case often reflects the reality that life changed after the original court order was entered.

The law provides a framework for resolving disputes. The human realities behind those disputes are often far more complicated.

That reality is what makes family law both challenging and rewarding.

Off to Court

Eventually it is time to leave for court.

The drive provides an opportunity to return calls, listen to client updates, and mentally prepare for the hearings ahead.

Upon arrival, the next challenge begins.

Parking.

Anyone who regularly practices in Utah’s courthouses understands that parking can be an adventure in itself. After parking comes security.

Every attorney eventually develops a routine. Empty pockets. Remove keys. Remove phone. Remove watch. Remove whatever object was forgotten since the last visit. (If they ask to remove anything more.. well – someone is going to get charged with indecent proposal, or indecent exposure.)

Then comes the elevator ride.

The elevator ride is often an interesting social experiment. Attorneys, litigants, witnesses, law enforcement officers, and court personnel all packed into a small space while attempting not to acknowledge the obvious tension surrounding many family law matters.

Eventually everyone reaches their assigned floor.

Now the real work begins.

The Hallway Outside the Courtroom

One of the things many people do not realize is that some of the most important work in family law occurs outside the courtroom. It happens in hallways.

Before hearings begin, attorneys frequently meet to discuss settlement possibilities. Clients ask questions. Proposals are exchanged. Terms are negotiated.Many disputes that appear impossible to resolve eventually settle after thoughtful discussion. That is not because anyone suddenly changes their position. It is because experienced attorneys learn to identify practical solutions that address the interests of both parties.

Not every case settles. Some disputes require judicial intervention. Some matters must be litigated. Some enforcement actions require court orders. Some modification requests demand evidentiary hearings. Some financial disputes simply cannot be resolved through negotiation.

When that occurs, preparation becomes critical.

The Hearing Itself

A hearing may last ten minutes. A hearing may last several hours. Or last ten minutes, but require you to wait several hours. (It is out system, unfortunately.) Either way, what occurs in the courtroom is often the result of weeks or months of preparation beforehand. Documents have been reviewed. Evidence has been organized. Legal research has been completed. Witnesses have been prepared. The hearing itself is simply the presentation of that work.

Many of the cases handled by our firm involve issues such as child custody disputes, parent-time enforcement actions, custody and divorce modifications, child support issues, property division disputes, and alimony matters.

Each case requires careful preparation because the consequences often affect families for years to come.

The Work Most Clients Never See

When court concludes, many people assume the attorney’s day is finished. In reality, court often represents only a small fraction of the work required in a family law case. Back at the office, hearing notes must immediately be documented while everything remains fresh. Court rulings must be summarized. Orders frequently need to be drafted. Deadlines need to be calendared. Clients need updates. Follow-up tasks need to be assigned.

Then the drafting begins. Motions. Affidavits. Memoranda. Discovery responses. Settlement proposals. Trial briefs. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The public rarely sees this work, yet it is often where cases are won or lost.

A well-prepared motion can shape the direction of a case. A carefully drafted affidavit can focus the court’s attention on the issues that matter most. A thorough review of financial records can uncover information that significantly impacts settlement negotiations.

The reality is that successful litigation is often determined long before anyone enters a courtroom.

The Volume of Information Can Be Enormous

One aspect of family law that surprises many people is the sheer volume of information involved. A custody dispute may involve years of text messages, emails, school records, medical records, calendars, photographs, and witness statements. A high-asset divorce may involve business records, retirement accounts, tax returns, bank statements, property valuations, and investment portfolios. An enforcement action may require documenting months or years of noncompliance with court orders. A modification case may require proving a substantial change in circumstances since entry of the prior decree. The attorney’s responsibility is not merely to collect information. The responsibility is to identify the information that matters and present it in a persuasive and understandable manner.

Running a Small Family Law Firm

Beyond representing clients, there is another reality that most people never consider. A law firm is also a business. Clients expect phone calls to be answered. Consultations need to be scheduled. Technology must function. Files must remain organized. Court deadlines must be tracked. Sometimes the internet stops cooperating. Sometimes software decides to update itself at the worst possible moment. Sometimes a printer suddenly determines that it no longer wishes to participate in the practice of law. No law school class prepared me for negotiating with office equipment. Yet somehow it seems to happen every week. There are vendor relationships to manage. Insurance policies to maintain. Continuing legal education requirements to satisfy. Technology upgrades to implement. Compliance obligations to monitor. None of these activities generate dramatic courtroom scenes, but all are necessary to provide effective legal representation.

