Utah Special Masters in Divorce & Child Custody Cases | Rule 53A

Utah Special Masters in Divorce and Child Custody Cases: What They Are, What They Can Do, and How Their Decisions Are Reviewed

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

Some Utah divorce and child custody cases do not really end when the judge signs the decree. The decree may establish custody, parent-time, holidays, decision-making authority, and responsibility for child-related expenses. But no court order can anticipate every disagreement that may arise over the next several years.

In a reasonably cooperative case, the parents work through those issues. In a high-conflict case, however, every exchange, holiday, school issue, extracurricular activity, reimbursement request, or interpretation of the parenting plan can become another court dispute.

That is where a special master in a Utah divorce or child custody case may become useful.

Utah substantially clarified this area of law when the Utah Supreme Court adopted Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 53A, effective May 1, 2025. Rule 53A specifically addresses special masters for parenting disputes in domestic relations cases.

If you are searching for the “Utah special master statute,” there is an important distinction. There is not a single Utah Code statute that creates and governs parenting special masters. The primary authority is Rule 53A of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Utah also has a more general Rule 53 governing masters for other types of issues.

What Is a Special Master in a Utah Divorce Case?

Rule 53A defines a special master as an attorney or other professional appointed by the court to assist the court in managing parenting disputes that may arise during or after a divorce.

A special master is not a second judge. The special master does not simply acquire general jurisdiction over the parties or their children. The master’s authority comes from the court’s order of appointment, and that authority remains subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 53A.

Rule 53A defines parenting disputes broadly enough to include disputes involving matters addressed in parenting plans and related court orders, including:

Parent-time and visitation;
Co-parenting disputes;
Interpretation and implementation of parenting plans;
Child-related expenses; and
Other parenting issues specifically placed within the special master’s authority.

These problems frequently arise in high-conflict Saratoga Springs child custody cases, Lehi child custody cases, and similar post-divorce disputes throughout Utah County.

A Special Master Is Not the Same as a Mediator

A mediator attempts to help the parties reach an agreement. Unless the parties agree, the mediator ordinarily does not decide the issue.

A special master can be given something substantially different: limited decision-making authority.

Under Rule 53A, the court may authorize the special master to issue written “directives.” When properly within the authority granted by the appointment order, those directives are effective as orders when made.

A Special Master Is Not a Guardian ad Litem

A Guardian ad Litem is an attorney appointed to represent the best interests of a child. A special master instead assists the court in resolving disputes between the parents.

For a more detailed explanation of that distinction, see What Is a Guardian ad Litem in Utah Custody Cases?

A Special Master Is Not a Custody Evaluator

A custody evaluator evaluates custody issues and may provide opinions or recommendations concerning the child’s best interests. A Rule 53A special master is generally dealing with the administration and implementation of an existing parenting structure rather than performing a new custody evaluation.

When Can a Utah Court Appoint a Parenting Special Master?

Rule 53A contains two important restrictions.

First, the court may appoint a parenting special master only after entry of a court-ordered parenting plan, temporary order, or final order. This means a Rule 53A special master is generally not being appointed to decide an initial custody case from scratch. There must already be an operative parenting structure for the special master to help administer.

Second, and particularly important, a Rule 53A special master may be appointed only upon stipulation of the parties. One parent therefore cannot simply file a motion demanding that the court impose a Rule 53A parenting special master over the other parent’s objection. The parties must stipulate to the appointment.

Once the parties stipulate, however, the court may select the special master and enter an order defining that person’s powers, compensation, scope, and term.

When Do You Actually Need a Special Master?

Most Utah divorce and custody cases do not need one. A special master tends to make sense where the court has already entered a reasonably detailed order, but the parents continually fight about its implementation.

For example, suppose the decree says the parents have joint legal custody and equal parent-time. The decree is not necessarily defective. The problem may be that the parents cannot agree on relatively routine matters without turning each disagreement into another motion.

Typical disputes may involve:

Exactly when a holiday begins or ends;
Transportation and exchange arrangements;
Scheduling around school or extracurricular activities;
Communication between parents;
Reimbursement of medical, childcare, or activity expenses;
Implementation of previously ordered therapy or counseling;
Recurring disputes over provisions already contained in the parenting plan; or
Other limited parenting disputes identified in the appointment order.

This can be particularly useful in the type of high-conflict co-parenting discussed in There’s a Hole in My Bucket: Narcissism, High-Conflict Co-Parenting, and the Endless Cycle of Excuses.

