By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

“My child is 14 now. Doesn’t that mean she gets to choose where she lives?” That question confuses two different things: having a voice in a custody decision and having the authority to make it.

A child does not get to decide custody in Utah. A child’s preferences can matter, and the wishes of a child age 14 or older receive added weight. The court still decides. The Utah Courts’ custody guidance expressly explains that distinction.

For parents working through a divorce or custody dispute, understanding that distinction can prevent unrealistic promises to a child and costly mistakes. Our guide to child custody and parenting plans in Lehi explains how custody and parenting schedules fit together.

What Utah Law Says About a Child’s Preference at Age 14

Utah Code § 81-9-204(5)(b)(ii) provides that the desires of a child who is 14 or older “shall be given added weight, but is not the single controlling factor.”

The neighboring provision, subsection (5)(b)(i), permits the court to consider a child’s wishes about future custody or parent-time while expressly reserving authority to order a different arrangement. Subsection (4)(o) identifies the child’s wishes and concerns as a factor, with attention to cognitive ability and emotional maturity.

Does a Child Under 14 Have a Voice?

Yes. The statute does not establish 14 as the minimum age for considering a child’s wishes. It establishes when those wishes receive added weight. A younger child’s maturity and ability to explain a preference can therefore matter. Neither a younger child nor an older teenager controls the outcome.

The Court Must Consider the Child’s Best Interests

Custody concerns more than the address a child prefers. The court considers the child’s welfare, including safety, relationships, parental caregiving, and other relevant circumstances. The Utah Courts’ explanation of custody factors addresses these considerations.

A useful discussion starts with the reasons behind a preference. Is the child trying to remain at the same school? Avoid a long commute? Stay close to siblings? Get away from frightening behavior? Or avoid ordinary household expectations? Those are different concerns, and they deserve different responses.

A Preference About School and Stability

Consider this hypothetical: A 15-year-old wants more school nights with Dad because Dad lives near school, early practices, and the child’s established friends. The child also wants substantial time with Mom. That request offers concrete information for a workable parenting plan. It deserves a more thoughtful response than assuming the child is rejecting a parent.

A Preference About Fewer Rules

Now consider a different hypothetical: A 14-year-old wants to live with Mom because she permits unlimited gaming, does not enforce homework, and allows the child to stay out late. The child’s age still matters, but the reasons for the request invite closer examination. A preference alone does not answer whether the proposed arrangement serves the child.

A Preference Based on Fear or Harm

A third hypothetical is more serious: A teenager describes threats, violence, or conduct that makes the child afraid to be alone with a parent. The response should focus on the reported conduct and available evidence. Calling the statement a “preference” should not obscure a possible safety issue. Nor should an allegation be treated as an established fact without appropriate examination.

How Can the Court Learn What the Child Wants?

Under Utah Code § 81-9-204(5)(a)–(c), a party cannot require a child to testify unless the factfinder finds extenuating circumstances making testimony necessary and no other reasonable method of presenting it. A judicial interview about preferences must occur in camera, privately rather than in open court. The statute also addresses when the interview can proceed without the parties’ prior consent.

Parents should discuss the appropriate process with counsel before involving a child. An interview request should explain what information is needed and why. A parent should not promise that the judge will interview the child or that the child’s answer will decide the case.

The Utah Courts also identify a custody evaluation as an available process. Whether an evaluation is appropriate depends on the issues, expense, and circumstances. It should serve a defined purpose.

What Utah Case Law Teaches About Changing Parenting Arrangements

In Blocker v. Blocker, 2019 UT App 82, ¶¶ 15–17, the Utah Court of Appeals explained that modifying parent-time requires a showing of changed circumstances followed by consideration of the child’s best interests. The court also distinguished the lower threshold for changing parent-time from the substantial and material showing required to change custody.

Blocker also explains why factual findings matter: the trial court must provide enough detail to show how it reached its decision. See id. ¶ 17. The decision illustrates judicial responsibility for evaluating evidence and explaining the resulting arrangement; it is not a holding that a teenager may choose custody.

Turning 14 Does Not Rewrite the Divorce Decree

Utah Code § 81-9-208(1) distinguishes custody modifications, which require a substantial and material change in circumstances, from parent-time modifications, which require a change in circumstances. A request to change custody must address the applicable modification requirements, not simply point to a birthday.

If an existing arrangement no longer meets the child’s needs, identify what has changed, gather supporting information, and pursue an appropriate agreement or court order. A child’s statement that the schedule should change does not itself amend the decree.

Our discussion of Utah minimum parent-time and meaningful parenting relationships addresses why a parenting schedule should receive careful attention.

What If a Teenager Refuses Parent-Time?

A refusal requires attention to both the existing order and the underlying problem. Document what happened accurately, communicate appropriately, and obtain advice about the next step. Do not treat “the child decided” as an automatic legal defense. The Utah Courts’ enforcement guidance explains that parties must obey court orders and that violations can lead to enforcement proceedings.

If there is an immediate safety concern, seek appropriate protective assistance and prompt legal guidance. If the dispute concerns scheduling or changed needs, address it through the appropriate modification process. For the enforcement framework, read how to enforce a divorce decree in Utah.

Listen to the Child Without Making the Child Responsible

Parents can take a child seriously without recruiting the child into the litigation. Ask open questions. Listen to concrete concerns. Avoid rehearsing an answer, offering rewards for a preference, or telling the child that choosing one home proves loyalty to that parent.

A helpful message is straightforward: “Your concerns matter. You can tell us what is working and what is not. The adults are responsible for working through the arrangement.” A child should not have to carry the burden of deciding which parent wins.

Talk With a Utah Child Custody Attorney

Whether you need a Saratoga Springs child custody attorney or a Lehi divorce and custody lawyer, the important questions include the child’s reasons, the supporting evidence, the existing order, and the process for requesting relief.

Rifleman Law & Mediation helps parents address custody, parent-time, and parenting-plan disputes. Call 801-510-0503 to discuss your circumstances.

The examples above are hypothetical and do not describe particular clients or predict a court’s ruling. This article provides general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

A divorce decree is not a suggestion. Once a Utah court enters an order concerning child custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, property, debts, communication between the parties, or other obligations, the parties are expected to follow it.

Unfortunately, the entry of a final Decree of Divorce does not always end the conflict. Sometimes one party simply refuses to comply. Other times, a former spouse begins interpreting the decree in a way that gives that person rights the court never actually ordered.

When that happens, the question becomes: How do I enforce my divorce decree in Utah?

Utah has a specific procedure for enforcing domestic-relations orders. A party seeking enforcement generally proceeds under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7B, Motion to Enforce Order and for Sanctions in Domestic Law Matters. If the matter will be heard by a domestic-relations commissioner, the motion must also comply with Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 101, which governs motion practice before court commissioners.

That distinction matters. Rule 7B governs the enforcement proceeding. Rule 101 governs the procedure before the commissioner. Certain provisions of Rule 7 apply where Rule 7B or Rule 101 specifically incorporates them, including Rule 7(j), which governs preparation and circulation of the written order following a commissioner hearing.

In Utah judicial districts that use domestic-relations commissioners, many post-decree motions are initially heard by a commissioner. That includes many enforcement matters involving families in Saratoga Springs, Lehi, American Fork, Eagle Mountain, Orem, Pleasant Grove, and Provo.

For additional information about enforcement generally, visit our Utah Enforcement of Court Orders practice page.

What Does It Mean to Enforce a Divorce Decree in Utah?

Enforcement and modification are two different things. If the existing decree is still appropriate but the other party is refusing to follow it, the proper remedy is generally enforcement. If circumstances have materially changed and the existing order itself should be changed, the appropriate remedy may instead be a petition to modify.

An enforcement motion is intended to enforce an existing court order. It should not be used as a substitute for a modification proceeding simply because one party now wants the decree to say something different.

For more information about the distinction, see Divorce Enforcement and Modifications in American Fork, Utah and What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah?.

A Recent Example: When a Parenting Disagreement Becomes an Enforcement Issue

A recent case provides a good example of how an ordinary parenting disagreement can turn into a decree-enforcement issue.

The parties had a recently entered court order containing provisions intended to keep their child out of adult disputes and prohibit disparaging conduct between the parents.

During the child’s soccer practice, one parent approached the other parent and initiated a confrontation in front of the child and a number of other people. The confrontation included profanity and disparaging language, including a vulgar insult directed at the other parent in the child’s presence.

The dispute also involved the other parent’s decision to enroll the child in a weekend outdoors course during that parent’s own parent-time. The complaining parent characterized the enrollment as a joint legal-custody decision because the activity involved an educational course.

That illustrates an important point in Utah custody cases: the language of the actual decree controls.

Joint legal custody does not automatically mean that every activity involving a class, lesson, course, sport, hobby, or recreational program requires the advance approval of both parents. The court’s actual custody order and parenting plan should be reviewed to determine which decisions must be made jointly and which parental decisions may be made during that parent’s own parent-time.

Calling an activity “educational” does not necessarily transform it into the type of major legal-custody decision contemplated by the decree. More importantly, even a legitimate disagreement concerning legal custody ordinarily does not authorize either parent to disregard a separate provision prohibiting disparagement, public confrontation, profanity directed toward the other parent, or involving the child in adult disputes.

In a situation like this, an audio recording, transcript, contemporaneous text messages, witnesses, and the exact language of the decree may transform what might otherwise sound like competing accusations into a documented evidentiary record.

What Must Be Proven for Contempt in a Utah Divorce Case?

Utah Code section 78B-6-301(5) identifies disobedience of a lawful judgment, order, or process of the court as contempt.

But an alleged violation of an order and a finding of contempt are not automatically the same thing.

The Utah Supreme Court explained in Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162, 1172 (Utah 1988), that, as a general rule, a party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must establish that the person accused of contempt:

• knew what the order required;
• had the ability to comply with the order; and
• intentionally failed or refused to comply.

In a civil contempt proceeding, those elements generally must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

The Utah Court of Appeals reiterated those requirements in Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 2022 UT App 28. The court also emphasized that the underlying order must be sufficiently specific and definite before contempt sanctions are appropriate.

That is why the first question in almost every Utah divorce decree enforcement case should be:

What exact paragraph of the decree was violated, and exactly what did that paragraph require?

How Do I Enforce My Divorce Decree in Utah?

The exact procedure will depend upon the facts of the case, the language of the decree, the judicial district, and whether a commissioner will hear the motion. But the practical process often looks like this.

1. Clearly Communicate the Violation

Before immediately returning to court, identify the exact provision of the decree or order that has allegedly been violated.

A written communication should identify:

• the order or decree involved;
• the specific paragraph or provision involved;
• the conduct believed to violate the order;
• what the order actually requires; and
• what compliance is expected going forward.

A written demand is not necessarily a procedural prerequisite to every Rule 7B enforcement motion. But it is often good practice. It gives the other party a reasonable opportunity to correct the conduct without additional litigation. It also reduces the likelihood of a later claim that the other party did not understand what was expected and creates a written record demonstrating that compliance was requested. The communication should be direct and professional. Cite the decree. Identify the conduct. State what needs to occur. Do not allow the demand itself to become another argument.

2. Follow Any Dispute-Resolution Requirement in the Decree

Before filing anything, read the decree and parenting plan carefully.

Many Utah divorce decrees and parenting plans require some form of dispute resolution before the parties return to court. This may include mediation or another specified procedure. If the order requires mediation before enforcement litigation, request mediation promptly unless the decree contains an exception or the circumstances justify immediate court intervention.

A party seeking enforcement should generally be able to tell the commissioner: I followed the order before asking the court to enforce the order.

For more information about resolving post-divorce disputes through mediation, visit our Lehi Divorce Mediation Lawyer page or our Utah Divorce Mediation practice page.

3. Prepare the Motion to Enforce, Verification or Affidavit, and Supporting Evidence

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7B governs a Motion to Enforce Order and for Sanctions in a domestic-relations case.

The motion must identify the title and date of entry of the order being enforced. The motion must also either be verified or be accompanied by at least one supporting affidavit based upon personal knowledge. The verified motion or affidavit must set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence and that would support a finding that the opposing party violated the order.

Depending upon the issue, supporting evidence may include:

• text messages;
• emails;
• audio recordings;
• transcripts;
• photographs;
• receipts;
• bank records;
• payment histories;
• calendars;
• school records;
• witness declarations; or
• other documents demonstrating what occurred.

If the motion will be heard by a commissioner, Rule 101 must also be followed.

Rule 101 requires evidence supporting the motion to be presented through an affidavit, declaration, or other admissible evidence. Exhibits must have the necessary foundation.

Rule 101 also places important limitations on voluminous exhibits. Collections of documents such as bank statements, checks, receipts, medical records, photographs, emails, text messages, calendars, and journal entries that collectively exceed ten pages generally must be presented through an appropriate summary, chart, or calculation under Utah Rule of Evidence 1006.

Rule 101 also generally limits each party to 25 total pages for a hearing, subject to specified exclusions and any permission obtained from the commissioner to exceed the limit. The point is not to give the court every text message the parties have exchanged during the past five years. The point is to provide the evidence necessary to prove the specific violation at issue.

4. File the Rule 7B Enforcement Materials and Obtain a Hearing Date

Rule 7B requires a domestic-relations enforcement motion to be filed in the same case in which the underlying order or decree was entered.

The Rule 7B filing is initiated as an ex parte Motion to Enforce Order and for Sanctions, if sanctions are requested.

The filing should include the materials required by Rule 7B, including:

• the Motion to Enforce;
• the verification or supporting affidavit;
• supporting exhibits and other evidence;
• the required Request to Submit for Decision; and
• a proposed Order to Attend Hearing.

The proposed Order to Attend Hearing identifies the order being enforced, describes the relief requested, states whether contempt is being sought, and directs the other party to appear at the hearing.

Because the initial Rule 7B motion is filed ex parte, Rule 101(a)(5) also directs an ex parte motion before a commissioner to Rule 7(m). That does not mean ordinary Rule 7 motion practice replaces Rule 101. Once the enforcement matter is before the commissioner, the commissioner-specific procedures and deadlines in Rule 101 apply along with the specialized requirements of Rule 7B.

5. Serve the Motion and Court-Issued Order to Attend Hearing

After the court issues the Order to Attend Hearing, the moving party must properly serve the required documents.

Under Rule 7B, the Order to Attend Hearing, Motion to Enforce, and supporting affidavits generally must be served at least 28 days before the hearing.

If the nonmoving party is represented by counsel in the case, service is generally made upon counsel of record in accordance with Rule 5. If the nonmoving party is not represented by counsel in the case, Rule 7B generally requires service in a manner provided by Rule 4.

This can become particularly important when an attorney recently withdrew. A former spouse does not become immune from an enforcement proceeding merely because that person is temporarily unrepresented. The required method of service may change, but the existing decree remains enforceable.

6. Attend the Hearing and Prove the Violation

Rule 7B places the burden of proof on the moving party as to the claims contained in the Motion to Enforce.

At the hearing, the presentation should be organized around five basic points:

Order. Conduct. Evidence. Violation. Remedy.

Identify the paragraph of the decree. Explain what it requires. Establish that the other party knew what was required. Present the evidence showing what happened. Then explain exactly what relief you want the court to order.

