Utah GRAMA Requests in Family Law Cases: ORS Records, Evidence and Hearsay

How a Utah GRAMA Request Can Uncover Evidence in a Divorce, Child Support, or Enforcement Case

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facing Divorce in Lehi?
Request a FREE, no obligation, confidential consultation.
FREE CONSULTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Opposing Party’s Own Words May Not Be Hearsay

Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)

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

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

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

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

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

The ORS Documents May Qualify as Public Records

Utah Rule of Evidence 803(8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearsay Within Hearsay Does Not Automatically Require Exclusion

Utah Rule of Evidence 805

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Statement May Also Be a Prior Inconsistent Statement

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

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

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

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

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

Authentication Is Often the Real Evidentiary Battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child Abuse Allegations

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

Child Support and Childcare Payments

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

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

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

Enforcement of Divorce Decrees and Court Orders

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

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

Police, Dispatch, and Incident Records

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

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

School-District Records

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

Government Emails and Agency Communications

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

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

Licensing, Employment, and Benefits Records

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

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

How to Write a Useful GRAMA Request

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

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

A useful request should ordinarily identify:

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

Sample GRAMA Request Language

Example One: ORS Telephone Calls and Payment Records

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

The requested records include:

Audio recordings of all incoming and outgoing telephone calls involving [FULL NAME], telephone number [NUMBER], and ORS personnel;

Any verbatim or substantially verbatim transcripts of those calls;

Call logs identifying the date, time, duration, participants, and assigned ORS employee;

Caseworker notes, contact notes, account remarks, case logs, and audit-trail entries concerning childcare payments or direct payments;

Payment histories, proof-of-payment submissions, direct-payment worksheets, agency notices, adjustment records, and determinations concerning whether payments were credited;

Emails, letters, attachments, and communications concerning the payments made on [DATES] in the amounts of $[AMOUNT] and $[AMOUNT]; and

Records identifying when the payment recipient was notified that the payments had been submitted, reviewed, accepted, disputed, or credited.

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

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

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

Example Two: Request for a Specific Telephone Call

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

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

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

Example Three: Government Emails and Attachments

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

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

Example Four: Police and Dispatch Records

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

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

Ask for the Record You Actually Need

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

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

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

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

Request Certification Before the Hearing

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

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

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

GRAMA Should Supplement, Not Replace, Formal Discovery

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

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

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

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

Build the Evidentiary Chain Rather Than Relying on a Single Document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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