H.B. 303 Family Court Amendments

What this bill does

H.B. 303 would set rules for court-ordered mental health therapy for children when parents disagree, including using insurance when available and considering ability to pay. It would define coercive control in state law as a factor judges may consider in custody or parent time decisions, create a roster of custody evaluators with a selection and removal process, and clarify when attorney fees and costs may be awarded, including for underemployed parents.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 10 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how
• 10 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how
• 68 yes, 1 no, 6 absentFinal House vote · Feb 19, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 26, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 26, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 0 no, 4 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 5, 2026Who voted how
• 67 yes, 1 no, 7 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 6, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Feb 11, 2026 House Judiciary Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (40 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:52:10

     Thank you for being here. Thank you. And we will next go to item four on the agenda. HB 3 0 3, family court amendments. Representative Cutler,

  2. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:52:29

     I'm shedding, Uh, I have a, uh, one pager fact sheet if I'd like to hand out, if that's okay. Madam Chair? Yes. Stewart, do you wanna be available? I'm gonna ask a, uh, expert witness to come and, and join me. Uh, Madam chair to that.

  3. Committee chair1:52:55

     All right, welcome and please proceed.

  4. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:52:58

     Thank you. HB 3 0 3, uh, continues. The work started a few years ago with, with M's Law in improving our court processes for those suffering from, uh, domestic violence and high conflict divorce cases, uh, with the ultimate goal of, uh, keeping kids safe and giving them effective care as much as possible there. This bill does four main things, uh, number one, and, and on, um, Madam Chair, I'm speaking to the, the, the first substitute. The difference between the, the first substitute and the original bill is after we came out with the original bill, we met with, uh, the second district, uh, a number of, uh, members of the, uh, the court commissioners and judges. We also met with some, uh, family law attorney, and I believe, uh, Mr. Stewart Rouse's, uh, took this to some of the members of the, uh, family loss section of the bar and also got feedback. We took all that feedback and made some changes, uh, which you see in the second sub or the first sub, excuse me. Okay. So number one, court order mental health therapy is starting on line 2 39 is that section. And the purpose there was to give some clarity and guidelines When mental health treatment is, is ordered, uh, for children, uh, a process, uh, sets out a process if there's disagreement between parents on, on who to use as the, as a therapist or as to provide mental health treatment, it directs the court to use, uh, insurance whenever available to lower the burden on those going through, uh, family court, which o often the financial burdens of, of course, are just tremendous. So, uh, ask them to consider ability to pay as well and, uh, addresses, uh, conflicts of interest if there are any, and puts those in statute. So we, we think those are some, uh, uh, some improvements in that area. Probably the most important area is this, this bill defines course of control and adds that that's as something that a judge may consider when, uh, considering child custody or parent time provides, uh, a definition for that. Uh, which as we spoke with the courts, they're of course aware of course of control and using it, but it hadn't, or, or, and considering it, but it hadn't been in statute. And this provides, uh, something in statute for them, and I think we'll have some people talk about that. Number three, it addresses custody evaluators ask the court to put together a roster of custody evaluators. Often, uh, people in family court aren't aware of what the choices are when they're asked to select or, or if they choose to use a custody evaluator. So this just provides both parties more information on, uh, custody evaluators available, and also provides a mechanism to selecting a custody evaluator if there is, um, a, uh, not agreement on how to do that. And provides a mechanism to remove a custody evaluator if there's, uh, concern or a complaint for certain, uh, um, for certain reasons. And, and last, uh, clarifies some, uh, the awarding of fees in, uh, these family law cases and, uh, especially people's ability to pay and if somebody is underemployed or not seeking employment so that they don't have to, uh, pay fees. So w with with that, I'll add, I'll ask, uh, uh, my expert witness from the family law section of Barr, if you'd like to add anything to that overview, I'll just answer questions. Okay. You can well that, that'll conclude our presentation, but if there are hard questions then, then, uh, it'll go to the witness.

  5. Committee chair1:57:06

     Okay. Understood. We're going to come back to committee for clarifying questions or discussion. Representative Gracious.