For example, if the issue involves disparagement:

• identify the paragraph prohibiting disparagement;
• identify the exact conduct or statement;
• identify when and where it occurred;
• establish whether the child was present;
• present the recording, transcript, declaration, or other evidence; and
• tell the court exactly what relief is requested.

If the dispute concerns money, identify what the decree required, when payment was due, what was paid, what remains unpaid, and the financial evidence supporting the calculation.

If the issue concerns denied parent-time, identify the ordered exchange, what actually happened, the communications between the parties, and the requested make-up parent-time or other remedy.

A focused presentation is generally more effective than asking the commissioner to sort through years of unrelated marital history.

For additional information concerning local enforcement proceedings, visit our Saratoga Springs Divorce Enforcement Lawyer, Lehi Divorce Enforcement Lawyer, or Eagle Mountain Divorce Enforcement Lawyer pages.

What Can the Court Do if the Decree Was Violated?

The available remedy depends upon the provision violated, the evidence presented, and whether contempt is established.

Depending upon the circumstances, requested relief may include:

• an order compelling compliance;
• payment of amounts owed;
• reimbursement of expenses;
• make-up parent-time;
• remedial sanctions;
• a finding of contempt;
• compensation for losses caused by contempt;
• attorney fees and costs; or
• other appropriate relief.

Utah Code section 78B-6-310 establishes statutory sanctions that may be imposed for contempt. Utah Code section 78B-6-311 also provides remedies where an actual loss or injury results from contempt.

Attorney fees can also be significant in enforcement proceedings. Utah Code section 81-1-203 contains a specific attorney-fee provision for actions to enforce orders concerning custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, or division of property in a domestic case.

For a more detailed discussion of attorney fees, see When Attorney Fees Can Be Awarded in a Utah Divorce or Custody Case and Getting Your Attorney Fees in Family Law Matters in Lehi.

What Happens After the Commissioner Rules?

7. If You Are Asked to Prepare the Order, Obtain the Hearing Audio

At the conclusion of the hearing, listen carefully to the commissioner’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation.

If the commissioner directs one party to prepare the written order, that party’s responsibility is to accurately memorialize what the commissioner actually decided.

It is not an opportunity to improve the ruling, expand the ruling, insert additional findings, or add provisions that counsel wishes the commissioner had made.

I prefer to promptly request the hearing audio and prepare a working transcript of the portions containing the commissioner’s findings, conclusions, rulings, and recommendations.

The proposed order can then be compared directly against the record.

This is particularly important when the parties disagree about whether certain language was actually stated from the bench.

8. Draft and Circulate the Proposed Order Under Rule 101(p) and Rule 7(j)

This is one of the places where Rule 7 specifically applies in a commissioner proceeding.

Rule 101(p) expressly provides that Rule 7(j) governs preparation of a proposed order following a hearing before a court commissioner unless the commissioner directs otherwise.

Under Rule 7(j), the party directed to prepare the proposed order generally has 14 days to prepare an order confirming the court’s decision and serve the proposed order upon the other parties for review and approval as to form.

Approval “as to form” does not mean a party agrees with the ruling.

It means the proposed written order accurately reflects what the commissioner actually decided.

9. Allow the Seven-Day Objection-to-Form Period to Run and File the Proposed Order

Under Rule 7(j), a party may object to the form of the proposed order within seven days after the proposed order is served.

If all parties approve the form of the order, the preparing party may file it with the court.

If the seven-day period expires without an objection, the preparing party may file the proposed order in accordance with Rule 7(j), together with the required certification concerning service of the proposed order.

If an objection to form is filed, the party preparing the order may file the proposed order and respond to the objection as permitted by Rule 7(j).

Some courts or practitioners also use an appropriate Notice or Request to Submit to bring the proposed order to the court’s attention after the objection period expires. However, a separate Notice to Submit is not itself expressly required by Rule 7(j). The governing requirement is compliance with the procedure contained in Rule 7(j).

10. The Court Reviews and Enters the Written Order

The court may sign the proposed order, revise its language, reject provisions that do not accurately reflect the ruling, or direct counsel to make specified corrections.

Once entered, the written order becomes part of the enforceable record of the case.

Do Not Confuse a Rule 7(j) Objection With a Rule 108 Objection

There is an important procedural difference between objecting to the form of the proposed written order and objecting to the substance of the commissioner’s recommendation.

A Rule 7(j) objection argues that the proposed written order does not accurately reflect what the commissioner actually decided.

A Rule 108 objection asks the assigned district court judge to review the commissioner’s recommendation itself.

Under the current version of Rule 108, a party generally has 14 days after the recommendation is made in open court to file a written objection. If the commissioner takes the matter under advisement, the 14-day period generally runs from service of the minute entry containing the recommendation.

These are two different objections addressing two different issues. Objecting to the form of an order is not a substitute for a timely Rule 108 objection to the commissioner’s substantive ruling.

Why Evidence Matters More Than Anger

Post-divorce enforcement cases often involve people who are understandably frustrated.

But frustration is not evidence.

A commissioner is generally more interested in a concise chronology supported by admissible evidence than in hearing an extended argument concerning everything the former spouse has done wrong since the divorce.

If the issue is disparagement, identify the statement, who heard it, whether the child was present, and the paragraph prohibiting the conduct.

If the issue is money, identify the amount ordered, the due date, the amount paid, the amount remaining, and the records establishing the calculation.

If the issue is parent-time, identify the ordered schedule, the missed exchange, the relevant communications, and the requested remedy.

Rule 101 makes that discipline even more important because commissioner proceedings contain page limits and specific requirements concerning exhibits and voluminous evidence.

More evidence is not necessarily better evidence. The right evidence is what matters.

Do Not Respond to One Violation by Committing Another

One of the worst strategic mistakes a divorced parent can make is responding to the other person’s alleged violation by violating the decree themselves.

If the other parent fails to reimburse a medical expense, that generally does not authorize withholding parent-time.

If the other parent fails to pay support, that does not automatically authorize ignoring the parenting schedule.

If the other parent makes an inappropriate statement, that does not excuse your own violation of a non-disparagement provision.

Document the violation. Communicate the problem. Follow any required dispute-resolution procedure. Then use the court’s enforcement process if necessary.

Enforcement Is Not the Same as Modification

Sometimes the other party is violating a perfectly workable decree. That is generally an enforcement problem.

Other times, circumstances have changed and the existing order itself no longer works. That may require modification.

In some cases both issues exist at the same time.

For example, one parent may presently be violating a parent-time schedule while also arguing that the schedule should be changed. Unless and until the court modifies the existing order, however, the existing order remains the order the parties are expected to follow.

For more information, read What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah? or visit our Saratoga Springs Divorce Modification Lawyer page.

Utah Divorce Decree Enforcement Representation

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents parties seeking and defending enforcement of divorce decrees, custody orders, parent-time provisions, support orders, property provisions, and other domestic-relations orders throughout Utah County and surrounding areas.

For additional local information, visit:

• Saratoga Springs Divorce Enforcement Lawyer
• Lehi Divorce Enforcement Lawyer
• Eagle Mountain Divorce Enforcement Lawyer
• American Fork Divorce Enforcement Lawyer
• Provo Divorce Enforcement Lawyer
• Utah Enforcement of Court Orders

Rifleman Law & Mediation serves clients throughout Saratoga Springs, Lehi, Eagle Mountain, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Orem, Provo, Bluffdale, Riverton, Herriman, Tooele, and surrounding Utah communities. You can review our complete Utah Family Law Service Areas directory for additional information.

A Court Order Has to Mean Something

A divorce decree is intended to establish boundaries, obligations, and predictable rules after the marriage ends.

When one party is permitted to repeatedly disregard those provisions without consequence, the decree begins to lose its practical value.

Not every disagreement requires a Motion to Enforce. Litigation should not become the parties’ default method of communication.

But repeated, intentional, or significant violations should not simply become the new normal either.

The strongest Utah divorce decree enforcement cases usually share the same basic characteristics:

• a clear court order;
• a clearly identifiable violation;
• reliable and admissible evidence;
• a reasonable effort to obtain voluntary compliance when appropriate;
• compliance with any required dispute-resolution procedure; and
• a focused request asking the court to enforce what it already ordered.

If you need assistance with a Motion to Enforce a Divorce Decree in Utah, Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in post-decree enforcement, contempt proceedings, parent-time disputes, support enforcement, property enforcement, mediation, and divorce decree modifications.

Call Rifleman Law & Mediation at 801-510-0503 for a free and confidential consultation.

This article provides general information regarding Utah law and court procedure and is not legal advice concerning any particular case. The language of the specific decree or order is critical to an enforcement analysis. Court rules, statutes, and appellate decisions may 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

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

When parents separate or divorce, one of the most important questions a Utah court must answer is deceptively simple: how much time should the children spend with each parent?

Utah law provides several statutory parent-time schedules. Unfortunately, the phrase “minimum parent-time” is sometimes treated in practice as though it describes a recommended parenting arrangement. It does not. Minimum means minimum.

A minimum is a floor. It is not an optimum. It is not necessarily a preferred schedule. And it certainly does not mean that a child benefits from having only the minimum possible relationship with an otherwise loving, capable and involved parent.

Think about the concept in another context. We have minimum nutritional requirements. Those requirements describe an amount necessary to avoid deficiency; nobody would suggest that the healthiest diet for a growing child is to provide only the minimum nutrients necessary to survive. Building codes establish minimum safety requirements, but few people shopping for a family home ask for one constructed to the absolute lowest acceptable standard. Minimum wage establishes a legal floor; it does not establish an ideal household income.

Utah’s minimum parent-time schedule should be understood the same way. It establishes a baseline below which parent-time ordinarily should not fall. It should not become the default destination when the facts demonstrate that a child can safely and meaningfully maintain substantially greater relationships with both parents.

This is particularly important because Utah’s own statutes increasingly recognize something family courts, parents and researchers have been discussing for years: children generally benefit from meaningful relationships with both fit parents.

What Does “Minimum Parent-Time” Actually Mean Under Utah Law?

For children between five and eighteen, Utah Code § 81-9-302 establishes Utah’s traditional minimum parent-time schedule. In general terms, that schedule includes an alternating-weekend arrangement, a weekday period, holidays and extended summer parent-time.

For younger children, Utah Code § 81-9-304 establishes age-specific minimum schedules that gradually increase parent-time as the child gets older.

But the more important statute for understanding what “minimum” actually means is Utah Code § 81-9-206. It provides that the statutory advisory guidelines and parent-time schedules are presumed to constitute the minimum parent-time to which the noncustodial parent and the minor child are entitled.

That wording deserves attention. Parent-time is not framed exclusively as a privilege belonging to a parent. The statute expressly recognizes the child’s interest as well.

In other words, when a parent receives substantially less than statutory minimum parent-time without a legally sufficient reason, it is not merely that parent’s relationship that is being restricted. The child is also losing access to that parent.

That is why I believe we should stop treating minimum parent-time as a routine solution and instead ask the more important question: How much meaningful time with each fit parent can reasonably be provided while serving this particular child’s best interests?

Parents facing these questions can read more about how Utah courts analyze these issues on our Utah child custody and parent-time lawyer page and our discussion of how Utah courts decide child custody and parent-time.

Utah Law Already Recognizes That More Parent-Time Can Be Appropriate

The traditional minimum schedule does not stand alone. Utah law now expressly provides alternatives involving substantially more parenting time.

Utah Code § 81-9-303 provides an optional increased parent-time schedule involving 145 overnights. The statute allows that increased schedule to be considered when, among other considerations, the noncustodial parent has been actively involved in the child’s life, can facilitate the increased schedule, and increased parent-time would be in the child’s best interest.

Utah goes further still.

Utah Code § 81-9-305 expressly authorizes an equal parent-time schedule resulting in 182 overnights for one parent and 183 for the other when the statutory requirements are satisfied. The court considers whether equal parent-time is in the child’s best interest, whether each parent has been actively involved in the child’s life, and whether each parent can effectively facilitate the schedule.

The existence of these statutes is significant. Utah law does not present parents with a binary choice between sole custody and the traditional alternating-weekend schedule. The Legislature has expressly created a continuum extending from minimum parent-time through 145 overnights and ultimately to essentially equal parenting time.

I have previously written about this development in Rethinking 50/50 Custody as a Default in Custody Actions.

None of this means that 50/50 custody is appropriate in every case. It isn’t. Domestic violence, abuse, neglect, serious instability, geographical distance, developmental considerations and numerous other circumstances can make equal parenting impractical or contrary to a particular child’s welfare.

But neither should we make the opposite mistake of assuming that minimum parent-time is inherently preferable merely because it appears in a statute.

Utah’s Best-Interest Statute Points Toward Meaningful Involvement by Both Parents

Perhaps the strongest argument comes directly from Utah’s statement of public policy.

Under Utah Code § 81-9-204, absent a showing by a preponderance of the evidence of real harm or substantiated potential harm to the child, Utah law recognizes that frequent, meaningful and continuing access to each parent following separation or divorce is in the child’s best interest. The statute likewise recognizes that both parents’ active involvement in parenting the child is in the child’s best interest.

Those concepts—frequent, meaningful, continuing and actively involved—should matter.

They describe relationships, not merely visitation.

A parent-child relationship is built through ordinary life. It develops while making breakfast, driving to school, helping with homework, attending soccer practice, dealing with a sick child, enforcing bedtime, talking after a difficult day, attending medical appointments, going grocery shopping and simply being present.

Three hours on a Wednesday evening is contact. It is not necessarily shared parenting.

An alternating weekend can preserve a relationship. But it does not necessarily allow a parent to participate fully in the ordinary rhythm of a child’s life.

Five Reasons Utah Should Move Beyond Minimum Parent-Time When the Facts Permit It

1. Children Need Relationships With Parents, Not Merely Visits With Them

The first reason is the most fundamental. Relationships require time.

Imagine two parents who were both deeply involved before separation. Both prepared meals. Both attended school activities. Both helped with homework. Both handled bedtime. Both knew the children’s friends, teachers, doctors, fears, interests and routines.

Then the parents divorce.

If one parent suddenly becomes an alternating-weekend parent, the legal proceeding has not simply divided a calendar. It has fundamentally altered an existing parent-child relationship.

The difference between approximately four days per month and fourteen or fifteen days per month is not merely mathematical. It determines whether a parent participates in ordinary childhood or primarily receives scheduled blocks of recreational time.

This distinction is particularly important because Utah’s equal-parent-time statute itself looks at precisely these forms of parental involvement. Section 81-9-305 directs courts to consider responsibility for caring for the child, involvement in childcare, participation in school and extracurricular activities, homework assistance, preparation of meals, bath time, bedtime and the parent’s bond with the child.

Those are not accidental factors. They describe parenting.

If those activities demonstrate that a parent is sufficiently involved to justify equal parent-time, it follows that continuing those activities can help preserve the relationship the child already knows.