Without some intermediate decision-making process, the parties can spend thousands of dollars preparing motions, declarations, exhibits, responses, replies, and hearings over disputes that may involve only a few hours of parent-time or a relatively small expense. A special master can sometimes resolve those issues far more quickly.

When Is a Special Master Probably Not the Answer?

A special master should not be used as a substitute for the district court when the dispute actually requires a judicial decision. For example, there is a significant difference between deciding how an existing parenting provision should operate next weekend and deciding whether one parent should lose joint legal custody. Rule 53A expressly prevents a court from authorizing a special master to make decisions or modifications that otherwise require a judicial order.

If one parent is seeking an actual modification of custody or parent-time, the case may instead require proceedings under Utah Code section 81-9-208 and applicable Utah case law.

For more on that distinction, see What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah? and Modifying Parent-Time in Utah After Duffin v. Duffin.

What Powers Can a Utah Special Master Have?

The most important principle is this: read the appointment order.

The appointment order determines what the special master may actually do within the limits established by Rule 53A.

The Special Master May Issue Directives

Rule 53A(f)(1) permits the court to authorize the special master to resolve parenting disputes through written directives.

A properly authorized directive is effective as an order when made and remains effective unless it is:

Modified or set aside by the district court;
Modified by the special master; or
Changed by written stipulation of the parties.

This is important. A party should not treat a directive as merely an informal recommendation simply because the party disagrees with it.

The Special Master May Have Limited Sanction Authority

Rule 53A permits a special master to issue sanctions only if the court specifically authorizes sanctions in the appointment order. The appointment order therefore matters enormously. A generic appointment does not automatically give the special master every possible enforcement power.

The Special Master Cannot Find a Party in Contempt

Rule 53A expressly provides that a special master may not make a finding of contempt. Contempt remains a matter for the court. If a party refuses to comply with a valid directive, the issue may ultimately be brought before the court through appropriate enforcement proceedings. The special master does not become the judge in the contempt case.

For more information about enforcement generally, see our Utah enforcement of court orders practice page.

Can a Special Master Change the Divorce Decree?

Generally, no—not in the way a judge can modify custody or parent-time.

Rule 53A provides that a special master ordinarily cannot issue directives contrary to or inconsistent with an existing order, judgment, or decree.

The court may expressly authorize the special master to deviate from a parenting plan, but that authority must be express and narrow in scope. The Rule also recognizes that a special master’s work may necessarily involve creating rules, clarifications, or additional requirements to resolve disputes. But the court may not authorize the special master to make a decision or modification that otherwise requires a judicial order. That distinction can be subtle but important.

Clarifying which parent transports the child when an existing holiday begins may fall within a special master’s authority. Permanently changing physical custody because one parent believes the existing arrangement no longer works is another matter entirely.

Parents facing an actual request to change custody should review the applicable Saratoga Springs divorce modification, Lehi divorce modification, or Eagle Mountain divorce modification resources rather than assuming a special master can simply rewrite the existing decree.

What Did Wight v. Wight Say About Special Masters?

An important Utah appellate case is Wight v. Wight, 2011 UT App 424, 268 P.3d 861.

Wight predates the adoption of Rule 53A and was decided under the general Rule 53. It nevertheless provides useful history concerning the development of special-master authority in Utah domestic cases.

In Wight, the Utah Court of Appeals held that the district court could grant a special master limited authority to resolve disputes concerning interpretation of the court’s parent-time orders and to select a therapist if the parents could not agree. The Court of Appeals also emphasized an important safeguard: nothing in the appointment order prevented either party from challenging the special master’s decisions by filing objections with the trial court. Further, parties stipulated to appointment of a special master for parent-time disputes. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s authority under then-existing Rule 53 to give the master limited authority concerning interpretation/application of parent-time orders and selection of a therapist if the parties could not agree. The court specifically observed that the parties retained the ability to challenge the master’s decisions by filing objections with the trial court.

The principle was therefore not that the special master became a substitute judge. The special master possessed limited authority delegated by the court, and the district court retained ultimate judicial control.

What Did Thomas v. Thomas Say About Binding Directives?

The Utah Court of Appeals considered special-master directives again in Thomas v. Thomas, 2021 UT App 8, 481 P.3d 504.

The appointment order in Thomas distinguished between “directives” and “recommendations.”

The special master had authority to issue directives concerning specified matters such as scheduling, communication, and therapy. The appointment order provided that those directives were effective as orders when made and continued in effect unless modified or set aside by the court. Other issues, including more significant changes to parent-time and certain fundamental parenting decisions, were treated as recommendations that did not become orders unless adopted by the district court.