Why Experience Matters

One benefit of experience is perspective. After years of handling family law matters throughout Utah County and surrounding communities, patterns begin to emerge. You learn which issues are likely to matter to the court. You learn which battles are worth fighting. You learn how to identify opportunities for settlement. Most importantly, you learn how to help clients focus on outcomes rather than emotions. Family law is emotional by nature. The people involved are often experiencing one of the most stressful periods of their lives. An attorney’s role is not simply to argue. It is to provide perspective, guidance, and strategy during difficult circumstances.

Serving Lehi and Surrounding Communities

Rifleman Law & Mediation is proud to represent individuals and families throughout Utah County, including Lehi, Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Highland, Alpine, and surrounding communities.

Whether someone needs assistance with a Lehi divorce, a custody dispute, an alimony issue, a parent-time enforcement action, a child support matter, or a post-divorce modification, our goal remains the same.

-Provide thoughtful advice.

-Prepare thoroughly.

-Advocate strategically.

-Help clients move forward.

The Truth About the “Glamorous” Life

At the end of the day, the glamorous life of a family law attorney usually looks like one final review of tomorrow’s calendar. There are still emails to answer. There are still motions to review. There are still client concerns to address. Tomorrow’s hearings must be prepared. And inevitably there will be at least one issue that nobody saw coming.

The work is demanding. The hours can be long. The challenges are constant. Yet there is something deeply satisfying about helping clients navigate difficult transitions, protect their relationships with their children, preserve financial stability, and build the foundation for the next chapter of their lives.

So no, the practice of family law is not always glamorous. But after more than seventeen years of helping Utah families through some of life’s most significant challenges, I can honestly say that it remains meaningful work.

And that is far more important than glamorous.

Lehi Divorce and Family Law Resources

Understanding how divorce and family law issues are handled in Lehi can help you make informed decisions and avoid unnecessary delay or expense. The following resources provide detailed guidance on the divorce process, custody, costs, and available options in Utah County.

• Why Choosing the Right Family Law Attorney in Lehi Matters – The reality is that choosing a family law attorney is not simply choosing a law firm. For many families in Lehi, and the surrounding communities, the most important consideration is not the size of the law firm. It is the quality of the representation.
• How to Modify Child Support in Lehi, Utah – Need to change your child support? Has one party’s income changed? Learn when and how to modify a child support award.
• How Divorce Works in Lehi, Utah – A step-by-step overview of the divorce process from filing through final decree.
• What Does Divorce Cost in Lehi? – Learn what factors affect the cost of divorce and how to manage expenses.
• Child Custody and Parenting Plans in Lehi – Understand custody laws, parenting schedules, and how courts determine the best interests of the child.
• Divorce Mediation vs. Litigation in Lehi – Compare your options and determine the best approach for your case.
• Where and How to File for Divorce in Lehi – A practical guide to filing in Utah County and starting your case correctly.
• What Happens When a Parent Violates a Custody Order in Lehi? – Learn the consequences of custody order violations and how to pursue enforcement.
• Can a Parent Move Away with a Child in Utah? What Lehi Parents Need to Know – Learn how relocation can affect child custody, parent-time, notice requirements, and modification proceedings.
• What to Do If Your Ex Won’t Communicate About the Children in Lehi, Utah – Understand how communication problems can affect custody, decision-making, enforcement, and modification issues.
• Emergency Custody Orders in Utah: When and How Lehi Parents May Need Immediate Court Action – Learn when a custody issue may require immediate court intervention and what procedural options may apply.

For broader guidance on child custody issues in Lehi, enforcing family law orders, post-decree modifications, or divorce mediation in Lehi, review the related service pages for more detailed information.

Source

High-conflict custody cases are rarely decided by accusations alone. Utah courts, guardians ad litem, and custody evaluators look for patterns, evidence, credibility, and the effect each parent’s conduct has on the child. One psychological concept that may help explain some alienation dynamics is projective identification.

Projective identification occurs when one person disowns unwanted emotions, fears, resentment, or hostility and psychologically places those feelings into another person. In a custody case, this may occur when one parent repeatedly transfers anger, fear, distrust, or contempt toward the other parent into the child. Over time, the child may begin expressing those emotions as though they are the child’s own independent thoughts.

This issue matters in Utah child custody litigation because Utah courts consider the best interests of the child, including each parent’s ability to meet the child’s emotional needs, appropriately co-parent, encourage the sharing of love and affection, and allow frequent and continuing contact between the child and the other parent when safe and appropriate. See Utah Code § 81-9-204.

How Projective Identification Can Appear in Parental Alienation Cases

In a parental alienation case, the alienating parent may not openly tell the child to reject the other parent. The conduct may be more subtle. The parent may repeatedly communicate that the other parent is unsafe, selfish, unstable, abusive, uncaring, or unworthy of trust. The child may then absorb that emotional narrative and begin acting it out.