Research generally supports the proposition that substantial relationships with both parents can be beneficial. A 2023 systematic review published in PLOS ONE examined 39 studies published between 2010 and 2022 comparing children’s living arrangements after separation. Across the literature reviewed, children in shared physical custody generally experienced outcomes at least comparable to other favorable arrangements, while children living primarily with one parent tended to show poorer outcomes across a number of measures. The researchers specifically discussed the importance of preserving relational and economic resources available through both parents.

That does not prove that equal custody causes better outcomes in every family. Custody research is heavily affected by selection effects, parental conflict, socioeconomic differences and family circumstances. But the research provides little justification for assuming that dramatically reducing a fit and involved parent’s time automatically benefits children.

2. More Time Allows Both Parents to Actually Parent

There is a qualitative difference between visiting a child and raising a child.

Weekend parenting can unintentionally create a Disneyland-parent dynamic. The parent has limited time and may understandably want to make that time special. The child arrives Friday evening, activities occur Saturday, and Sunday is already consumed with preparing for another transition.

What may be missing is ordinary responsibility.

Shared parenting means getting a child out of bed when she does not want to go to school. It means making sure homework is finished. It means saying no. It means chores, dentist appointments, discipline, laundry, forgotten backpacks and Tuesday-night boredom.

These ordinary experiences create attachment and trust because the child learns that both parents are dependable participants in daily life.

They also keep both parents informed. A parent who regularly takes a child to school is more likely to know the teacher. A parent who supervises homework sees academic problems developing. A parent who handles bedtime notices anxiety, sleep problems and changes in behavior.

More meaningful parent-time can therefore produce something that cannot be created by a court order alone: two parents who remain knowledgeable about their child’s actual life.

For families involved in custody litigation, our Utah child custody attorney resource discusses the evidence courts consider when evaluating parental involvement and workable parenting schedules.

3. Children Can Retain the Emotional and Economic Resources of Both Parents

Divorce divides a household, but it should not unnecessarily divide a child from the resources of either parent.

Those resources are not exclusively financial. They include extended family, grandparents, cousins, traditions, community connections, emotional support, knowledge, mentoring and opportunities.

A child who meaningfully lives in both households may have continuing access to both family systems rather than experiencing one as home and the other as somewhere the child periodically visits.

There can also be an important financial dimension.

Research concerning post-separation families has long recognized connections among parental involvement, resources and financial support. The relationship is complicated, and it would be inaccurate to claim that increasing parent-time automatically increases child-support compliance. Ability to pay remains a major determinant of formal support compliance.

But human behavior matters. A parent who remains actively engaged in a child’s daily life often has opportunities and incentives to provide resources directly: school clothes, sports fees, meals, transportation, electronics, medical expenses, activities and countless incidental costs that arise while actually raising a child.

This is one reason discussions about custody and child support should not assume that time and money are completely unrelated aspects of parenting.

Utah law itself recognizes the relationship. Section 81-9-303 expressly identifies the increased schedule as 145 overnights for purposes of calculating child support, and Section 81-9-305 likewise addresses child support in an equal parent-time arrangement.

For more information about how parenting schedules interact with support calculations, see our Utah child support attorney page.

4. More Balanced Parenting Can Reduce the “Winner and Loser” Structure of Custody

Traditional custody litigation can create a destructive incentive: one parent wins time by taking time from the other.

There are only 365 nights in a year. If litigation begins from an assumption that one parent should receive most of them, parents can quickly find themselves arguing over who deserves to be designated the primary parent.

That structure can reward gatekeeping.

A parent may begin documenting every mistake by the other parent, objecting to schedule flexibility or treating ordinary parenting differences as evidence of unfitness. Conflict that might otherwise be manageable becomes evidence in a custody contest.

A more balanced starting point changes the question.

Instead of asking, “Which parent should lose time?” the question becomes, “Is there a child-centered reason this child should not continue having substantial time with both parents?”

That is much closer to the policy expressed in Utah Code § 81-9-204: frequent, meaningful and continuing access to each parent and active involvement by both parents, absent evidence of real harm or substantiated potential harm.

Equal parent-time will not eliminate parental conflict. In some cases, substantial conflict itself may make particular schedules difficult. But courts should distinguish genuine inability to co-parent from conflict generated by the custody litigation itself.

Parents do not have to like each other to remain important to their children.

5. Minimum Parent-Time Was Designed as a Safety Net, Not an Ideal Family Structure

The fifth reason may be the most important policy issue.

Utah’s traditional minimum schedule reflects an older model of post-divorce parenting in which one household was generally treated as the child’s primary home and the other parent exercised “visitation.”

Modern families frequently operate differently.

Both parents often work. Both transport children. Both attend school functions. Both provide meals. Both participate in medical care. Fathers are commonly involved in daily childcare in ways that were less typical when many traditional visitation concepts developed, while mothers participate in the workforce at far higher rates than generations ago.

The law itself has evolved in response.

Utah now has a statutory 145-overnight increased schedule. It has a statutory equal-parent-time schedule. It expressly examines whether both parents were actively involved in childcare. And its best-interest statute expressly favors frequent, meaningful and continuing access to both parents in the absence of demonstrated harm.

Those developments should affect how we think about the old minimum.

The minimum should be viewed like a minimum daily nutritional requirement: the amount below which we become concerned about deficiency—not the amount we affirmatively prescribe as optimal.

If a child can safely maintain a healthy, substantial relationship with two capable parents, deliberately limiting one relationship to the minimum requires a child-focused justification.

What About Cases Where Equal Parent-Time Is Not Appropriate?

Advocating for greater parent-time does not mean ignoring safety.

Utah law appropriately requires courts to consider domestic violence, physical abuse, sexual abuse and circumstances in which parent-time could endanger a child’s physical or psychological safety. These considerations must take priority.

There are also practical circumstances where equal time may not work. Parents may live several hours apart. A parent’s employment may make a particular rotation impossible. A child may have medical or developmental needs requiring a different arrangement. A parent may have had little historical involvement and need a graduated schedule. An infant’s developmental circumstances may require different considerations than those applicable to a fourteen-year-old.

That is precisely why custody decisions should remain child-specific.

The argument is not “50/50 regardless of the facts.”

The argument is that an otherwise fit, safe and involved parent should not be reduced to minimum parent-time simply because minimum parent-time is easy, familiar or traditional.

Less Than Minimum Parent-Time Should Require Particular Scrutiny

The same reasoning becomes even stronger when a parent receives less than Utah’s minimum schedule.

Remember what § 81-9-206 says: the minimum schedule is presumptively the minimum entitlement of both the noncustodial parent and the child.

If an order reduces a safe parent’s relationship below that level, the practical consequence falls on the child as well.

A child loses breakfasts with that parent. The child loses school transportation, homework assistance, bedtime conversations, relationships with extended family and ordinary unstructured time.

Over months and years, reduced contact can change the nature of the relationship itself.

A ten-year-old who sees a parent only sporadically may eventually stop treating that parent as someone involved in everyday problems. The parent knows less about school. The child’s friends become unfamiliar. Communication becomes more formal. Eventually someone may point to the weakened relationship as evidence that the child is “closer” to the other parent.

That can become circular reasoning: reduce the relationship, observe that the relationship became weaker, and then use the weakened relationship to justify continuing the reduced contact.

Courts should be cautious about that result.

Parent-Time Should Be About the Child’s Relationship, Not a Parent’s Reward

One persistent mistake in custody disputes is treating parent-time as a reward for adults.

It isn’t.

A father does not receive additional overnights because he “deserves” them. A mother does not receive primary custody because she has “earned” it. The central legal question is the child’s best interest.

Likewise, reducing parent-time should not be used to punish a parent for conduct unrelated to parenting ability or the child’s welfare.

The focus should remain on the relationship between the child and each parent.

Does this parent provide a safe home? Is the parent involved? Does the child have a meaningful bond with the parent? Can the parent meet the child’s daily needs? Can the schedule function geographically? Can the parent get the child to school? Does the parent support the child’s relationship with the other parent?

Those are child-centered questions.

The Better Question: Why Not More?

When both parents are safe, capable, geographically close and historically involved, Utah custody discussions should increasingly ask a different question.

Instead of asking why a parent needs more than minimum parent-time, perhaps we should ask why the child should receive less than substantial access to that parent.

That does not reverse the best-interest standard. It takes the standard seriously.

Utah’s Legislature has already told us that frequent, meaningful and continuing access to each parent ordinarily serves a child’s best interests. It has created a 145-overnight schedule. It has created an equal-parent-time schedule. And it continues to describe the traditional schedule as a minimum.

Those statutes should be read together.

The logical result is not that every family receives 50/50 custody. The logical result is that minimum parent-time should be treated as the floor from which an individualized analysis begins—not as a ceiling that a parent must somehow earn the right to exceed.

Utah Families Should Build Parenting Plans Around Children, Not Labels

The best parenting plan is not necessarily the one with the neatest label.

Some children thrive on a week-on/week-off arrangement. Others benefit from shorter rotations. Some parents need a 2-2-5-5 structure because of employment schedules. Other families need customized exchanges around school so that transitions occur naturally. Younger children may require more frequent contact and shorter separations.

That flexibility is precisely why negotiated parenting plans can often produce better practical results than rigid litigation positions.

Utah’s advisory guidelines recognize that parents’ mutually agreed schedules are preferable to court-imposed solutions. Parents who can focus on their children’s actual needs rather than the labels “custodial” and “noncustodial” often have considerably more flexibility in designing an arrangement that works.

For parents already operating under an outdated custody order, changing parent-time may require a formal modification. Our Utah child custody and parent-time modification lawyer page explains some of the issues involved in modifying an existing decree.

Minimum Should Mean Minimum

Utah’s minimum parent-time statutes serve an important purpose. They establish a floor and provide predictability when parents cannot agree.

But we should be careful not to transform a statutory minimum into a judicial ideal.

Children do not experience custody in percentages. They experience it in relationships.

They know who helps with homework. Who attends their games. Who makes breakfast. Who listens when they are worried. Who takes them to the doctor. Who knows their teachers. Who enforces rules. Who shows up.

When two parents are capable of doing those things, the legal system should hesitate before unnecessarily converting one of them into an occasional visitor.

Utah law already recognizes that frequent, meaningful and continuing relationships with both parents are generally beneficial. The Legislature has also created increasingly substantial parent-time alternatives culminating in equal parent-time.

The next step is conceptual: stop treating minimum parent-time as the normal amount a parent should receive and start treating it for what the Legislature calls it—a minimum.

For a healthy child with two safe, capable and involved parents, the goal should not be the minimum amount of parenting necessary to preserve a relationship. The goal should be the parenting arrangement that gives that child the greatest reasonable opportunity to maintain strong, meaningful and continuing relationships with both parents.

Minimum nutrition may keep someone alive. Minimum construction standards may keep a building standing. But when we are talking about the lifelong relationship between a child and a parent, merely meeting the minimum should not be confused with achieving the child’s best interest.

Speak With a Utah Child Custody Attorney About Parent-Time

Every custody case is fact-specific. Parent-time depends upon the child’s age and needs, each parent’s historical involvement, geographical distance, school schedules, safety considerations and numerous other factors. A statutory schedule should therefore be evaluated in the context of the particular child rather than applied mechanically.

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents parents in divorce, custody, parent-time and modification matters throughout Utah County and surrounding communities. Learn more about our Utah child custody and parent-time representation, our Utah divorce lawyer services, or our Saratoga Springs divorce and child custody attorney services.

This article is intended for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Custody and parent-time determinations depend upon the facts of each case and the law in effect when the issue is decided.

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

What Nakkina v. Mahanthi means for working parents, 50/50 custody, and evidence in Utah child custody cases
By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

For years, one of the easiest arguments to make in a child custody case has been something along these lines:

“He works too much.”

“Her job is too demanding.”

“He earns most of the family’s income, so he needs to concentrate on work.”

“She has a professional career, so she cannot realistically exercise equal parent-time.”

Those arguments may sound reasonable. Sometimes they may even be true.

But that is not enough.

The Utah Court of Appeals made an important distinction in Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111: a court may consider employment when determining custody and parent-time, but it cannot convert an assumption about a parent’s job into a factual finding without evidence supporting it.

That distinction matters.

A parent’s work schedule is a legitimate issue in a Utah child custody and parent-time case. But the question is not whether a parent has an important job, earns substantial income, travels occasionally, works long hours, owns a business, or has historically had demanding employment.

The question is much more specific:

What does the evidence show about how that parent’s current employment actually affects his or her ability to exercise the proposed parent-time schedule?

In Nakkina, the trial court crossed that line. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed it.

The Case: Nakkina v. Mahanthi

Nakkina v. Mahanthi arose from a Utah divorce involving two children. The parties separated in 2016, and the mother exercised temporary primary physical custody for nearly three years while the divorce proceeded.

At trial, the parties presented substantially different accounts of the father’s historical involvement with the children.

The mother testified that the father’s employment had previously required significant travel and that he had historically been absent for substantial periods of time. She described herself as the primary caregiver and characterized the father as having been comparatively uninvolved.

The father disagreed.

More importantly for the eventual appellate decision, the father testified that the employment circumstances had changed. He had left the traveling job several years earlier, and his current employment did not interfere with his ability to exercise parent-time.

The district court ultimately awarded joint physical custody, but not equal parent-time. The mother received eight days out of every fourteen, while the father received six.

That may appear to be a relatively small difference.

The Utah Court of Appeals nevertheless reversed.

The reason is important to anyone litigating child custody in Utah: the evidence did not support the reason the district court gave for denying equal time.

The full amended appellate decision can be reviewed at Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111.

Finding No. 1: Courts Have Broad Discretion — But Discretion Is Not Permission to Guess

This is probably the most important principle in the case.

Utah district courts have substantial discretion when deciding custody and parent-time. That is necessary because every family is different. A schedule that works perfectly for one family may be completely impractical for another.

But judicial discretion still has boundaries.

The Court of Appeals explained that a parent-time award must be firmly anchored in sufficiently detailed factual findings. Those findings must demonstrate a logical process connecting the evidence to the court’s ultimate decision.

The appellate court relied on longstanding Utah precedent explaining that a trial court cannot base a parent-time determination on supposition or conjecture.

That is the point that deserves attention.

A court cannot simply look at a parent’s occupation and decide what that occupation probably means.

A judge cannot reasonably substitute:

• a job title for evidence of a work schedule;
• past travel for evidence of current travel;
• income level for evidence of parental availability;
• professional responsibility for evidence of parental absence; or
• a demanding career for proof that the parent cannot exercise 50/50 custody.

Employment can matter. But the effect of employment must be demonstrated by evidence.

Finding No. 2: Historical Work Demands Are Not Automatically Evidence of Present Parenting Availability

The factual distinction in Nakkina is particularly important.

There was evidence that the father’s former employment had once been demanding. Years earlier, his job required regular travel and occasionally required him to work late because of overseas business operations.

The district court apparently allowed that history to influence its view of the father’s future availability.

But the father had changed jobs.

There was no evidence that his current employment continued to impose the same demands.

That distinction was critical.

A court determining current custody cannot simply freeze a parent’s employment circumstances at some earlier point in the marriage.

People change jobs.

People change shifts.

Employees begin working remotely.

Business owners restructure their schedules.

Parents reduce travel.

Parents arrange childcare.

