Blog my story pursuit family justice

My Story – My Mission. The Pursuit of Family Justice

Child Custody & Parent-Time, Utah Family Law Insightsriflemanlaw

My Story – My Mission. The Pursuit of Family Justice.

People often ask me, “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 Staring 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 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:

You may also find these related articles helpful:

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.