  6. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:57:14

     Thank you, Madam Chair. Hopefully this doesn't qualify in the category of hard question. Um, but on that therapy component that you mentioned, that starts in line 2 39, um, the way that it reads to me is if both parents have an equal say in what is going on with the child, but what if we're looking at a redo of custody and one parent has final say, um, do they still not get to choose who their child's therapist is if they're trying to put a child into therapy and the non-custodial parent who may not have final say, is trying to block that, how would that work in this scenario?

  7. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:57:53

     Uh, I'm gonna consider that a rule that a hard question And ask Stuart if he could address that.

  8. Stewart Ralphs, Legal Aid Society1:58:02

     I think this goes largely to in the litigation before, um, custody is determined because I, I, I think, um, that the situation that you are dealing with is after the court has ordered that the rejoin legal custody and designates one of the parents to be, uh, the fi a final decision maker. I think that's a different scenario. This addresses when there's litigation taking place and during the litigation, the court is either the parents, um, involve a mental health e expert or the court appoints, um, mental health experts in some role in the, in the case and the underlying litigation. Okay. So this would be the original Yes. Custody dispute. This would not apply to subsequent refiles, you know, if a parent is being dragged back into court if there is active litigation at that point in time. So if there's like a modification case, correct.

  9. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:58:45

     Okay. So this would be the original Yes. Custody dispute. This would not apply to subsequent refiles, you know, if a parent is being dragged back into court if there is active litigation at that point in time. So if there's like a modification case, correct.

  10. Stewart Ralphs, Legal Aid Society1:59:00

      I i I think that if there were not already, uh, experts, like the children may have, um, a mental health expert or a counselor, um, that this may apply, especially the, the process of how the court picks one of these, uh, specialists. I, I think one of the things that I personally, and I'm not speaking on behalf of the, the family law section or the Utah State Bar, I always have to make that clarification, is that most of these things that are in this bill are already good practice is kind of the best practice, and the courts are already doing that by and large. However, I think what doing this bill does is it makes it uniform and codifies it so that all courts, um, are doing this. And more important for me, it guides practitioners of how to do it the correct way. And, and that's fair. I would just be hesitant to, if this does apply to modifications of custody to remove a parent's final say who can already make those determinations. And there's probably a way that we can clarify that really easily, but where a parent already has the ability to do that, just because they're being sued for a custody modification or they're suing four one, whatever it is, I don't think they should lose the rights they've already been granted by the court. Would you like me to respond to that If, if there's a response? Sure. Uh, So, so I, once those court decisions are, once those decisions are made and, and parents are designated with rights or responsibilities, uh, under custody, um, those can, the, the court has ongoing jurisdiction, so either parent can raise that in a, in a motion or a petition to modify and, and then the court has to deal with that request to either change or continue what those original rights and responsibilities that were ordered in the original case and then ordering either a custody evaluator or a mental health professional to be involved in, in that new modification case. This would apply to that just like it would in original, but unless and until the court finds that there's been a reason to change that, um, if a parent is designated as the final decision maker, that would still apply regarding like a therapist of, of minor children to, to deal with issues that the children need to deal with.

  11. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:01:29

      So even if there was a modification petition occurring that until the court makes a ruling that changes, that that original petition would stay in place?

  12. Stewart Ralphs, Legal Aid Society2:01:38

      That would be Correct. Okay.

  13. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:01:39

      Thank you. Alright.

  14. Committee chair2:01:41

      Thank you representative gracious. It looks like we have no further light, so we'll move to the public for comment. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this bill? I see a few hands. I, I do things a little bit different than the other chair because it's, we have such a packed agenda. I'm gonna limit you to two minutes of comment, but please come forward and take a seat, um, and, and sit on the left or the right, make sure you sign in, state your name and state who you are representing when you make comment. And, um, and then, and go ahead and take the next seat that's available up here for the next commentator, and then we'll move to online comment if there is any. Welcome to the committee and thank you for being here. Please proceed first. Are you sure?