Parents organize their work obligations around school schedules and exchange times.

What matters is the evidence concerning the circumstances relevant to the custody order the court is actually entering.

This same principle can become important in post-divorce litigation. A genuine change in employment circumstances may affect an existing custody arrangement, but a party seeking a change should be prepared to prove the actual circumstances rather than relying upon general assertions. Our discussion of Utah divorce and custody modifications involving employment changes addresses that issue in the modification context.

Finding No. 3: The Trial Court Found the Father Was Available — Then Reduced His Time Because It Assumed He Would Not Be

This is where the district court’s reasoning became internally inconsistent.

The district court made numerous findings supporting equal, or nearly equal, parent-time.

Among other things, the court found that:

• both parents should have substantial relationships with the children;
• the children had good relationships with both parents;
• there was no evidence suggesting that maximum time with either parent would harm the children; and
• there was no legitimate argument that expanding the father’s parent-time would endanger the children.

The district court also expressed that it was not concerned about the father’s availability as a parent going forward.

Those findings matter because a court’s ultimate custody order must logically follow from its factual findings.

Here, the district court essentially found that the father could parent the children, that additional time would not harm them, and that availability was not a concern.

It nevertheless reduced his parent-time because it predicted that his work would remain more demanding than the mother’s work.

The Court of Appeals held that the conclusion did not follow from the evidence.

That is an important appellate constraint on custody discretion.

Finding No. 4: A Court Cannot Reduce Parent-Time to “Help” a Parent With His or Her Career Without Evidence That Help Is Needed

The district court’s reasoning was not hostile toward the father.

In some ways, it was the opposite.

The court believed the family relied heavily upon the father’s income. It therefore wanted him to continue working and apparently believed that giving him slightly less parent-time would reduce his burden and provide additional flexibility.

The Court of Appeals even recognized that the district court meant well.

But good intentions do not replace evidence.

This is one of the more significant parts of Nakkina.

A court cannot protect a working parent from responsibilities that the parent has not asked the court to remove.

Nor should a court assume that parenthood and professional success are mutually exclusive.

A parent may decide that exercising equal custody is more important than maximizing work availability. That parent may arrange employment accordingly. The custody court does not get to make that personal decision for the parent merely because it believes a reduced schedule would be easier.

If evidence establishes that a particular schedule is actually incompatible with a parent’s employment, that is different.

But there must be evidence.

Finding No. 5: What the Other Parent Did Not Say Became Important

Another interesting fact in Nakkina is what the mother did not argue.

She opposed equal parent-time for several reasons.

But according to the Court of Appeals, she did not complain that the father’s current work schedule prevented him from caring for the children. She did not express concern about his ability to accommodate both his employment and the children.

That matters because the district court’s employment concern was not even supported by the parent who was opposing 50/50 custody.

The evidence therefore did not establish that the proposed schedule conflicted with his actual employment.

Yet employment became the deciding reason for denying equal time.

The Court of Appeals would not allow that evidentiary gap to stand.

Finding No. 6: The Remedy Was Not Merely a Remand for Better Findings — The Court Ordered Equal Parent-Time

The result in Nakkina is also significant.

The Court of Appeals did not merely tell the district court to write more detailed findings explaining the 6/14 schedule.

It reversed the parent-time ruling and instructed the district court to award equal parent-time.

Why?

Because the trial court had already made the relevant findings.

Those findings favored equal or nearly equal custody, and the employment concern that prevented a 50/50 award lacked evidentiary support.

Once that unsupported rationale was removed, there was no remaining factual basis identified by the district court for denying equal time.

This is an important distinction for lawyers analyzing custody findings.

The issue is not simply whether the judge wrote enough words.

The findings must actually support the result.

Finding No. 7: Nakkina Does Not Create an Automatic Right to 50/50 Custody

Nakkina should not be overstated.

The case does not hold that every working parent is entitled to 50/50 custody.

It does not hold that employment is irrelevant.

It does not prevent courts from considering work schedules.

And it does not eliminate Utah’s best-interest analysis.

The narrower rule is more defensible and, in my view, more important:

If a court is going to use employment as a reason to restrict a parent’s custody or parent-time, there needs to be evidence demonstrating how that employment actually affects the proposed parenting arrangement.

That is an evidence rule disguised as a custody case.

And that is precisely why it matters.

How Nakkina Fits With Utah’s Current Custody Statutes

The statutes cited in Nakkina were contained in former Title 30. Utah has since reorganized its domestic-relations statutes into Title 81 of the Utah Code.

The basic principle remains.

Under current Utah Code § 81-9-204, a court deciding custody and parent-time must determine the child’s best interests based upon a preponderance of the evidence.

The statute also continues Utah’s policy that, absent proof of real harm or substantiated potential harm, children should have frequent, meaningful, and continuing access to both parents and both parents should remain actively involved in parenting their children.

For a broader explanation of that analysis, see how Utah courts determine the best interests of a child in custody cases.

Utah Code § 81-9-206 likewise requires the court to determine a parent-time schedule by a preponderance of the evidence.

And Utah’s equal parent-time statute, Utah Code § 81-9-305, directly addresses the very subject discussed in Nakkina. When evaluating whether parents can effectively facilitate an equal parent-time schedule, the statute directs the court to consider factors including the flexibility of each parent’s employment or other schedule.

Notice what the statute says.

It directs the court to consider employment flexibility.

It does not say that the parent who works more hours gets less custody.

It does not say that the higher earner receives less parent-time.

It does not say that a professional career is inconsistent with joint physical custody.

It requires an individualized analysis.

That is entirely consistent with Nakkina.

What Evidence Should a Working Parent Present?

If employment is likely to become an issue in a contested Utah custody case, I would not leave the subject vague.

A parent seeking substantial or equal parent-time should be prepared to establish exactly how the proposed schedule works.

Depending upon the case, useful evidence may include:

• actual work hours;
• remote-work arrangements;
• flexibility to arrive late or leave early;
• ability to work from home while children are present;
• travel frequency;
• historical travel compared with current travel;
• school drop-off and pickup availability;
• childcare arrangements;
• family members available for occasional assistance;
• work calendars;
• employer policies;
• paid-time-off flexibility;
• evidence of consistently exercising temporary parent-time;
• school attendance records;
• participation in medical appointments;
• extracurricular involvement; and
• communications demonstrating that work has not interfered with parenting responsibilities.

A parent defending against a claim of being “too busy” should not merely respond, “I can make it work.”

Show the court how it already works.

Documentation often separates an allegation from evidence. For that reason, I routinely emphasize the importance of maintaining contemporaneous records during custody litigation.

What Evidence Should the Parent Opposing Equal Time Present?

The same evidentiary requirement works both ways.

If one parent genuinely believes that the other parent’s employment prevents an equal schedule, that concern should be demonstrated through evidence rather than generalized criticism.

Relevant evidence might include a documented pattern of:

• missed exchanges;
• frequent cancellations;
• children routinely being left with third parties;
• unavoidable overnight travel;
• inability to transport children to school;
• repeated late pickups;
• failure to attend medical or educational appointments because of work;
• requests that the other parent routinely cover scheduled parent-time; or
• an employment schedule that objectively conflicts with the proposed parenting plan.

That type of evidence permits a court to make a factual determination.

A statement that someone has “a demanding career” does not.

The Primary-Caregiver Argument Also Has Limits

Nakkina is also relevant to another common custody argument: one parent historically performed more day-to-day caregiving because the other parent worked outside the home.

Historical caregiving is relevant under Utah law.

But history is not necessarily destiny.

A marriage is an economic and parenting partnership. Families frequently divide responsibilities. One parent may work longer hours while the other performs more weekday caregiving. That arrangement may have been mutually beneficial during the marriage.

Divorce changes the structure.

The fact that one parent historically worked more does not automatically establish that the same division of responsibilities must continue after separation.

The court must evaluate the actual parenting abilities, schedules, relationships, and circumstances existing when custody is determined.

A High Income Should Not Become a Custody Penalty

There is another uncomfortable aspect of the district court’s reasoning in Nakkina.

The court emphasized that the family depended heavily on the father’s income.

But if taken too far, that reasoning creates a strange incentive.

The more financially successful a parent becomes, the easier it becomes to argue that the parent should receive less time with the children because the family needs that parent to keep earning money.

That cannot become a substitute for a best-interest analysis.

Financial responsibility is important. So is parenting.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

A parent should not effectively be penalized in a custody determination merely because that parent is the primary wage earner.

Likewise, a lower-earning parent should not be presumed more available simply because that parent’s income is lower.

Evidence matters more than assumptions.

The Same Rule Should Apply to Mothers and Fathers

Although Nakkina involved a father whose employment was used as a reason to reduce his time, the legal principle is gender-neutral.

A professional mother should not lose parent-time merely because the court assumes her career will interfere with parenting.

A father should not lose parent-time merely because he historically served as the primary wage earner.

A self-employed parent should not be presumed unavailable simply because business ownership sometimes requires long hours.

Nor should a remote worker automatically be presumed available at every moment simply because that person works from home.

The court should determine what the evidence actually establishes.

What Nakkina Means in a Temporary Orders Hearing

The reasoning is particularly useful in temporary-orders litigation.

Temporary custody orders are often entered early in a divorce when the court has limited time and incomplete information.

That makes broad assumptions tempting.

One parent may argue:

“He has always worked full-time, so the children should primarily remain with me.”

That is not enough.

The relevant questions are more concrete:

• What are his actual hours?
• Who takes the children to school?
• Who picks them up?
• Can he work remotely?
• Does he travel?
• How often?
• Has he consistently exercised the temporary schedule?
• Who handles homework?
• Who attends activities?
• What childcare is actually necessary?

The proposed schedule should be tested against evidence rather than assumptions.

What Nakkina Means for 50/50 Custody in Utah

Utah law now expressly recognizes an equal parent-time schedule.

But 50/50 custody is still not automatic in every case.

The court evaluates the children’s best interests, each parent’s involvement, each parent’s ability to facilitate the schedule, geography, schooling, parenting history, safety considerations, cooperation, and other relevant circumstances.

For parents considering an equal arrangement, the practical lesson from Nakkina is straightforward:

Do not merely argue that 50/50 custody is fair. Prove that it works.

That means presenting a parenting plan that addresses school, exchanges, transportation, holidays, extracurricular activities, medical care, childcare, and employment schedules.

Parents in Lehi facing these issues can review our discussion of child custody and parenting plans in Lehi. Similar principles apply throughout Utah County and the Wasatch Front.

The Larger Lesson: Custody Decisions Must Be Based on Evidence, Not Judicial Intuition

This is ultimately why I think Nakkina matters.

Family-court judges hear hundreds of cases. They naturally develop experience with common parenting arrangements, employment situations, and custody disputes.

Experience is valuable.

But judicial experience cannot become evidence.

A judge may reasonably believe that a particular career is demanding. The judge may even be correct in the abstract.

But the court still must determine whether this parent’s job, under this parent’s actual circumstances, prevents this parent from exercising this proposed schedule.

That is a factual question.

And factual questions require evidence.

In Nakkina, the district court essentially tried to solve a problem that the evidence did not establish existed.

The Court of Appeals said no.

Practical Takeaways From Nakkina v. Mahanthi

1. Employment is relevant, but assumptions about employment are not evidence.
2. Historical work demands do not automatically prove current unavailability.
3. A high income or demanding career does not itself justify reduced parent-time.
4. The court’s custody order must logically follow from its factual findings.
5. If the evidence supports equal time, an unsupported employment concern cannot supply the missing reason to deny it.
6. The parent requesting equal custody should affirmatively prove how the schedule will operate.
7. The parent claiming employment makes the schedule impossible should provide concrete evidence of the conflict.
8. Utah’s current statutes continue to require an evidence-based best-interest determination.

Utah Child Custody Representation

Custody cases are won and lost on facts.

Words such as busy, unavailable, uninvolved, primary caregiver, and demanding career are conclusions. They become meaningful only when they are connected to evidence.

At Rifleman Law & Mediation, we represent parents in contested Utah child custody and parent-time disputes, including cases involving equal parent-time, work schedules, school arrangements, relocation, parenting plans, temporary orders, enforcement, and modification.

For families in northern Utah County, additional local information is available through our:

• Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and Saratoga Springs child custody lawyer resource;
• Lehi divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and Lehi child custody lawyer resource;
• Eagle Mountain divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and Eagle Mountain child custody lawyer resource;
• American Fork divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and American Fork child custody lawyer resource;
• Pleasant Grove divorce lawyer and child custody attorney;
• Lindon divorce lawyer and child custody attorney;
• Orem divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and Orem child custody lawyer;
• Provo divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and Provo child custody lawyer;
• Bluffdale divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and Bluffdale child custody lawyer;
• Riverton child custody lawyer;
• Herriman divorce lawyer and child custody attorney and Herriman child custody lawyer; and
• Tooele child custody lawyer.

Have a Utah Child Custody or Parent-Time Question?

If your custody case involves a dispute about work schedules, equal parent-time, historical caregiving, school transportation, or whether a proposed 50/50 schedule is actually workable, the issue should be approached through evidence—not assumptions.

Rifleman Law & Mediation
Saratoga Springs, Utah
801-510-0503

Request a free, confidential consultation with a Utah divorce and child custody attorney.

Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information concerning Utah divorce, child custody, and parent-time law and is not legal advice concerning any particular case. Custody determinations are fact-specific, and statutes and appellate decisions should be reviewed in their current form before reliance in litigation.

Authorities: Nakkina v. Mahanthi, 2021 UT App 111; Utah Code §§ 81-9-204, 81-9-206, and 81-9-305. The amended Nakkina opinion replaced the court’s earlier opinion reported as 2021 UT App 63.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

People do not usually begin a divorce or child custody case by studying statutes, reading appellate decisions, or learning the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. They begin with Google.

They type something like “divorce lawyer near me” or “child custody attorney.” If money is already becoming an issue, they may search “how much does a divorce lawyer cost?” If they are hoping to avoid a courtroom fight, the search may instead be “divorce mediator near me.”

After practicing family law for years, I think those searches tell us something important. They are not merely “keywords.” They reflect the questions, concerns, and decisions people are actually facing when a marriage or family structure begins to unravel.

So rather than treating this as another generic list of legal search terms, I want to look at ten of the most important family-law search phrases, explain why people search for them, and explain where Rifleman Law & Mediation fits into that search.

Those ten phrases are:

• Best divorce lawyer / attorney
• Family law lawyer / attorney
• Divorce lawyer / attorney near me
• Child custody lawyer / attorney
• Child custody
• Free divorce consultation
• Alimony lawyer / attorney
• Divorce mediator near me
• Child support lawyer / attorney
• How much does a divorce lawyer / attorney cost?

1. “Best Divorce Lawyer” or “Best Divorce Attorney”

Let me start with the obvious one. People search for the best divorce lawyer or divorce attorney because they understand that the attorney they select may have a significant impact on what happens next.

I am not going to declare myself the “best divorce lawyer in Utah.” I have always thought those kinds of statements sound more like advertising than lawyering. There is no single attorney who is the best lawyer for every client, every personality, and every case.

But I do understand what someone means when they use the word best.