The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the master’s directives were ineffective until separately approved by a judge. Because the appointment order expressly made them binding when issued, they were effective when the special master made them. The court also noted that the parties remained free to challenge those decisions through the objection procedure contained in the appointment order.

Rule 53A now expressly incorporates much of that concept into Utah procedure.

What Does Wallace v. Wallace Tell Us About Special Masters?

Another useful pre-Rule 53A case is Wallace v. Wallace, 2024 UT App 164.

Wallace involved an exceptionally contentious post-divorce case. The parties stipulated to appointment of a special master, and the appointment order required each party to pay one-half of the special master’s retainer.

The Utah Court of Appeals described a case involving continuing conflict, difficulty communicating, repeated litigation, and significant problems implementing parenting arrangements. Wallace is useful as a practical illustration of the type of case in which a special master may be considered. It also illustrates why the financial provisions of the appointment order matter. However, Wallace was decided before Rule 53A became effective on May 1, 2025. Current parenting special-master appointments should therefore be analyzed first under Rule 53A. It is important not to read Wallace as appellate approval of every aspect of the special-master arrangement. The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the mother’s challenge to the provision warning that failure to pay special-master fees could result in changes to legal custody, holding that issue was not ripe for review.

Can You Object to a Utah Special Master’s Decision?

Yes.

Rule 53A creates a specific procedure for obtaining district court review.

A party may object to a special master’s directive by filing a written motion asking the court to modify or set aside the directive. The motion ordinarily must be filed within 14 days after the date of the directive. A court may consider an untimely motion if good cause is shown, but a party should not assume that good cause will exist. If you intend to challenge a directive, the safer approach is to treat the 14-day deadline as controlling.

What Must the Objection Contain?

Rule 53A requires the motion to identify:

The particular directive being challenged;
The relief requested; and
The grounds supporting the requested relief.

Those matters must be stated succinctly and with particularity. Any evidence necessary to support the objection must be presented by declaration. If the case is assigned to a domestic relations commissioner, the motion procedure under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 101 applies. Otherwise, Rule 7 applies.

How Does the Judge Review a Special Master’s Decision?

This is one of the most important provisions in Rule 53A.

The district court reviews the special master’s directive de novo.

De novo review is substantially different from merely asking whether the special master acted irrationally or abused discretion. The district court independently reviews the challenged directive. If the court determines that additional evidence is needed, Rule 53A allows the court to remand the matter to the special master for additional proceedings. The special master therefore provides an intermediate mechanism for resolving disputes, but the district judge retains ultimate judicial authority.

Does an Objection Automatically Suspend the Directive?

No automatic suspension appears in Rule 53A.

Rule 53A states that a directive is effective as an order when made and continues to be effective unless it is modified or set aside by the court, modified by the special master, or changed through written stipulation. Accordingly, simply filing an objection should not be assumed to make the directive disappear. If immediate relief from a directive is required, that relief should be requested from the court rather than assuming that the filing of an objection automatically stays enforcement.

How Can the Special Master’s Work Be Audited or Reviewed?

Clients sometimes ask whether the work of a special master can be “audited.” There is not a separate Rule 53A audit procedure comparable to an accounting audit. Instead, the Rule creates several layers of accountability.

1. Directives Must Be in Writing

The special master must deliver all directives to the parties in writing.

The special master must also file every directive with the court. This is important because it creates a court record of what the special master actually decided. The special master’s operative decisions should not exist solely through undocumented telephone conversations or informal communications.

3. The District Court Can Review the Directive

A party may use the 14-day objection process to obtain de novo review.

4. The Court Controls the Scope of the Appointment

If a special master begins deciding matters outside the authority granted in the appointment order, that presents a separate issue. The master’s authority is limited by both Rule 53A and the appointment order.

5. The Court Can Change the Scope or Duration

The court may modify the term or scope of the appointment for good cause on its own motion, on motion of a party, or at the request of the special master.

6. The Court Can Suspend or Terminate the Appointment

The court may suspend or terminate the appointment for good cause. Thus, while Rule 53A does not call the process an “audit,” the special master’s authority, written directives, performance, and continued appointment remain subject to district court supervision.

Can You Audit a Special Master’s Fees?

Rule 53A does not create a specific billing-audit procedure.

Instead, Rule 53A(d) provides that the court fixes the terms of the special master’s compensation, including how that compensation will be divided between the parties. The court may also incorporate the special master’s fee agreement into the appointment order. That means the fee agreement deserves careful review before the appointment occurs.