  15. Leah Moses, resident2:02:34

      Okay. This is on. Thanks. Thank you, um, to Representative Cutler for sponsoring this and to the committee for your review. My name is Leah Moses. I'm a protective parent and a longtime family court patron. And many thanks to several of you for supporting previous successful legislative efforts for family court reform. Um, as an OMS law named after my 16-year-old son, who many of you know was murdered here in Utah by his abusive father less than three years ago. Courts need this set of continued enhancements to child safety, including helping children receive safe, effective, and affordable mental health care when ordered, defining coercive control and outlining the role and initial logical standards for custody evaluators and creating fairness and costs and fees. Coercive control is often mistaken as a high conflict between parents when in reality its reach can be stunningly effective in masking the abuser and exposing the victim. Over the 17 years I endured abuse the single, um, violent incident model ruled every evaluation when instead it was a combination of domestic violence and coercive control. Together. His controlling pattern of behavior was even overt in legal proceedings where my children and I were un undermined, um, at every hearing and, and interaction finally ending in fatality. Secondly, custody evaluators have been credible power and responsibility to help recommend safe outcomes, but in contested custody cases, that is ultimately the judiciary who should be the decision maker After two full evaluations and spilling over into a third, the costs were astronomical and presumptive outcomes incorrect. Placing my children back into parent time with an abusive father unsupervised a roster. And a few simple guidelines are not too much to ask. Lastly, children deserve fa safe, effective mental health care by licensed professionals using real diagnoses and evidence-based modalities. My children and I were ordered into out-of-pocket therapies, disregarding ability to pay, and that made it extremely difficult. It's been fulfilling the past few months to be in conversation with sponsors and stakeholders, and especially survivors, and I ask you to strongly support this collection of child protections. Thank you.

  16. Jeni Brockbank, H.E.R. Wings Unfold2:04:27

      Thank you Chair and members of the committee, vice chair. My name is Jenny Brockbank. I'm a protective mother of six children. Four of them are minors. I'm a certified victim advocate and founder of a nonprofit called Her Wings Unfold here in Utah. I'm here because course of control nearly cost my children their lives and we continue to live in its wake every day. My ex-husband never hit us. There were no bruises for the court to see, but is terrifying to stabilizing behavior led to two of our minor children being hospitalized multiple times for suicidal issues that was well documented with over 15 police reports. What you're considering today is not abstract to me. It's personal and it is ongoing. Um, I'd like to just share a brief experience, um, that documents how it escalates. So during our divorce, I had full custody of one child who was suicidal, who required near constant supervision. Working full-time outside the home was not possible. Still, I believe my children and I would be all right financially because we were selling our home and there were sufficient funds to relocate and pay marital debts. When my ex realized this, he Uintah family court and asked that every dollar from the sale of our home be placed in escrow. Real realizing that me and my children would experience housing instability. The court agreed my children and I became homeless. I turned to the community for help. And with their generosity through crowdfunding, my children and I were able to relocate. So of course, the control escalated. My ex returned to court and demanded I be forced to give the money back. The court thankfully refused. So the control escalated again. When I publicly posted gratitude on Facebook for those who had helped me and my children survive. My Facebook account was hacked. And an old image of me with my ex-husband was added to that poster of gratitude, making it look as though I had lied to donors, which harmed credibility and has led to the loss of many friends. This is coercive control and when one tactic fails, another begins. Thank you. You have a question, ma'am? One moment.

  17. Committee chair2:06:26

      Representative Clancy.

  18. Rep. Clancy2:06:28

      Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Ms. Brock. I noticed that, uh, you and Ms. Mo Moses shared, uh, the term protective parent. Mm-hmm. What does, what does that mean in this context? How would you describe that?

  19. Jeni Brockbank, H.E.R. Wings Unfold2:06:39

      So to me, a protective parent is the parent who is safe for the children versus a parent who is abusive and, and protective parents show up in ways that we know how. So we're fighting for our children in ways, um, that we see best for their safety.

  20. Rep. Clancy2:06:56

      Alright, thank you so much.

  21. Jeni Brockbank, H.E.R. Wings Unfold2:06:58

      Thank you.

  22. Committee chair2:07:04speaker not certain

      Thank you. Thank you.