For example, a parent who feels betrayed by the divorce may repeatedly imply that the other parent abandoned the family. A parent who feels fear or anger may repeatedly frame ordinary parenting disagreements as danger. A parent who cannot tolerate the child’s bond with the other parent may treat affection toward the other parent as disloyalty. Over time, the child may become aligned with one parent’s emotional reality rather than the child’s own actual experience.

The alienating parent may then point to the child’s rejection as proof: “The child does not want to go.” “The child is afraid.” “I am only listening to the child.” In some cases, however, the child’s reaction may be the product of prolonged emotional pressure, loyalty conflict, enmeshment, coaching, or psychological manipulation.

Important Distinction: Alienation Is Not the Same as Estrangement

Not every child who resists parent-time is alienated. A child may resist a parent because of real abuse, neglect, domestic violence, coercive control, substance abuse, unsafe parenting, emotional volatility, or prior parental misconduct. Courts and evaluators must distinguish between justified estrangement and induced rejection.

The strategy in court should not be to simply label the other parent an “alienator.” The stronger approach is to present evidence showing whether the child’s rejection is proportionate, fact-based, developmentally appropriate, and tied to actual parental conduct — or whether it appears manufactured, exaggerated, rehearsed, or emotionally borrowed from the favored parent.

Red Flags to Watch in a Utah Custody Case

1. Adult Language From a Child

A child may begin using language that sounds more like a litigant, therapist, or adult than a child. Statements such as “Dad is a narcissist,” “Mom is gaslighting me,” or “He emotionally abused our family” may be significant if the child cannot explain concrete facts supporting the statement.

2. Sudden Rejection After Litigation Begins

A sharp change in the child’s relationship with one parent after separation, temporary orders, mediation, or litigation may be important. Evidence of a prior healthy relationship can be powerful.

3. Black-and-White Thinking

Alienated children often describe one parent as entirely good and the other as entirely bad. Healthy children usually have mixed feelings. They may complain about both parents but still retain affection, attachment, and positive memories.

4. Weak, Trivial, or Disproportionate Reasons

If the child claims to hate a parent because of minor discipline, ordinary parenting rules, or vague accusations that do not match the severity of rejection, that may suggest emotional contamination rather than independent judgment.

5. Lack of Guilt or Empathy

A child who speaks cruelly to or about a parent without guilt, sadness, hesitation, or ambivalence may be demonstrating a loyalty-based alignment rather than normal parent-child conflict.

6. Reflexive Loyalty to One Parent

If the child automatically adopts one parent’s version of every dispute, even where the child lacks first-hand knowledge, that may be significant.

7. Interference With Communication

Watch for missed calls, unanswered messages, blocked access, failure to provide schedules, refusal to share school or medical information, or a pattern of the child being unavailable during the other parent’s scheduled contact.

8. Emotional Enmeshment

Statements such as “Mom will cry if I go,” “Dad needs me,” or “I have to protect Mom” may show that the child has been placed in an adult emotional role.

9. Pre-Exchange Escalation

Some children appear distressed before exchanges but become calm after parent-time begins. That pattern may suggest that anxiety is being generated by the favored parent’s emotional presentation rather than by the targeted parent’s actual conduct.

How to Expose Alienation Dynamics to the Court

The most effective strategy is to build a factual record. Courts respond better to documented conduct than psychological labels. Instead of leading with “parental alienation,” the better approach is often to show the court the pattern: interference, messaging, coaching, gatekeeping, emotional enmeshment, false allegations, and the child’s change over time.

Document the Pattern

Save text messages, emails, parent-time logs, missed calls, school communications, medical communications, exchange problems, and any statements showing interference with the parent-child relationship. A single event may be dismissed as conflict. A documented pattern over time is harder to ignore.

Show the Prior Relationship

Photos, videos, travel records, birthday cards, school involvement, coaching records, medical attendance, church or activity participation, and witness statements can show that the child previously had a positive relationship with the rejected parent.

Compare the Child’s Claims to Objective Facts

If the child repeats allegations, compare them against calendars, messages, school records, police records, therapy records, medical records, and prior conduct. The issue is not whether the child has feelings. The issue is whether the stated reasons are accurate, proportionate, and independently grounded.

Use Neutral Witnesses

Teachers, coaches, therapists, extended family members, neighbors, and exchange supervisors may provide observations that are more persuasive than the parents’ competing accusations.

Request Specific Relief

In appropriate cases, a parent may seek clearer parent-time orders, make-up parent-time, restrictions on disparagement, communication protocols, therapeutic intervention, reunification therapy, appointment of a guardian ad litem, a custody evaluation, or enforcement remedies.