The parties should understand issues such as:

The special master’s hourly rate;
Retainer requirements;
Minimum billing increments;
Charges for emails and telephone calls;
Charges for reviewing documents;
Charges for drafting directives;
Whether administrative time is billed;
How invoices will be provided;
How disputes over invoices will be handled; and
What happens if one party refuses to pay.

If billing becomes disputed, the appointment order and incorporated fee agreement will be important in determining the parties’ obligations.

Who Pays the Special Master?

Rule 53A does not impose an automatic 50/50 rule.

The court fixes the special master’s compensation and determines how the compensation will be apportioned between the parties. The court could order an equal division, another percentage allocation, or another arrangement appropriate under the appointment order.

In Wallace, for example, the parties’ order required each party to pay one-half of the special master’s retainer. That was the arrangement in that case, not a universal statutory requirement.

Cost is a legitimate concern. A special master adds another professional to the case. But in the right case, the additional expense may still be substantially less than filing a motion every time the parties disagree.

For practical ways to reduce litigation expense generally, see How to Save Money on Attorney Fees in Your Utah Divorce or Custody Case.

How Long Does a Special Master Stay on the Case?

There is no universal term.

Rule 53A requires the court to specify the length and scope of the appointment when the special master is appointed. The appointment might therefore last for a particular period, until a specified event, or according to other terms established by the court. The court may later modify the duration or scope for good cause.

Can the Special Master Quit?

Yes. The special master may suspend or terminate the appointment by providing notice to the parties and filing that notice with the court. However, Rule 53A provides that the special master may not suspend or terminate the appointment while an issue is pending before the master.

Can the Parties Jointly End the Appointment?

Yes. The parties may terminate the appointment through a written stipulation filed with the court and served on the special master.

Can One Party Simply Withdraw Consent and Fire the Special Master?

No.

Rule 53A specifically states that neither party may unilaterally terminate or modify the appointment simply by withdrawing the earlier stipulation. The parties may jointly stipulate to termination, or a party may ask the court to suspend or terminate the appointment for good cause.

Why the Appointment Order Is Critical

Before agreeing to a special master, I would want the appointment order to answer as many practical questions as possible.

Among other things:

Exactly what disputes may the special master decide?
What issues remain exclusively with the judge?
May the special master issue sanctions?
May the special master make temporary scheduling adjustments?
What constitutes a formal directive?
How are disputes submitted to the special master?
How much time does the other parent have to respond?
What evidence may be submitted?
Can the special master speak separately with either parent?
Can the special master communicate separately with counsel?
How are emergencies handled?
What records will the special master maintain?
How are fees allocated?
How long does the appointment last?
What happens if one party refuses to pay?

Rule 53A establishes the legal boundaries. The appointment order determines much of what happens inside those boundaries.

A poorly drafted appointment order can create an entirely new layer of litigation over what the special master is permitted to do. A carefully drafted order can reduce conflict by establishing clear authority and clear procedures from the beginning.

Special Master or Motion to Enforce?

A special master does not eliminate the need for enforcement proceedings. If one parent is simply refusing to comply with an existing custody or parent-time order, a motion to enforce a Utah divorce or custody order may still be appropriate. A special master cannot make a finding of contempt.

For clients facing repeated violations, our Saratoga Springs divorce and custody, Lehi divorce and custody, Eagle Mountain divorce and custody, American Fork divorce and custody, and Provo divorce and custody pages provide additional local information.

Special Master or Petition to Modify?

A petition to modify addresses a different problem. If the existing court order no longer works because circumstances have materially changed, the correct remedy may be modification rather than having a special master continually work around the existing order. For example, a substantial change in the child’s needs or other circumstances warranting a significant restructuring of custody may require judicial modification under Utah Code section 81-9-208. A parent’s qualifying relocation presents additional issues under Utah Code section 81-9-209

Rule 53A Versus Utah Rule 53

Utah actually has two rules that should be understood when discussing special masters.

Rule 53A: Parenting Disputes

Rule 53A specifically addresses parenting disputes in domestic relations actions.

For a Rule 53A parenting special master:

The parties must stipulate;
There must already be a parenting plan, temporary order, or final order;
The appointment order defines scope and duration;
Authorized directives may immediately operate as orders;
The special master cannot make a contempt finding; and
The district court reviews challenged directives de novo.

Rule 53: Other Types of Masters

Rule 53 is the general master rule.