They are generally looking for an attorney who knows Utah family law, prepares the case carefully, communicates with the client, understands both negotiation and litigation, identifies the issues that actually matter, and does not create unnecessary conflict simply to generate legal work.

That is the approach I have tried to develop at Rifleman Law & Mediation. Divorce is not simply filling out forms and obtaining a judge’s signature. A divorce can determine what happens to your home, retirement accounts, business interests, debts, income, children, parent-time, child support, and sometimes alimony for years into the future.

That is why our Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer, Lehi divorce attorney, American Fork divorce lawyer, and Provo divorce attorney pages do not simply say, “We handle divorce.” They address the actual financial, custody, support, and litigation issues families in those communities commonly encounter.

2. “Family Law Lawyer” or “Family Law Attorney”

The phrase family law attorney is broader than divorce lawyer, and that distinction matters.

Divorce is one part of family law. A family law lawyer or attorney may also handle child custody, parent-time, paternity or parentage, child support, alimony, enforcement of court orders, modifications, relocation disputes, and other issues involving parents and children.

In fact, some of the most difficult family-law cases do not involve a new divorce at all.

I routinely see disputes arise years after the divorce decree was entered. A parent may stop complying with parent-time. Someone’s income may materially change. A child may develop new educational or medical needs. One parent may want to relocate. An alimony obligation may need to be reviewed. A provision in the original decree may prove vague or practically unworkable.

Those are family-law problems even though the divorce itself may have ended long ago.

Rifleman Law & Mediation handles both the initial case and the problems that can follow it, including divorce, custody, child support, alimony, enforcement, modifications, and mediation. Our goal is not merely to obtain an order. It is to obtain an order that is clear enough to work after everyone leaves the courthouse.

3. “Divorce Lawyer Near Me” or “Divorce Attorney Near Me”

“Near me” is one of the most understandable searches in family law.

If you live in Lehi, you probably are not looking for a divorce attorney who primarily practices three hours away. You want someone who understands the courts where your case will actually be heard and who represents people in your part of Utah.

That is why searches for a divorce lawyer near me increasingly lead people to city-specific resources.

Rifleman Law & Mediation is based in Saratoga Springs and represents family-law clients throughout Utah County and surrounding areas. Depending upon where you live, you can review our pages for a:

• Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Eagle Mountain divorce lawyer and custody attorney
• Lehi divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• American Fork divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Pleasant Grove divorce lawyer and custody attorney
• Lindon divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Orem divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Provo divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Bluffdale divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Herriman divorce lawyer and child custody attorney
• Riverton divorce lawyer and child custody attorney

You can also review our broader Utah family-law service areas.

“Near me” should mean more than mileage. In my view, it should also mean representation that understands the practical environment in which the case will be litigated.

4. “Child Custody Lawyer” or “Child Custody Attorney”

For a parent, there may be no more important phrase on this list than child custody lawyer or child custody attorney.

Property can often be valued. Debts can usually be calculated. A retirement account can be divided.

Your relationship with your children is different.

A child custody case can involve legal custody, physical custody, parent-time, holidays, school schedules, medical decisions, extracurricular activities, transportation, communication, relocation, and the ability of parents to make decisions together. Poorly written custody provisions can turn seemingly minor disagreements into years of repeat litigation.

That is why I put considerable emphasis on precise parenting plans and enforceable orders.

Someone looking for a Provo child custody lawyer, for example, may be dealing with the same Utah custody law as someone in Saratoga Springs, but the actual case will turn on that particular family’s history, evidence, schedules, children, and proposed parenting arrangement.

For a broader explanation of how these decisions are made, read How Utah Courts Decide Child Custody and Parent-Time.

5. “Child Custody”

Interestingly, many people do not initially search for an attorney at all. They simply search “child custody.”

That usually means they are still trying to understand the problem.

What is joint legal custody? What is physical custody? How much parent-time will I receive? Can we have equal parent-time? Who decides where the child attends school? What happens if the other parent refuses exchanges? Can custody be changed later?

Those are not really keyword questions. They are life questions that happen to have legal consequences.

Our Utah child custody and support practice addresses custody, parent-time, parentage, support, modifications, and enforcement. Our family-law articles go further into the practical issues that arise during actual litigation.

For example, one of the recommendations I frequently make in contested cases is to document important events accurately rather than relying upon memory. I explain that in 10 Reasons to Keep a Journal During a Utah Divorce or Custody Case.

Custody cases are ultimately built from facts. Dates, actual parenting history, school involvement, medical involvement, communications, schedules, and credible documentation generally tell the story better than adjectives do.

6. “Free Divorce Consultation”

A search for a free divorce consultation usually comes from someone who is not yet sure what the next step should be.

That makes sense.

You may not know whether you should file first. You may not know whether you need temporary orders. You may not know whether you should remain in the home, how custody will work, what will happen to the mortgage, whether you might pay or receive alimony, or even whether you can afford to hire an attorney.

Those are precisely the kinds of issues an initial consultation is supposed to identify.

Rifleman Law & Mediation offers a free initial consultation. Our family-law FAQ page provides additional information about consultations and commonly asked divorce and custody questions.

I view the initial consultation as an evaluation, not a sales pitch. Sometimes a person needs immediate legal action. Sometimes the better course is to gather documents first. Sometimes mediation makes sense. Sometimes the case is relatively straightforward. Sometimes the facts indicate that litigation is probably coming whether anyone wants it or not.

The first task is to understand which kind of case you actually have.

7. “Alimony Lawyer” or “Alimony Attorney”

Searches for an alimony lawyer or alimony attorney usually appear when the financial consequences of divorce start becoming real.

Alimony can be one of the most heavily disputed parts of a divorce because the disagreement is rarely limited to one number.

The parties may disagree about income, reasonable monthly expenses, earning capacity, the marital standard of living, whether a spouse is voluntarily underemployed, the ability of the other spouse to pay, and the appropriate amount or duration of support.

Financial documents matter enormously in these cases. That includes tax returns, pay records, bank records, business records when appropriate, expense information, and the Utah Financial Declaration.

I discuss the importance of those disclosures in Utah Financial Declaration in Divorce | Rule 26.1 Explained.

We maintain alimony-specific resources for communities throughout our service area, including a Lehi alimony lawyer, American Fork alimony lawyer, and Provo alimony lawyer page.

Whether you are requesting alimony or defending against an alimony claim, the analysis should begin with the actual evidence rather than a number someone simply believes is fair.

8. “Divorce Mediator Near Me”

This particular search is important to me because Rifleman Law & Mediation does not approach every family-law dispute from the assumption that it has to end at trial.

Someone searching for a divorce mediator near me is usually asking a different question:

Can we resolve this without having a judge decide everything for us?

Often, the answer is yes.

Mediation gives parties an opportunity to resolve custody, parent-time, property, debt, child support, alimony, and other disputed issues through negotiation rather than surrendering those decisions to the court.

But mediation works best when the parties are prepared. A mediator cannot make missing financial records appear. A productive mediation requires enough information for the parties to understand the dispute, evaluate risk, and make informed decisions.

Rifleman Law & Mediation provides mediation services in addition to litigation and legal representation. Local resources include our Lehi divorce mediation and American Fork divorce mediation pages.

I believe there is a considerable difference between being willing to settle and being afraid to litigate. A good family-law strategy should allow for both: negotiate intelligently when an acceptable resolution is available and prepare the case for court when it is not.

9. “Child Support Lawyer” or “Child Support Attorney”

People sometimes assume child support should be simple because Utah uses statutory guidelines.

Sometimes it is.

Sometimes it absolutely is not.

A child support lawyer or child support attorney may become necessary when the dispute involves self-employment income, overtime, bonuses, commissions, income imputation, changing employment, health insurance, childcare expenses, or disagreements over the actual parenting schedule.

Support issues also do not necessarily end when the original divorce is entered. Income changes. Parenting schedules change. Children grow older. Existing orders sometimes require modification or enforcement.

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents parents in initial child support determinations as well as later support disputes. For example, our Provo child support attorney page addresses the financial documentation and income issues that can arise in calculating support.

For parents dealing with the less common issue of continuing support for an adult child, I have also written about whether child support can continue after a child turns 18 in Utah.

Child support is ultimately a calculation, but a calculation is only as accurate as the facts being put into it.

10. “How Much Does a Divorce Lawyer Cost?”

This may be the most practical question on the entire list:

How much does a divorce lawyer or attorney cost?

The answer nobody particularly likes is also the truthful one: it depends upon the case.

A divorce in which the parties have already reached agreement on custody, property, support, and debt is fundamentally different from a case involving contested custody, multiple motions, discovery disputes, experts, a business valuation, temporary orders, and trial.

Attorney fees are largely driven by attorney time, and attorney time is driven by complexity and conflict.

I explain the issue in considerably more detail in What Does Divorce Cost in Lehi? and What Does Divorce Cost in American Fork, Utah?.

There are also circumstances in which attorney fees can become an issue between the parties themselves. For more information, see When Attorney Fees Can Be Awarded in a Utah Divorce or Custody Case.

Clients can also help control their own legal expenses. Organized documents save attorney time. Clear communication saves attorney time. Distinguishing legally significant disputes from emotional disputes saves attorney time. Strategic mediation can save attorney time. And realistic decision-making can prevent a $1,000 issue from becoming a $10,000 fight.

Cost matters. So does understanding what you are buying with that cost.

What These Family Law Keywords Have in Common

When I look at these ten searches together, I see a progression.

Someone begins with “child custody” because they are trying to understand what might happen.

Then it becomes “child custody lawyer.”

Someone else begins with “how much does a divorce lawyer cost?” because they are trying to determine whether they can afford representation.

Another person types “divorce mediator near me” because they desperately want to avoid turning the end of their marriage into a two-year war.

And someone who already knows litigation is coming may simply search “best divorce attorney near me.”

The words are different, but the underlying question is remarkably similar:

Who can help me understand this, protect what matters, and get me through it?

Where Rifleman Law & Mediation Fits

Rifleman Law & Mediation is structured around the issues represented by these searches.

We represent clients in Utah divorce cases, child custody and parent-time disputes, child support matters, alimony claims, property and debt division, enforcement proceedings, decree modifications, and related family-law litigation. We also provide divorce and family-law mediation when the parties are trying to reach a negotiated resolution.

That combination matters.

A lawyer who understands litigation should also understand when litigation is unnecessary. A mediator who understands family-law litigation understands what may happen if settlement fails. And a client should understand both sides of that equation before making major decisions.

If you are just beginning the process, you may also want to read Understanding the Utah Divorce Timeline: What Happens From Filing to Final Decree?. Knowing what comes next can remove a considerable amount of the uncertainty surrounding the beginning of a divorce.

The Search Is Only the Beginning

Google can help you find an attorney. It cannot tell you whether that attorney is the right attorney for your particular case.

Do your research. Read the lawyer’s material. Look at the kinds of cases the firm actually handles. Ask questions during the consultation. Find out how the attorney approaches settlement, litigation, custody disputes, financial issues, and communication with clients.

Most importantly, look beyond the keyword.

The phrase “best divorce lawyer near me” may begin the search, but the decision should ultimately be based on whether you believe the attorney understands your case, your objectives, the law, and the strategy necessary to move the matter toward a workable result.

If you are dealing with divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, enforcement, modification, or another family-law matter, contact Rifleman Law & Mediation for a free, confidential initial consultation or call 801-510-0503.

Sometimes the hardest part is simply figuring out where to start.

That is exactly what the first conversation is for.

This article provides general information concerning Utah divorce and family law and is not legal advice regarding any particular case. Family-law outcomes depend upon the specific facts, applicable law, evidence, and procedural posture of each matter.

Source

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

See also What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah?.

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:

• Top 5 Child Custody Issues in Utah Divorce: Parent-Time, Support, School, Holidays & Legal Custody
• Modifying Parent-Time in Utah After Duffin v. Duffin: Changed Circumstances Are Only the Beginning
• What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah?
• Narcissism, High-Conflict Co-Parenting, and the Endless Cycle of Excuses
• How to Save Money on Attorney Fees in Your Utah Divorce or Custody Case

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.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

One of the simplest pieces of advice I give clients in a contested divorce or child custody case is also one of the most useful: keep a journal.

Not a diary. Not a running collection of complaints about your spouse. Not 40 pages explaining why the other parent is a narcissist.

I mean a factual, chronological record of the events that may matter in your case.

Divorce cases rarely turn on one isolated event. They develop over months, and sometimes years. By the time a temporary-orders hearing, deposition, mediation, custody evaluation, motion to enforce, or trial occurs, the details that seemed impossible to forget when they happened have started to blur together.

Was the missed parent-time exchange on February 12 or February 19? Was the school meeting before or after the pediatrician appointment? When did your spouse stop depositing money into the joint account? How many times did you actually exercise an extra overnight? When did the child begin missing school during the other parent’s time? What exactly was said during the exchange in the school parking lot?

Memory is not a reliable filing system.

A well-maintained divorce journal can be.

Whether you are involved in a Saratoga Springs divorce, working with a Lehi divorce lawyer, litigating a custody dispute in Eagle Mountain, or dealing with a contested family-law case elsewhere in Utah, contemporaneous documentation can become enormously valuable.

Why Should I Keep a Journal During My Utah Divorce?

The value of a journal is not that the judge will necessarily read it. In many cases, the journal itself may never become an exhibit.

Its real value is that it helps preserve the facts from which the case is eventually built.

A good journal gives you and your attorney a chronological roadmap. It can help identify evidence, prepare declarations, reconstruct parenting schedules, document financial changes, prepare for mediation, respond to allegations, and organize testimony months after the underlying events occurred.

Here are ten reasons I believe keeping a journal is one of the most useful things a client can do during a divorce or custody case.

1. A Journal Keeps Dates and Events in the Correct Order

Most people are good at remembering that something happened. They are considerably less reliable at remembering exactly when it happened and what occurred immediately before and after it.

That becomes a problem when chronology matters.

Suppose a parent claims that the other parent suddenly became uninvolved with the children after separation. Your recollection may be that the opposite occurred. A journal may show that during the following three months you attended four medical appointments, eight soccer practices, two parent-teacher conferences, and exercised every scheduled overnight.

Instead of telling your attorney, “I was always involved,” you can provide dates.

Dates are evidence-building blocks.

This is especially important in a Saratoga Springs child custody case or a Lehi child custody dispute, where historical caregiving patterns, school involvement, medical participation, parenting schedules, and actual parent-time may become important.

2. A Journal Preserves Details While They Are Still Fresh

There is a major difference between describing an event the evening it occurred and trying to reconstruct it nine months later while sitting outside a courtroom.

A contemporaneous entry may record:

“June 14, 2026, approximately 5:35 p.m. Exchange at Smith’s parking lot. John arrived at 6:07 p.m. I texted at 5:42 and 5:55 asking for his ETA. No response until 6:03. Child said she had not eaten dinner. I took her home. Screenshot of text exchange saved as Exhibit 6-14-A.”

Nine months later, your unaided recollection may be:

“He was late a lot.”

Those are not the same thing.

