UtahH.B. 3032026 General SessionHouseWALLET

Family Court Amendments

Sponsored By: Paul A. Cutler (Republican)

Signed by Governor

Child Custody/Parent TimeFamilyMental HealthAttorneysJudicial AdministrationJudicial Operations

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

5 provisions identified: 3 benefits, 0 costs, 2 mixed.

Family court fee help has limits

Beginning May 6, 2026, Utah courts can require one party to pay another’s family court costs, including attorney and witness fees. The requesting party must lack resources, the other party must have resources, and expenses must be necessary and reasonable. Courts generally cannot find someone unable to pay if they choose not to work or earn far below their ability. Exceptions cover seeking suitable work, earning less to care for a child or vulnerable adult, and gaps between seasonal or project jobs.

Parents’ ability to pay limits evaluations

Beginning May 6, 2026, Utah courts can order custody evaluations in divorce, separation, or custody cases only when parties can pay. A party must request the evaluation, or the court must make specific findings that extraordinary circumstances justify it. Parties can agree on an evaluator; otherwise, each exchanges three names and they submit a joint list for court selection. The order names the evaluator, sets issues and dates, requires cooperation, assigns payment responsibility, and limits disclosure with specified exceptions. When abuse-related testimony or opinions are reasonably expected, proposed evaluators must have demonstrated expertise and adequate experience with victims beyond forensic work.

Custody decisions consider control and relationships

Utah courts may consider coercive control when deciding custody and parent-time schedules. This means a pattern that intentionally or effectively interferes unreasonably with another person’s independent choices. Reasonable, appropriate care for a child is excluded. Courts may also consider the child’s relationships with stepparents, extended family, and others who significantly affect the child’s best interests. These factors do not require a particular custody arrangement or schedule.

Families get safeguards for custody evaluations

Beginning May 6, 2026, Utah custody evaluators must hold a qualifying mental-health license and complete at least 18 training hours. Training covers child development, family dynamics, and effects of separation, violence, abuse, neglect, substance abuse, and parental conflict. It must occur within two years before the later of license issuance or renewal. The courts office must maintain a roster with contact details, fees, and license expiration dates, and remove evaluators who fail requirements. Evaluators must stay impartial, disclose conflicts, report license changes, and not advocate for either party. Those lacking specialized training on violence, sexual abuse, substance abuse, or mental illness must consult a specialist and include a danger assessment. Evaluators with fewer than three completed evaluations must consult another evaluator. Communications with a party generally require notice to the other party, subject to exceptions needed to conduct the evaluation. Parties can seek removal for good cause, including bias, conflicts, rule violations, delays, or misconduct. Findings are advisory only, with no presumption that they are correct or deserve preference.

New safeguards for children’s court-ordered therapy

Beginning May 6, 2026, parents must try to agree on a licensed professional for court-ordered treatment involving their child. If they disagree, each submits three choices with qualification and conflict statements, and the court selects from those lists. The court considers parents’ ability to pay and must use an in-network provider when the child’s plan offers available coverage. Where practical, the provider must be near the child or the parent handling most transportation. A parent with primary or exclusive medical authority gets their choice unless the court finds good cause otherwise. Courts cannot require professional-group membership, but can require training needed to maintain the provider’s state license. Children cannot be required to miss regular school hours unless no reasonable alternative exists. A child’s treating professional cannot take another role in the custody case that creates, or appears to create, a conflict. That conflict rule also covers treatment arranged without a court order.

Sponsors & Cosponsors

Sponsor

Paul A. Cutler
Republican • House

Cosponsors

Michael K. McKell
Republican • Senate

Roll Call Votes

All Roll Calls

Yes: 192 • No: 2

House vote • 3/6/2026

House/ concurs with Senate amendment

Yes: 67 • No: 1

Senate vote • 3/5/2026

Senate/ substituted

Yes: 0 • No: 0

Senate vote • 3/5/2026

Senate/ passed 2nd & 3rd readings/ suspension

Yes: 25 • No: 0

Senate vote • 2/26/2026

Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation

Yes: 6 • No: 0

Senate vote • 2/26/2026

Senate Comm - Substitute Recommendation

Yes: 6 • No: 0

House vote • 2/19/2026

House/ passed 3rd reading

Yes: 68 • No: 1

House vote • 2/11/2026

House Comm - Substitute Recommendation

Yes: 10 • No: 0