Rule 53 expressly states that the term “master” includes a referee, auditor, and examiner. It can apply to accounting, financial, evidentiary, property, and other specialized matters outside the parenting disputes governed by Rule 53A. Rule 53 also says that reference to a master should be the exception rather than the rule. In a nonjury action, absent written consent of the parties, referral generally requires a showing of an exceptional condition, except in matters of account. The review procedure is also different. Under general Rule 53, a court ordinarily accepts a master’s factual findings in a nonjury action unless they are clearly erroneous, subject to the provisions of the rule. Parenting directives under Rule 53A, by contrast, are expressly reviewed de novo. That distinction is important when someone simply says, “The judge appointed a special master.” The first question should be: Under which rule, and for what purpose?

Should You Agree to a Special Master?

There is no universal answer.

In the right case, a special master can be an efficient way to manage recurring disputes. The master becomes familiar with the history of the case, the parenting plan, the parties, and the recurring areas of disagreement. That can avoid repeatedly educating a commissioner or judge about years of background simply to resolve another scheduling dispute.

But there are disadvantages. You are paying another professional. The special master’s directives may take effect immediately. An appointment order drafted too broadly can create significant problems. And if one party challenges nearly every directive, the parties can end up paying for the special-master process and then litigating the same dispute before the district court.

I would therefore look carefully at:

How frequently disputes actually occur;
Whether the disputes are relatively narrow or involve fundamental custody issues;
The cost of repeated court motions;
The proposed master’s qualifications and experience;
The proposed fee structure;
The willingness of both parties to follow neutral decisions;
The breadth of the proposed master’s authority; and
The exact language of the appointment order.

Special Masters in High-Conflict Utah Custody Cases

A special master is most useful when the basic parenting structure already exists but implementation repeatedly breaks down.

These cases often involve the same disputes discussed in Top 5 Child Custody Issues in Utah Divorce: parent-time, holidays, school decisions, legal custody, and recurring financial issues concerning children. The goal should not be to create another person for the parents to fight with. The goal should be to create a defined process for resolving disputes before every disagreement becomes another court proceeding.

Related Utah Divorce and Child Custody Resources

If you are dealing with continuing parenting disputes, modification, enforcement, or high-conflict custody litigation, these related articles may also be helpful:

Primary Utah Legal Authorities

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 53A — Special Masters for Parenting Disputes in Domestic Relations Actions:
https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?rule=53A&type=urcp

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 53 — Masters:
https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?rule=53&type=urcp

Utah Code section 81-9-208 — Modification or Termination of a Custody or Parent-Time Order:
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title81/Chapter9/81-9-S208.html

Wight v. Wight, 2011 UT App 424, 268 P.3d 861:
https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court-of-appeals-published/2011/20100665-ca.html

Thomas v. Thomas, 2021 UT App 8, 481 P.3d 504:
https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court-of-appeals-published/2021/20190242-ca.html

Wallace v. Wallace, 2024 UT App 164:
https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court-of-appeals-published/2024/20220559-ca.html

The Bottom Line on Special Masters in Utah Divorce Cases

A special master can be an effective tool in a high-conflict Utah divorce or child custody case, but the master is not simply another judge.

Under current Rule 53A:

The parties must stipulate to appointment of a parenting special master;
A parenting plan, temporary order, or final order must already exist;
The court determines the master’s scope, term, compensation, and allocation of fees;
The court may authorize the master to issue directives that become effective as orders when made;
The special master cannot make a finding of contempt;
The special master cannot make modifications that legally require a judicial order;
Directives must be written and filed with the court;
A party generally has 14 days to object; and
The district court reviews a challenged directive de novo.

In the right case, that structure can stop every minor disagreement from becoming another motion.

In the wrong case—or under a poorly drafted appointment order—it can simply create another expensive layer of litigation.

The real question is not merely whether your case should have a special master. The more important questions are what problem the special master is being appointed to solve, how much authority the special master should have, what that authority will cost, and how quickly the parties can return to the court if the process goes off track.

Speak With a Utah Divorce and Child Custody Attorney

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in divorce, child custody, parent-time, enforcement, modification, and other family-law matters throughout Utah County and surrounding communities.

We represent clients seeking a Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer, Lehi divorce lawyer, Eagle Mountain divorce lawyer, American Fork divorce lawyer, and Provo divorce lawyer.

If your case involves a proposed special-master appointment, recurring parenting disputes, enforcement problems, or a possible modification of custody or parent-time, the proposed appointment order should be reviewed carefully before it is signed.

Contact Rifleman Law & Mediation to discuss your case.

This article provides general information concerning Utah law and is not legal advice for any particular case. Special-master authority depends on the applicable court rule, the specific appointment order, and the facts of the case. Court rules, statutes, and appellate decisions may change.