  23. Erin Jemison, Utah Domestic Violence Coalition2:07:05

      Madam Chair, members of the committee, Erin Jamison, director of Public Policy at the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition. Just wanna thank Representative Cutler and all of you for the work you've been doing for many years, um, on these really complex issues. I also wanna say that we've been really involved in implementation of the family court, um, changes that you all approved two years ago. The courts have been incredibly, uh, dedicated, putting resources that they probably didn't really have, but found resources to help us start to implement that law. And we've had some really great new relationships with family law attorneys, um, guardians, ad litem, custody evaluators, who've really been trying to, to implement these, uh, reforms and then give us really concrete feedback around what needs to be changed to keep making these improvements. And that's what this bill, uh, is the result of. I will specifically speak to the coercive control piece. Um, we've been calling coercive control domestic violence for, for 40 plus years. We've known for a really long time that domestic violence is not about individual incidents of bruises and broken bones and hospitalizations, that it's about that much, um, much longer term pattern of control. And what family law attorneys have told us over the past two years is that the changes you all made, um, back in 2024 really helped them paint that picture for the courts and be more effective in showing that it's not about individual incidents, but the courts are telling them we need that language in the statute and we need it very clearly defined. And so, um, that's what this bill does. And, and I agree with Representative Cutler that it's likely the most important part of the bill, but we definitely support all the components, so would ask you to support the bill as well. Thanks so much. Thank you.

  24. Committee chair2:08:50

      Welcome. And please proceed. Okay. Stay here with you. I'm a little nervous.

  25. Laura Hinojosa, resident2:08:58

      Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Laura. I'm a mother of two children and I've been navigating the family court system now for more than 10 years. Last month I logged into my custody case and there were 819 entries in my file, 819. To my understanding, a typical divorce will have dozens. Each of those entries represents filings, motions, hearings, responses to coercive control, and enormous financial, financial cost. When, when parent has the financial ability to continuously file motions, challenge professionals and exhaust the other party, the system as it stands unintentionally rewards the person with greater resources. Custody evaluators hold extraordinary influence over the outcome of families lives. Yet currently, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that evaluators are trained specifically to acknowledge the course of control or not allow a subtle financial bias. When one party funds the evaluation, there has to be standards or guidelines. In cases like mine, I struggled for years to secure consistent therapy for my children because every provider was challenged or rejected by the other parent. Thankfully, therapy was finally court ordered for my kids, but it became with a high cost of $600 a month for that therapist for years, those very protections intended for my children can become tools of continued imbalance. Recently, I had to choose between keeping the power on or paying my attorney. No parent should have to decide between basic utilities and legal representation in order to protect their children. These issues do not exist in isolation. Course of control, financial strain, mental health access, evaluator influence, and attorney's fees are all intertwined. When one piece fails, the impact ripples outward and children absorb that instability.

  26. Committee chair2:11:00

      Thank you. Could you please make sure that you put your last name on the roll? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thanks for being here. We really appreciate all of the feedback from the public. We are now going to take some online comments if that has concluded the in-person comments we have online. Erin McCune. Erin, please state your name for the record, who you represent, and turn on your camera. Just one second. We're talking. Hi.

  27. Erin McKeown, resident2:11:36

      Um, is this working? Yes, it is. We can hear you. Okay. Hi, I'm Erin McKean, and I'm speaking in favor of the definition of coercive control being added. Um, I, after six years in family court litigation, um, a judge heard our case and determined a strong pattern of coercive control. And I now have sole legal and sole physical custody. This process was devastating. Every time that I sent my children back into the coercive controlling environment, I watched as their confidence, self and emotional regulation eroded. Trying to repair that damage while being required to send them back each week is like bailing water from a sinking ship. Coercive control is difficult to see because each act looks small on its own. It's a pattern as, as everyone has stated, a systematic stripping away of autonomy, identity, and freedom. What clothes a child wears, how much food they're allowed to eat, a child being told they're a baby when they say their throat is swelling after eating a certain food until a doctor later confirms a serious allergy. These moments teach children not to trust their feelings, thoughts, or reality. A coercive controller will continually undermine the child's relationship and trust with the protective parent. Um, children living under coercive control learn to comply to survive obedience equal safety. They learn not to cry, not to protest, not to trust their bodies. If we want to protect children, we must give courts the tools to recognize coercive control rather than focusing on that traditional violent incident model that's been mentioned where one big incident is then addressed. Um, I know that without a definition and recognition of coercive control, my lawyer felt like we needed to wait years to establish that pattern really thoroughly with, um, multiple people like therapists and our, um, parent coordinator. Um, but if that definition was in there, I think I would've felt more confident taking the case in earlier and not subjecting my kids of this abuse. Um, thank you.