Utah Rule of Evidence 602 generally requires testimony to be based on personal knowledge. A journal created from your own observations can help preserve those observations while the facts are fresh. A writing may also, depending upon the circumstances, be used to refresh a witness’s recollection under Utah Rule of Evidence 612.

That does not mean every journal entry automatically becomes admissible evidence. It means accurate contemporaneous notes may become an important tool in preparing accurate testimony.

3. A Journal Helps Your Lawyer Understand the Case Without Reconstructing It From Scratch

Attorney time costs money.

One of the least efficient ways to communicate with your divorce attorney is to send five separate emails every day as events occur, followed by screenshots with no dates, photographs with no explanation, and three additional emails correcting the first five.

A journal allows information to be organized before it reaches the attorney.

Instead of spending an hour trying to reconstruct what happened during three months of parent-time disputes, I can review a chronological document containing the relevant dates, events, witnesses, communications, and supporting documents.

This is one of the same principles I discuss in How to Save Money on Attorney Fees in Your Utah Divorce or Custody Case. Organized clients generally allow their attorneys to spend more time analyzing the case and less time sorting through disorganized information.

A good journal does not mean you should withhold urgent information from your lawyer. Emergencies, court-order violations, safety concerns, imminent deadlines, and significant financial developments should still be communicated promptly.

But routine factual information can often be maintained in a structured journal and periodically provided to counsel.

4. A Journal Can Become the Foundation for Detailed Declarations and Affidavits

When I prepare a declaration, I would much rather work from specific facts than generalized recollections.

Compare these two statements:

“Mother constantly interferes with my parent-time.”

That is a conclusion.

Now compare:

“Between September 1 and November 30, six scheduled exchanges did not occur. On September 14, September 28, October 12, October 26, November 9, and November 23, I appeared at the designated exchange location. The children were not brought to the exchange. I sent a message through OurFamilyWizard after each missed exchange. Copies are attached.”

That is evidence.

A journal helps turn conclusions into facts.

This can be particularly useful when preparing declarations for temporary orders in a Utah divorce, custody motions, enforcement proceedings, modification petitions, or responses to allegations made by the other party.

5. A Journal Helps Reconstruct a Timeline for Deposition, Mediation, or Trial

A divorce trial may occur long after the events that created the dispute.

By then, hundreds of other things have happened. You have continued working, parenting, paying bills, attending school events, exchanging children, communicating with your former spouse, and dealing with the litigation itself.

A journal allows us to recreate the sequence.

Before a deposition or trial, we can identify the events that actually matter, compare them against text messages and documents, and build a chronology.

The journal may remind you that a critical conversation occurred three days after a financial disclosure, or that a disputed parent-time exchange happened immediately after a school meeting. Those relationships between events are often difficult to reconstruct from memory alone.

Under some circumstances, a contemporaneously created record may potentially implicate the recorded-recollection provisions of Utah Rule of Evidence 803(5), but the rule contains specific foundational requirements. The point is not to create a journal because you expect the entire document to be admitted at trial. The point is to preserve accurate information from which testimony and evidence can later be prepared.

6. A Journal Is Extremely Useful in Child Custody and Parent-Time Cases

If custody is disputed, I recommend that the journal include an actual record of parenting—not simply complaints about the other parent.

Track the children.

Record where they slept. Record exchanges. Record school events. Record medical appointments. Record extracurricular activities. Record which parent attended. Record requests for additional parent-time and whether they occurred.

If the order provides a 50/50 schedule but the children are actually spending 65% of their overnights with one parent, a journal can help establish the actual schedule.

If one parent routinely exercises additional time because the other parent travels for work, record it.

If exchanges are repeatedly late, record the scheduled time and the actual time.

If a parent repeatedly misses medical appointments or school conferences, record the event—but also identify the supporting school or medical record.

This kind of documentation is particularly useful for parents working through an Eagle Mountain child custody case, an American Fork custody dispute, or a Provo child custody case.

The objective is not to manufacture a case against the other parent. The objective is to create an accurate history of what is actually happening.

7. A Journal Can Document Violations of Court Orders

Enforcement cases are document-driven.

If a court order requires payment on the first of each month, record whether payment was made and when.

If the decree requires an exchange at 5:30 p.m., record the actual exchange time.

If the order provides telephone contact with a child and repeated calls are blocked, record the dates and times and preserve the call logs.

If one party is required to refinance the marital home within 90 days, note the deadline and subsequent communications.

This is the type of factual record that can become particularly helpful in a Saratoga Springs divorce enforcement case.

A statement that “she never follows the order” is usually of limited value.

A chronological record identifying 14 specific violations, with dates and supporting documentation, is something an attorney can work with.

8. A Journal Can Track Financial Information for Alimony, Child Support, and Property Issues

A divorce journal does not need to be limited to custody.

In an alimony case, it can be used to track actual household expenses, changes in income, extraordinary costs, employment searches, insurance costs, or expenses previously paid by the other spouse.

If you are asserting an alimony claim, a journal can help document what your household actually costs rather than trying to recreate those expenses months later. That information should ultimately be supported by bank records, invoices, receipts, and the Utah Financial Declaration required in divorce cases.

Clients dealing with spousal support can also review the firm’s resources for a Saratoga Springs alimony lawyer or Lehi alimony attorney.

A journal can also help identify financial events such as:

• A spouse withdrawing money from a joint account;
• A bonus or commission payment;
• A change in employment;
• A refinance application;
• A major purchase;
• Sale of an asset;
• Payment of marital debt;
• A missed mortgage payment;
• Unusual transfers between accounts; or
• Discovery of previously unknown property.

For broader financial issues, see How Utah Courts Divide Property and Debts in Divorce.

9. A Digital Journal Can Become an Index to Photographs, Videos, Messages, and Documents

A digital journal has one major advantage over a notebook: you can connect the entry directly to the supporting evidence.

For example:

August 11, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. exchange

Scheduled exchange: 5:30 p.m.
Actual arrival: 6:18 p.m.

I arrived at West Jordan Fire Station at approximately 5:22 p.m.
The children arrived at approximately 6:18 p.m.

Supporting documents:
- Screenshot - 2026-08-11 text exchange.pdf
- Photo - Fire Station timestamp - 2026-08-11.jpg
- Google Maps location history - 2026-08-11.pdf
- OurFamilyWizard message - 2026-08-11.pdf

If possible, embed links to the supporting files directly in the digital journal.

But do not rely only on a web link.

Web links expire. Shared Google Drive permissions change. Social-media posts disappear. Text-message threads get deleted. Cloud accounts get closed.

Save the underlying photograph, video, screenshot, PDF, email, or message as a separate original file and link your journal entry to the saved copy.

The journal then becomes an index to the evidence rather than the evidence itself.

10. A Journal Can Become Critical in a Later Modification Case

Some of the most valuable journals are maintained after the divorce decree is entered.

A modification case often requires proof that circumstances have materially changed. The problem is that the alleged change may have occurred gradually.

A parent may begin exercising less parent-time. A child’s educational needs may change. A work schedule may evolve. One parent may begin routinely interfering with exchanges. Income may change. Childcare expenses may increase. A temporary problem may become a long-term pattern.

Without records, the parent often comes to the attorney six months later and says, “This has been happening forever.”

The obvious next question is: How often? Since when?

A journal can answer those questions.

If you are considering a post-decree change, see What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah? and the firm’s pages for a Saratoga Springs divorce modification lawyer, Lehi divorce modification attorney, or Eagle Mountain divorce modification lawyer.

What Should I Put in My Divorce Journal?

The best journal entries are boring.

That is a compliment.

A good entry should read more like a police report than a Facebook post. Stick to facts that you personally observed and identify the documents that support them.

When an event may matter, consider including:

• Date and time. Use exact dates and approximate times where available.
• Location. Identify where the event occurred.
• Who was present. Include potential witnesses.
• What happened. Describe the event in chronological order.
• What you personally saw or heard. Separate first-hand observations from what someone else told you.
• Exact language when important. If you clearly remember a statement, put quotation marks around the actual words. Do not invent precision you do not have.
• What you did in response. Note calls, messages, medical care, police contact, school contact, or other actions.
• Effect on the children. Describe observable facts rather than diagnosing the child.
• Supporting evidence. Identify texts, emails, photographs, videos, receipts, school records, medical records, call logs, or other documents.
• Outcome. Record how the issue was ultimately resolved.

What Should I Track in a Child Custody Journal?

In a Utah custody case, the journal should focus heavily on the actual parenting history.

Useful information may include:

• Overnights exercised by each parent;
• Pickup and drop-off times;
• Missed or declined parent-time;
• Requests for additional parent-time;
• School attendance and tardiness;
• Parent-teacher conferences;
• Homework and school projects;
• Medical and dental appointments;
• Extracurricular activities;
• Transportation issues;
• Childcare arrangements;
• Important communications with the other parent;
• Changes in the child’s behavior that you personally observe; and
• Significant deviations from the court-ordered parenting plan.

Parents in a Herriman child custody case or Tooele custody dispute can use the same principle: document the pattern rather than merely characterizing the other parent.

What Should I Track in an Alimony Case?

An alimony journal has a different focus.

Track changes in your household expenses and keep the supporting receipt or statement.

If your marital lifestyle included regular expenses that disappear immediately after separation because you can no longer afford them, record that fact. A post-separation budget created under financial pressure does not necessarily tell the entire story of what the household spent during the marriage.

Document unusual or periodic expenses such as:

• Home repairs;
• Vehicle maintenance;
• Insurance premiums;
• Medical expenses;
• Travel historically associated with the marital lifestyle;
• Children’s activities;
• Professional expenses;
• Taxes;
• Annual fees; and
• Other costs that may not appear every month.

The journal does not replace bank records or the Financial Declaration. It helps explain them.

For more information on the underlying financial analysis, see Utah Alimony – How the Courts Decide.

Paper Journal or Digital Journal?

Either is fine.

The best system is the one you will actually use consistently.

A Written Journal

A traditional bound notebook has some advantages. It is simple, chronological, difficult to accidentally delete, and encourages short contemporaneous entries.

If you use a written journal:

• Use a bound notebook rather than loose sheets;
• Date every entry;
• Write legibly;
• Do not tear out pages;
• Do not backdate entries;
• If you make a correction, preserve the original entry and make the correction separately; and
• Periodically scan or photograph the journal as a backup.

A Digital Journal

I generally prefer digital journals in more complicated cases because they are searchable and can be linked directly to supporting documents.

You might create a Word document, secure note database, spreadsheet-supported chronology, or other organized digital record.

A useful entry can contain hyperlinks to:

• Photographs;
• Video files;
• Text-message screenshots;
• Emails;
• OurFamilyWizard or TalkingParents messages;
• Bank statements;
• Receipts;
• School records;
• Medical records;
• Calendar entries; and
• Other relevant documents.

If You Keep a Digital Journal, Back It Up

A journal that disappears when your phone breaks is not much help.

Keep at least one backup separate from the device you normally use.

For an important case, I would generally suggest maintaining the working copy plus a secure backup. Periodically export the journal into a stable format such as PDF so there is a dated snapshot of what existed at that point.

If you are keeping photographs and videos, preserve the original files. Do not merely paste screenshots of photographs into the journal and then delete the originals.

Likewise, do not rely solely on hyperlinks to Facebook, Instagram, Dropbox, Google Drive, iCloud, or another service. Download important evidence and preserve a local or backed-up copy.

Use File Names That Actually Tell You What the File Is

Do not create an evidence folder containing 400 files named:

IMG_3327.jpg
IMG_3328.jpg
Screenshot_20260814_174427.png
Document(19).pdf
Video00043.mp4

Six months later, those names tell you nothing.

Rename files using a predictable format:

2026-08-14 - Parent-Time Exchange - Photo 1.jpg
2026-08-14 - Parent-Time Exchange - Text Messages.pdf
2026-08-14 - Parent-Time Exchange - Video.mp4

2026-08-18 - School Attendance Record.pdf

2026-08-21 - Medical Appointment - Primary Children's.pdf

Then link those files to the journal entry for the corresponding date.

This can save an enormous amount of time when your lawyer needs to prepare an exhibit months later.

Create Categories or Tags

If your case is complicated, use categories.

For example:

[CUSTODY]
[PARENT-TIME]
[SCHOOL]
[MEDICAL]
[FINANCIAL]
[ALIMONY]
[PROPERTY]
[ORDER VIOLATION]
[COMMUNICATION]
[CHILD SUPPORT]

Later, you can search the journal for every “[PARENT-TIME]” entry or every “[FINANCIAL]” event instead of rereading a 150-page chronology.

Write Facts, Not Diagnoses

This is one of the most important rules.

Do not write:

“My narcissistic ex intentionally traumatized the children again.”

Write:

“At approximately 6:15 p.m., the child began crying after Mother told her, ‘Your dad is taking me back to court again.’ I was approximately five feet away and heard the statement.”

The second version tells me what happened.

The first version tells me what you think about what happened.

Your attorney can determine the legal significance. Your job is to preserve the facts.

Do Not Turn the Journal Into an Emotional Dumping Ground

Divorce is emotional. Your litigation journal should not be.

If you need a private diary to process anger, fear, grief, or frustration, that is a different document.

Your case journal should be useful to your attorney.

Repeated entries stating that your spouse is “crazy,” “evil,” “a liar,” “a narcissist,” or “a terrible parent” generally add little. Worse, they can distract from the underlying facts that actually matter.

Courts decide cases based on evidence, not adjectives.

Do Not Exaggerate

Words such as “always” and “never” are dangerous.

If you write that your spouse is “always late,” and the actual record shows three late exchanges during six months, you have weakened your own credibility.

Write the dates.

Let the pattern speak for itself.

Do Not Backfill Six Months of Entries and Pretend They Were Contemporaneous

If you are starting a journal today, start today.

You can certainly create a separate historical chronology based upon your present recollection and existing documents. Just identify it for what it is.

For example:

“Historical chronology prepared August 14, 2026 from calendar, text messages, photographs, and recollection.”

That is accurate.

Do not create an entry today and date it March 3 as though it was actually written March 3.

Credibility matters more than creating the appearance of perfect documentation.

A Journal Is Not Automatically Confidential or Privileged

This point requires particular caution.

Do not assume that something becomes privileged simply because you call it your “legal journal” or eventually provide it to your lawyer.

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of relevant nonprivileged information and provides qualified protection for certain materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Whether a particular journal, portion of a journal, or communication is protected can depend upon how and why it was created and how it is later used.

There is another practical consideration. Under Utah Rule of Evidence 612, when a witness uses a writing to refresh memory while testifying—and in some circumstances before testifying—the opposing party may have rights concerning that writing.

For that reason, write every journal entry as though someone other than you may someday read it.

Do not mix communications from your attorney, legal advice, litigation strategy, or attorney mental impressions into the same factual chronology unless your attorney specifically instructs you to do so.

Do Not Delete or Alter Evidence

If a photograph is bad for your case, do not delete it because it is bad for your case.

If a text thread contains statements you wish you had not made, do not edit the screenshot to remove them.

If an entry contains a mistake, do not silently rewrite history. Make a dated correction.

Your lawyer needs the real facts—the good ones and the bad ones.