For cases involving interference with existing orders, see Utah enforcement of court orders. For cases requiring a change to custody or parent-time, see Utah divorce decree modification.

How to Present This to a Guardian ad Litem

A guardian ad litem will usually be more receptive to organized evidence than emotional argument. The parent raising alienation concerns should provide a concise timeline, key documents, examples of interference, and evidence of the child’s prior relationship with the targeted parent.

Useful information for a GAL may include:

• Specific dates parent-time was denied, shortened, or disrupted;
• Examples of the child using adult language or repeating one parent’s allegations;
• Evidence of the child acting differently before, during, and after parent-time;
• Messages showing gatekeeping, disparagement, or emotional pressure;
• School, activity, medical, or religious records showing prior parental involvement;
• Evidence that the targeted parent supports the child’s relationship with both parents.

The goal is to help the GAL see the family system clearly. The stronger presentation is not “the other parent is bad.” The stronger presentation is: “Here is the pattern. Here is the prior relationship. Here is the change. Here is the conduct that appears to be driving the change. Here is why intervention is necessary to protect the child’s relationship with both parents.”

How to Present This to a Custody Evaluator

Custody evaluators often look for family systems patterns, attachment issues, psychological functioning, co-parenting ability, boundaries, emotional regulation, and whether either parent is placing the child in a loyalty conflict.

A parent concerned about alienation should be prepared to address:

• The history of the child’s relationship with each parent;
• When the rejection began;
• What changed around that time;
• Whether the child’s stated reasons are factually supported;
• Whether the favored parent rewards rejection or discourages contact;
• Whether the targeted parent has made consistent, appropriate efforts to maintain the relationship;
• Whether either parent has involved the child in litigation, finances, adult conflict, or emotional caretaking.

The targeted parent must also avoid appearing reactive, obsessive, or retaliatory. The evaluator will assess both parents. A parent who responds to alienation by attacking the other parent, interrogating the child, or forcing adult conversations may damage the case. The better posture is calm, documented, child-focused, and solution-oriented.

Strategic Mistakes to Avoid

Parents facing alienation dynamics often make understandable but damaging mistakes. Avoid:

• Interrogating the child about the other parent;
• Recording the child in emotionally charged moments unless legally and strategically appropriate;
• Calling the child “brainwashed” to the child;
• Retaliating with disparagement;
• Sending long emotional messages to the other parent;
• Overusing psychological labels without evidence;
• Ignoring legitimate concerns about your own parenting conduct.

The court will usually focus on which parent is more likely to protect the child’s long-term emotional health, support appropriate contact with the other parent, and comply with court orders.

Utah Custody Law and the Best Interests of the Child

Utah custody cases are governed by the best interests of the child. Under Utah Code § 81-9-204, the court may consider evidence of coercive control, psychological maltreatment, emotional needs, co-parenting skills, the ability to encourage the sharing of love and affection, and the willingness to allow frequent and continuing contact between the child and the other parent when appropriate.

Parent-time disputes are also governed by Utah Code Title 81, Chapter 9. If parents cannot agree on a parent-time schedule, the court may establish one, and Utah law recognizes minimum parent-time schedules in appropriate cases. See Utah Code § 81-9-206.

These statutes give attorneys a framework for presenting alienation evidence without relying only on psychological terminology. The question becomes whether one parent is supporting the child’s emotional development and relationship with both parents, or whether that parent is undermining the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Local Custody Representation in Utah County and Along the Wasatch Front

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents parents in divorce, child custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, enforcement, and modification cases throughout Utah County, Salt Lake County, and surrounding communities.

If you are involved in a custody dispute involving parent-time interference, alienation concerns, emotional manipulation, or a child’s sudden rejection of a parent, the evidence must be gathered and presented strategically. These cases require more than accusation. They require documentation, credibility, and a clear legal theory tied to Utah custody law.

Learn more about local custody and divorce representation:

• Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Saratoga Springs child custody lawyer
• Lehi divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Eagle Mountain divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Eagle Mountain child custody lawyer
• American Fork divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• American Fork child custody lawyer
• Utah child custody and support attorney
• Utah child support attorney
• Utah divorce mediation attorney
• Utah family law service areas
• Contact Rifleman Law & Mediation for a free consultation

Speak With a Utah Custody Attorney

Alienation concerns should be handled carefully. A poorly presented alienation claim can sound like ordinary parental conflict. A well-documented alienation case can show the court, GAL, or custody evaluator that the child’s relationship with a parent is being damaged and that court intervention may be necessary.

To discuss a Utah custody case, parent-time dispute, GAL investigation, custody evaluation, or enforcement matter, contact Rifleman Law & Mediation or call 801-510-0503.

Source