I would rather learn about a problem from my client while there is time to address it than learn about it for the first time from opposing counsel in court.

Use the Journal to Prepare for Meetings With Your Lawyer

Before a substantive meeting, review your journal and identify the events that actually require legal attention.

Instead of beginning the meeting with:

“A lot has happened since we last talked.”

You can say:

“There are four developments I think matter. They occurred July 12, July 29, August 3, and August 11. I have the supporting messages linked to each journal entry.”

That is a considerably more efficient attorney-client meeting.

Efficiency matters whether you are working with an American Fork divorce attorney, a Provo divorce lawyer, a Herriman divorce lawyer, or a Tooele divorce attorney.

A Divorce Journal Can Also Help in Mediation

Mediation is often most productive when the parties arrive with an accurate understanding of what has actually occurred.

A parenting dispute may appear impossible until the lawyers examine the journal and realize that nearly every conflict involves Wednesday exchanges.

A financial dispute may become clearer when the chronology shows exactly when a spouse stopped paying the mortgage.

A custody disagreement may narrow when the actual overnight history is calculated rather than argued from competing recollections.

A journal can help identify the pattern behind the conflict.

The Goal Is Not to Document Every Moment of Your Life

You do not need to write a three-page entry every night.

If nothing relevant happened, there may be nothing to record.

The journal should not consume your life or encourage you to treat every interaction with your former spouse as a potential exhibit.

Document what matters.

For many clients, five minutes spent recording a significant event on the day it occurs is enough.

A Simple Divorce Journal Entry Template

A basic entry can look like this:

DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:

CATEGORY:
Custody / Parent-Time / Financial / School / Medical / Other

PEOPLE PRESENT:

WHAT HAPPENED:
State the facts in chronological order.

WHAT I PERSONALLY SAW OR HEARD:

ACTION I TOOK:

EFFECT ON CHILDREN, IF ANY:
Only describe what you personally observed.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
List screenshots, emails, photographs, videos, receipts,
records, or other documents.

WITNESSES:

FOLLOW-UP NEEDED:

OUTCOME:

That is enough structure to make the information useful without turning journaling into another full-time job.

Good Documentation Often Becomes Good Evidence

A journal will not win a bad case. It cannot transform speculation into fact. It does not make hearsay automatically admissible, and it does not replace independent records.

What it can do is preserve information.

It can show us where to look.

It can tell us which text-message thread matters.

It can identify the date of the school meeting we need to subpoena.

It can help establish the actual parenting schedule.

It can help reconstruct household expenses.

It can identify repeated violations of an order.

It can help prepare a precise declaration instead of a vague one.

And months later, when you are sitting in my office preparing for trial and I ask, “What happened on October 17?” we have something better than, “I think that was around the time….”

That is why I recommend keeping a journal.

Utah Divorce and Custody Representation

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in divorce, child custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, property division, enforcement, and modification matters throughout northern Utah and the Wasatch Front.

Local resources include our Saratoga Springs divorce and family-law attorney page, Lehi divorce and child custody lawyer page, Eagle Mountain divorce attorney page, and American Fork divorce and custody lawyer page.

We also represent clients seeking a Provo divorce and family-law attorney, Herriman divorce lawyer, or Tooele divorce and child custody attorney.

If your case involves changing circumstances after entry of a decree, documentation may become particularly important in proving what changed, when it changed, and whether the change became permanent. Additional information is available through our American Fork divorce modification lawyer, Provo divorce modification attorney, Herriman divorce modification lawyer, and Tooele divorce modification attorney pages.

Questions About Preparing for a Utah Divorce or Custody Case?

Preparation matters. The earlier relevant dates, documents, financial information, parenting schedules, and significant events are organized, the easier it becomes to evaluate the case and develop a coherent strategy.

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in divorce and family-law matters throughout Utah County, Salt Lake County, Tooele County, and surrounding communities.

Call 801-510-0503 to schedule a confidential consultation.

This article provides general information concerning Utah divorce and family law and is not legal advice for a particular case. The discoverability, privilege, admissibility, and appropriate use of journals or other records can depend upon the facts of the individual case. Discuss those issues with your attorney before relying upon a journal as evidence or using it to prepare testimony.

Source

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

For many people going through a Utah divorce, the Financial Declaration looks like another form in an already large stack of paperwork. It is not. The Financial Declaration is one of the most important financial documents in a divorce case because it tells the other party, the attorneys, and ultimately the court what your financial circumstances actually look like.

Whether you are working with a Saratoga Springs divorce lawyer, a Lehi divorce lawyer, an Eagle Mountain divorce lawyer, or an American Fork divorce lawyer, one of the first major financial tasks in a contested divorce is usually gathering the information necessary to accurately complete the Utah Financial Declaration.

The document matters because virtually every financial issue in a divorce can intersect with it. Income reported on the Financial Declaration may affect child support. Monthly expenses may become central to alimony. Bank and investment accounts may affect property division. Debt balances may affect the allocation of marital obligations. The information may also become important when asking the court for temporary financial relief or attorney fees.

A poorly prepared Financial Declaration can cause problems far beyond having to correct a form. An incomplete disclosure can delay settlement, increase discovery costs, damage credibility, create attorney-fee exposure, and in serious cases lead to sanctions. A carefully prepared Financial Declaration, on the other hand, gives your attorney a reliable financial foundation from which to negotiate, mediate, or litigate the case.

What Is a Utah Financial Declaration?

The Utah Financial Declaration is the court-approved financial disclosure required in domestic-relations proceedings governed by Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1. People sometimes search online for a “Utah divorce financial affidavit,” but the Utah court form is formally called the Financial Declaration.

Rule 26.1 requires each party in a divorce to provide a fully completed Financial Declaration, together with the required supporting documentation, to the other party. Under the current rule, those disclosures generally must be served within 14 days after the filing of the first answer to the complaint.

The Financial Declaration is intended to provide a detailed picture of your financial circumstances. It requires information concerning income, taxes, monthly living expenses, real estate, financial accounts, retirement assets, business interests, personal property, debts, and other financial obligations.

It should therefore be approached as a financial disclosure project—not as a form that should be filled out from memory the night before it is due.

Why the Financial Declaration Matters So Much in a Utah Divorce

Divorce requires the court to make decisions based upon evidence. When those decisions concern money, the evidence frequently begins with the Financial Declaration and the documents supporting it.

Consider a typical divorce involving a home, two retirement accounts, several credit cards, a vehicle loan, two incomes, and children. Before anyone can realistically evaluate settlement, the parties need to know the home’s value and mortgage balance, the values of the retirement accounts, the balances on the credit cards, each spouse’s actual income, and the expenses each household will face after separation.

The Financial Declaration is designed to force those numbers onto the table early in the process.

Financial Declarations and Child Support

Child support is heavily dependent upon accurate income information. A spouse who receives only a fixed salary may have a relatively straightforward income calculation. A spouse who receives overtime, bonuses, commissions, stock compensation, business distributions, rental income, or self-employment income may present a substantially more complicated picture.

Those disputes commonly arise in cases handled by a Saratoga Springs child support attorney, Lehi child support attorney, Eagle Mountain child support attorney, or Provo child support attorney.

A Financial Declaration that reports only base salary while ignoring significant additional income can produce a misleading picture. Conversely, a declaration based on one unusually high paycheck may overstate recurring income. Historical income documents help the attorney and court determine whether the reported figure accurately reflects the person’s financial circumstances.

Financial Declarations and Alimony

The Financial Declaration becomes particularly important when one party requests alimony. Utah’s court-approved Financial Declaration requires the party to complete the Current Amount column for monthly expenses. When either party is requesting alimony, the Marital Expenses information also becomes important because the financial circumstances and standard of living during the marriage may be disputed.

This is one reason an alimony lawyer in Saratoga Springs, Lehi alimony lawyer, American Fork alimony lawyer, or Herriman alimony lawyer will often spend substantial time examining income and household expenses.

An alimony claim based on unsupported estimates can be attacked. So can an alimony defense that minimizes available income or overstates personal expenses. The objective should be numbers that can be explained and, where possible, documented.

Financial Declarations and Property Division

A divorce court cannot divide an asset that no one knows exists. Rule 26.1 therefore requires disclosure of financial accounts and supporting records, including checking accounts, savings accounts, investment accounts, brokerage accounts, certificates of deposit, and retirement accounts.

Property disclosure becomes particularly important in cases involving substantial marital estates. A Saratoga Springs high-asset divorce, Lehi high-asset divorce, Eagle Mountain high-asset divorce, or American Fork high-asset divorce may involve business interests, multiple properties, investment portfolios, executive compensation, or retirement assets that require considerably more financial analysis than a simple wage-and-bank-account case.

For a more detailed discussion of the underlying property issues, see our article on how property and debt are divided in a Utah divorce.

What Documents Does Utah Rule 26.1 Require?

The Financial Declaration is only one part of the required disclosure. Rule 26.1 requires supporting documents so that the figures reported on the declaration can be independently evaluated.

Under the current rule, parties must provide reasonably available statements verifying the items and amounts listed in the Financial Declaration, other than monthly expenses. The required disclosures also include complete federal and state tax returns for the two tax years preceding the filing of the petition, including W-2s, applicable 1099s, K-1s, schedules, and attachments.

The rule also requires pay stubs and other evidence of earned and unearned income for the 12 months before the petition was filed.

Loan applications and financial statements prepared or used during the 12 months before filing must also be provided. This can become particularly significant when a party represented one financial picture to a bank or mortgage lender shortly before representing something substantially different in the divorce case.

Documents establishing the value of real estate must also be disclosed where available, including appraisals, tax valuations, and refinance documents.

Finally, Rule 26.1 requires statements for the three months before the filing of the petition for financial accounts. This includes checking, savings, money-market, CD, investment, brokerage, and retirement accounts. The rule is broad enough to include closed accounts and accounts held jointly, as trustee or guardian, or even in another person’s name on the party’s behalf.

Do Not Assume an Account Is Irrelevant Because It Is Only in One Spouse’s Name

This is a frequent misunderstanding. Clients sometimes provide only jointly titled accounts because they assume that an account titled solely in their own name is “theirs” and therefore irrelevant to the divorce.

Title and marital characterization are different issues.

An account may ultimately be determined to contain marital property, separate property, or a combination of both. That legal characterization does not eliminate the disclosure obligation. The better approach is generally to disclose the account and allow the attorneys to address whether some or all of it should be treated as separate property.

The same principle applies to retirement accounts, businesses, brokerage accounts, cryptocurrency accounts, cash-management accounts, and real property.

What If You Do Not Have the Exact Information?

One of the most important provisions of current Rule 26.1 addresses exactly this problem.

Divorcing spouses often do not have perfect access to their finances. One spouse may historically have controlled the household accounts. A business may be operated primarily by the other spouse. Online access may have been changed after separation. Older statements may no longer be available through an online portal. A current appraisal may not exist.

The answer is not to simply leave the line blank.

If the documents are not reasonably available or are in the other party’s possession, Rule 26.1 requires the party to estimate the amount, explain the basis for the estimate, and explain why the supporting documents are unavailable.

That gives the court and the opposing party useful information while making clear that the number is not being represented as an exact figure.

A Good Estimate Has a Method Behind It

There is an important difference between an estimate and a guess.

Suppose you do not know the current balance on an investment account but you have a statement from two months earlier showing approximately $84,000. If there have been no known withdrawals or major transactions, you might identify the account as approximately $84,000 and explain that the estimate is based upon the most recent available statement.

That is different from simply writing “$80,000” because it seems plausible.

Likewise, if an electric bill varies from $120 in the spring to $300 in the summer, review the actual bills and calculate an average. If the previous 12 months totaled $2,400, a $200 monthly estimate has an identifiable basis.

Annual expenses can frequently be converted to monthly amounts. A $1,800 annual insurance premium can be represented as approximately $150 per month. Vehicle registration, professional licensing fees, annual memberships, and other legitimate periodic expenses can be handled similarly when appropriate.

Do Not Use Zero to Mean “I Don’t Know”

If an account exists and you do not know its balance, “$0” is usually the wrong answer. Zero communicates that the account has no value.

If the amount is unknown, identify the account, provide the best reasonable estimate available, state the basis for the estimate, and explain why the exact information is unavailable.

This approach is both more accurate and more defensible.

How to Prepare Your Financial Documents for Your Divorce Attorney

One of the best ways a client can reduce attorney fees and improve the quality of the financial analysis is to organize the documents before sending them to counsel.

Sending an attorney 173 files named “scan001.pdf,” “document.pdf,” “statement new.pdf,” and “image2345.jpg” requires someone at the law office to determine what every document is, which account it belongs to, and where it fits into the disclosure. That administrative work takes time and can also create mistakes.

A better system is to create an electronic folder specifically for the Financial Declaration and organize it in essentially the same way the financial information will be analyzed.

Create a Master Financial Declaration Folder

Begin with one master folder. Give it a clear name such as:

Smith - Financial Declaration - August 2026

Inside the master folder, create separate folders for the major disclosure categories. A useful structure might look like this:

01 - Income and Pay Records
02 - Tax Returns
03 - Checking and Savings Accounts
04 - Investment and Brokerage Accounts
05 - Retirement Accounts
06 - Credit Cards and Debts
07 - Real Estate
08 - Vehicles and Personal Property
09 - Business Interests
10 - Loan Applications and Financial Statements
11 - Other Income and Financial Accounts
12 - Monthly Expenses
13 - Missing Documents and Estimates

The numbering is not legally required. It simply keeps the folders in a logical order instead of allowing the computer to rearrange them alphabetically.

Create a Separate Folder for Every Account

Within each category, create a separate folder for each account. The folder name should identify the financial institution or account and the last four digits of the account number.

For example:

03 - Checking and Savings Accounts
    Mountain America Checking - 4321
    Chase Checking - 7754
    Ally Savings - 1189

04 - Investment and Brokerage Accounts
    Fidelity Brokerage - 9276
    Schwab Investment - 3410

05 - Retirement Accounts
    Fidelity 401k - 5822
    Vanguard IRA - 2059

06 - Credit Cards and Debts
    Chase Visa - 6621
    Discover Card - 9915
    America First Auto Loan - 4438

This makes it immediately apparent which accounts exist and prevents statements from different accounts at the same institution from being mixed together.

Use the Same Naming Convention for Each Statement

Each individual statement should then be named using the account name, the last four digits, and the statement date.

For example:

Mountain America Checking 4321 - 2026-04 Statement.pdf
Mountain America Checking 4321 - 2026-05 Statement.pdf
Mountain America Checking 4321 - 2026-06 Statement.pdf

Fidelity 401k 5822 - 2026-04 Statement.pdf
Fidelity 401k 5822 - 2026-05 Statement.pdf
Fidelity 401k 5822 - 2026-06 Statement.pdf

Chase Visa 6621 - 2026-04 Statement.pdf
Chase Visa 6621 - 2026-05 Statement.pdf
Chase Visa 6621 - 2026-06 Statement.pdf

This simple naming convention allows your attorney to immediately identify the institution, the account, and the relevant time period without opening the document.

Download the Actual PDF Statement Whenever Possible

If your bank, retirement administrator, or credit-card company allows you to download an official PDF statement, use the PDF rather than taking screenshots from your phone.

A complete statement generally identifies the account holder, financial institution, statement period, beginning balance, ending balance, and transactions. Screenshots frequently omit some of this information and may show only part of the relevant record.

If a statement is six pages long, keep all six pages together as one PDF. Do not send six separate photographs of the six pages unless there is no reasonable alternative.

Do Not Remove Pages Because They Appear Unimportant

A statement should generally remain complete. The page that appears to contain only disclosures or account information may be necessary to establish the account owner, statement date, or account number.

Similarly, do not delete transaction pages simply because you believe the transactions are irrelevant. Your attorney may need the complete statement to assess whether additional information matters.

Unless your attorney specifically directs otherwise, preserve the original downloaded statements intact.

Do Not Redact Records Before Your Attorney Reviews Them

Clients sometimes redact transactions, account information, addresses, or other portions of statements before sending the records to counsel. That can create more work and may eliminate information that counsel actually needs.

Send your attorney the complete record through the firm’s approved secure method and allow counsel to determine whether anything should be redacted before production or filing.

Separate Tax Returns by Year

Tax returns should also be organized rather than delivered as unrelated pages.

02 - Tax Returns
    2024 Federal Tax Return - Complete.pdf
    2024 Utah Tax Return - Complete.pdf
    2024 W2 - ABC Company.pdf
    2024 1099 - XYZ Company.pdf
    2024 K1 - Smith Holdings LLC.pdf

    2025 Federal Tax Return - Complete.pdf
    2025 Utah Tax Return - Complete.pdf
    2025 W2 - ABC Company.pdf
    2025 1099 - XYZ Company.pdf
    2025 K1 - Smith Holdings LLC.pdf

The word “Complete” can be useful because a tax return means more than the first two pages of the Form 1040. Rule 26.1 requires the applicable schedules and attachments as well.

Organize Pay Records by Employer and Date

If you worked for more than one employer during the 12-month disclosure period, create a folder for each employer.

01 - Income and Pay Records
    ABC Corporation
        ABC Corporation - Paystub - 2026-06-15.pdf
        ABC Corporation - Paystub - 2026-06-30.pdf

    XYZ Consulting
        XYZ Consulting - 2026-03 Commission Statement.pdf
        XYZ Consulting - 2026-04 Commission Statement.pdf

If you receive bonuses, commissions, overtime, equity compensation, or other compensation outside ordinary wages, identify those documents separately instead of assuming the regular paystub tells the entire story.

Self-Employed Clients Should Create a Separate Business Folder

Self-employment often makes a Financial Declaration more complicated. A business owner’s gross deposits are not necessarily the same thing as personal income, and the taxable income on one line of a tax return may not answer every support question.

If you own a business, create a separate folder for each business entity.

09 - Business Interests
    Smith Consulting LLC
        2024 Business Tax Return
        2025 Business Tax Return
        2026 Profit and Loss
        2026 Balance Sheet
        Business Checking 8872
        Business Credit Card 6630
        K1s
        Payroll Records
        Owner Distributions

Keeping personal and business financial records separated makes it easier for a Utah divorce attorney to analyze income, legitimate business expenses, distributions, retained earnings, and any personal expenses paid through the business.

These issues frequently arise in a complex Eagle Mountain divorce involving business interests or an American Fork high-asset divorce involving business valuation and income disputes.

Create a “Missing Documents and Estimates” Folder

This is one of the most useful organizational steps and is often overlooked.

If a required document does not exist or you cannot obtain it, do not merely omit it. Create a folder called:

13 - Missing Documents and Estimates

Inside that folder, create a short document identifying what is missing and why.

For example:

Chase Savings - 5678

Estimated balance: approximately $14,500.

Basis for estimate:
The last statement available to me is dated May 31, 2026 and shows
a balance of $14,327. I am not aware of any substantial withdrawals
or deposits since that statement.

Why current records are unavailable:
My online access was terminated after separation. I have requested
updated statements from Chase but have not yet received them.

Or:

Fidelity 401k - 3914

Estimated balance: approximately $185,000.

Basis for estimate:
The account had a balance of approximately $179,000 on the last
statement I reviewed in December 2025. Regular payroll contributions
have continued.

Why records are unavailable:
The account is in my spouse's name and I do not have online access.

This is much more useful than leaving the account off the Financial Declaration. It also follows the structure contemplated by Rule 26.1: estimate the amount, state the basis for the estimate, and explain why the supporting documentation is unavailable.

Create an Account Index for Your Attorney

For cases involving numerous accounts, a simple account index can save substantial time.

The index can identify:

• Financial institution;
• Type of account;
• Last four digits;
• Name or names on the account;
• Approximate balance;
• Statement dates provided;
• Whether any statements are missing; and
• Any special issue your attorney should know about.

For example:

Mountain America | Checking | 4321 | Joint | $8,421 | Apr-Jun 2026 | Complete
Fidelity          | 401k     | 5822 | Husband | $147,200 | Apr-Jun 2026 | Complete
Chase             | Savings  | 5678 | Wife | Approx. $14,500 | May only | Access unavailable
Coinbase          | Crypto   | 3391 | Husband | Unknown | No statements | Records requested

This does not replace the Financial Declaration. It gives your attorney a roadmap to the underlying documents.

How to Calculate Monthly Expenses Without Guessing

Monthly expenses are one of the areas where Financial Declarations often become unreliable because people simply estimate what they think they spend.

A better method is to review several months of actual financial history.

Start with mortgage or rent, utilities, insurance, vehicle payments, childcare, health insurance, recurring medical expenses, debt payments, and other amounts that can be identified directly from statements or invoices.

For variable expenses such as groceries, gasoline, utilities, household supplies, clothing, and entertainment, review enough months to establish a meaningful average.

If groceries varied between $700 and $1,100 per month during the past year, do not pick $500 because you believe you can live more frugally after divorce. If the purpose is to describe historical marital expenses for an alimony analysis, the historical spending pattern may be important.

Likewise, do not inflate a $700 historical grocery expense to $1,500 because you believe a larger number will improve an alimony request. Financial records often make unsupported exaggerations easy to identify.

Current Expenses and Marital Expenses Are Not Necessarily the Same

This distinction becomes particularly important in an alimony case.

After separation, one spouse may temporarily live with family, stop paying certain household expenses, or substantially reduce spending simply because income is limited. The fact that a spouse is currently surviving on $3,500 per month does not necessarily establish that $3,500 represented the marital standard of living.

Conversely, a spouse should not automatically assume that every expense incurred during the marriage represents a reasonable ongoing need.

The Financial Declaration provides a framework for identifying both current monthly expenses and, when alimony is at issue, marital expenses. An experienced Lehi alimony attorney or Saratoga Springs alimony attorney can then analyze how those figures relate to the legal issues before the court.

Review the Declaration for Internal Consistency

Once the Financial Declaration is completed, read it from beginning to end as though you were the opposing attorney.

If the declaration reports net income of $5,500 per month but monthly expenses of $10,000, there may be a legitimate explanation. Perhaps the difference was historically paid by the other spouse. Perhaps credit cards were used. Perhaps savings were being depleted.

But the difference should be understood.

If someone reports annual income of $60,000 while the bank records show recurring monthly deposits that appear substantially higher, counsel should identify why. If a person reports no investment accounts but tax documents reflect substantial dividend or capital-gain income, that discrepancy should be investigated before the disclosure is served.

Your attorney would rather identify and explain an inconsistency before the opposing attorney identifies it at a deposition or court hearing.

Financial Declarations and Temporary Orders

The Financial Declaration often becomes important very early in the divorce because temporary orders can address child support, alimony, payment of debts, possession or disposition of assets, and litigation expenses.

Under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 101, motions and responses before a court commissioner concerning many of these temporary financial issues must be accompanied by verified Financial Declarations and documentary income verification unless current declarations and documentation are already in the court file.

This is one reason we emphasize preparation in our discussion of temporary orders in a Saratoga Springs divorce case. What appears to be an administrative financial form can become part of the evidentiary foundation for decisions that affect the parties for months while the divorce is pending.

Serving the Financial Declaration Is Different From Filing It With the Court

Clients sometimes assume that every financial record gathered for the Financial Declaration is automatically filed with the court. That is generally not how the process works.

The Financial Declaration and required disclosures are served on the other party, and a Certificate of Service is filed establishing that the disclosure occurred.

The Utah Courts instruct parties not to file the Financial Declaration with the court until there is a hearing at which a judge or commissioner must decide a financial issue such as spousal support, child support, property or debt allocation, attorney fees, or court costs, or unless the court otherwise requires filing.

Even when the Financial Declaration is filed for a financial hearing, parties should follow the court’s rules concerning which supporting financial records are actually filed. The fact that a document must be disclosed to the opposing party does not necessarily mean it should automatically be placed in the court record.

The Financial Declaration Must Be Updated When Important Information Changes

Financial disclosure is not a one-time event that ends when the first packet is served.

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires a party who learns that a disclosure is incomplete or incorrect in an important way to timely provide the additional or corrected information if it has not otherwise been made known to the opposing parties.

That means a newly discovered account, a corrected tax return, a new job, a substantial compensation change, or a previously unavailable retirement statement may require supplementation.

Promptly correcting an error can also be important to credibility. Discovering a mistake and fixing it is very different from discovering a mistake and leaving it in place because the incorrect number appears advantageous.

What Happens If You Fail to Properly Complete the Financial Declaration?

Utah’s disclosure rules have consequences.

Rule 26.1 expressly provides that failure to fully disclose assets and income may subject the nondisclosing party to sanctions under Rule 37. The rule specifically identifies the possibility of awarding a nondisclosed asset to the other party, requiring payment of attorney fees, or imposing other sanctions the court finds appropriate.

This is significant language. A person who intentionally hides a financial asset is not simply risking an order to produce another bank statement.

A Nondisclosed Asset Can Become a Very Expensive Mistake

Suppose a spouse intentionally fails to disclose an investment account because he or she believes the account will never be discovered. Rule 26.1 expressly identifies an award of the nondisclosed asset to the other party as a possible sanction.

The financial risk of concealment can therefore exceed the amount the party was attempting to protect.

Failure to Disclose Can Result in Attorney Fees

Incomplete disclosure can also force the opposing party to spend money conducting discovery that should not have been necessary.

If a spouse refuses to identify accounts, repeatedly provides incomplete responses, or forces the other side to obtain financial records through subpoenas and motions, attorney fees may become part of the dispute.

For a broader discussion of fee issues, see our article addressing who may be ordered to pay attorney fees in a Utah divorce.

Undisclosed Evidence May Be Excluded

Rule 26 creates another significant problem. If a party fails to disclose or timely supplement a disclosure, the party may be prohibited from using the undisclosed document, witness, or material at a hearing or trial unless the failure was harmless or good cause exists.

A party should therefore not assume that financial evidence can be held back and produced for the first time when it becomes strategically helpful.

Organization Saves Attorney Fees

Clients sometimes focus only on the attorney’s hourly rate when trying to control divorce costs. Organization can be just as important.

If your attorney’s office receives one clearly labeled folder containing logically organized financial records, counsel can begin reviewing the substance of the financial case immediately.

If the office instead receives hundreds of individual screenshots, duplicate statements, unlabeled downloads, and files named “IMG_8274.jpg,” someone has to organize them before meaningful legal analysis can begin.

The attorney or staff member doing that work is spending time that could have been avoided.

Well-organized records are especially valuable before mediation. Financial negotiations are much more productive when counsel can quickly answer questions about account balances, income, debt, and property values. For clients considering settlement, see our discussion of divorce mediation in Lehi and Eagle Mountain divorce mediation.

Do Not Wait Until the Disclosure Deadline to Start Gathering Records

Obtaining financial records can take time. Some banks make only a limited period of statements available online. Retirement plans may require separate authentication. Tax returns may need to be downloaded from an accountant’s portal. Mortgage documents may be stored elsewhere. Business records may need to be obtained from a bookkeeper.

Start collecting information when the divorce begins rather than when the Financial Declaration is almost due.

If you cannot obtain something, document what you tried to obtain and tell your attorney. Counsel can then determine whether an estimate is appropriate, whether additional discovery is needed, or whether records should be subpoenaed.

Your Financial Declaration Should Tell a Defensible Financial Story

The purpose of the Financial Declaration is not to make your finances look better or worse than they are. It is to provide a sufficiently accurate financial picture that the disputed issues can be evaluated on reliable information.

Your income should be consistent with the supporting employment and tax records or the difference should be explainable. Your account balances should correspond with available statements. Your debts should be supported by recent records. Your monthly expenses should have a reasonable basis. Estimates should be identified as estimates rather than presented as precise facts.

When those pieces fit together, the declaration becomes useful evidence rather than a vulnerability.

Financial Disclosure Issues Arise Throughout Northern Utah

The Financial Declaration requirements are statewide, but financial cases can take different forms depending upon the family involved. Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients dealing with divorce and financial disputes throughout Utah County, Salt Lake County, and Tooele County.

Clients seeking a Pleasant Grove divorce lawyer may be addressing home equity, retirement accounts, child support, and alimony. Our related resources include a Pleasant Grove child support attorney page and Pleasant Grove alimony lawyer page.

Clients looking for a Provo divorce attorney may face the same Rule 26.1 requirements in cases involving professional income, real estate, support, or retirement benefits. Support-specific information is available through our Provo child support attorney and Provo alimony lawyer resources.

We also represent individuals seeking a Herriman divorce lawyer in financial and custody disputes, as well as clients needing a Tooele divorce lawyer. For financial support issues, additional information is available from our Herriman child support attorney, Tooele child support attorney, and Tooele alimony lawyer pages.

Preparing the Utah Financial Declaration Correctly From the Beginning

A Financial Declaration should not be treated as busywork. It can become the foundation for arguments involving child support, alimony, property division, temporary orders, attorney fees, mediation, and trial.

The most effective approach is straightforward: gather the records early, organize each account separately, use consistent file names, identify missing documents, use reasonable and explainable estimates where necessary, disclose accounts rather than assuming they are irrelevant, review the numbers for internal consistency, and supplement the information when something important changes.

That preparation gives your attorney a cleaner record to analyze and reduces the likelihood that an avoidable disclosure problem will become a litigation problem.

For individuals beginning the divorce process in northern Utah, additional local information is available through our Saratoga Springs divorce and family law, Lehi divorce and child custody, Eagle Mountain divorce and custody, and American Fork divorce and family law resource pages.

Questions About a Financial Declaration in Your Utah Divorce?

If you are preparing a Financial Declaration, responding to incomplete disclosures from your spouse, dealing with self-employment income, trying to identify marital assets, or preparing for a temporary-orders hearing involving child support or alimony, careful financial preparation can materially affect the way the case is presented.

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in Utah divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, property and debt division, complex financial divorce, mediation, enforcement, and modification proceedings throughout Utah County and surrounding areas.

Call 801-510-0503 to schedule a confidential consultation.

This article provides general information concerning Utah law and does not constitute legal advice for any particular case. Financial disclosure obligations may depend upon the claims, procedural posture, and orders entered in a specific case. Court rules and statutes may also change.

Source