  28. Committee chair2:13:49

      Thank you so much for being here. Alright, we'll go to the next online commenter, Seth Stewart. Seth, please state your name, who you represent, and turn on your camera.

  29. Seth Stewart, resident2:14:08

      Hello. Yeah, I'm Seth Stewart, um, representing myself and I'm from American Fork. Um, I, I do have significant concerns with the definition of coercive control that's used here. Um, if, if you go to, uh, line 78, it broadens the traditional definition, which would require proof of intent, uh, to any effect, right? It uses this language in effect accomplishing any of the, uh, patterns that are named. And it's quite a broad list of patterns as well, including, uh, controlling regulating or excessively monitoring and others movements, communications, daily behavior, et cetera. Um, part of my concern here is that by eliminating the men's rea requirement here, uh, we are basically opening this to litigation and to custody arrangements, uh, court determinations of, of the necessity of a custody arrangement on the basis of a huge variety of things that may be subjectively perceived as, as harmful, but may naturally occur within a marital or parenting relationship. And so it kind of, it, it, it, it broadens the scope of those things to encompass, um, practically any marital or or partnering disagreement. Um, I, I think that's hazardous. Um, and I will submit that if there's, as there are clearly are concerns about well, can, can, can a court hear this? Can, can this be weighed as evidence? I'll submit that there's a very simple solution to that problem. If you have a jury hear the case and don't bind their conscience by rules of evidence that limit the sources of evidence that you may use, then this kind of information, behavioral patterns, et cetera, can naturally be raised rather than being, um, preemptively raised to a judge. As, as leading question evidence. Um, there are other concerns with this bill, but, uh, I would urge opposition to it on those grounds. Just restore the juries. This is being viewed as an equitable case. Thank you.

  30. Committee chair2:16:06

      Alright, thank you. Thanks to everybody who participated in public comment. These are very difficult issues and we as a committee understand that there are lots and lots of emotions around them. So thank you for being brave and coming forward. Alright, we will come back. We will close public comment and come back to the Committee for action. Representative gracious. Thank

  31. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:16:28

      You. Madam Chair, has the sub been adopted? I can't tell. No. Okay. And I would move that we adopt the first substitute of house bill 3 0 3.

  32. Committee chair2:16:37

      Okay. The motion is to adopt first sub house bill 3 0 3. Any would you like to speak to that representative? No. And would you like to speak with,

  33. Unknown speaker2:16:46speaker not certain

      I appreciate the motion. It improves the bill.

  34. Committee chair2:16:48

      Alright. Um, discussion to that motion. Seeing no lights. Uh, we'll do a voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

  35. Committee chair2:17:01

      That motion passes unanimously. Representative gracious.

  36. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:17:05

      Thank you Madam Chair, I move that we favorably recommend House Bill 3 0 3. First substitute, The motion is to favorably recommend the first substitute of House Bill 3 0 3. Would you like to speak to that? Yeah. I mean, as you may be able to tell from my line

  37. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:17:19

      of questioning, I had probably a dozen different families pop into mind. Um, as we were going through the presentation. Um, I do think that it's important that we define coercive control. Um, it is a form of domestic violence, but it's one that requires that pattern to come into play, and it's a lot more subtle. Um, so I really appreciate the work that the sponsor's been trying to do that. And, um, I have received, um, emails and texts with maybe some concerns and, and maybe there's a way to tighten that language, but I am more than comfortable forwarding this to the house floor.

  38. Committee chair2:17:57

      Okay. Thank you for, for that. We'll go to the sponsor.

  39. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:18:01

      I appreciate the support of the committee. I think these are recognized best practices and always welcome, uh, suggestions to improve it. I think our, our, all of our shared goal is to improve the family court experience for, for those who, uh, must go through it.

  40. Committee chair2:18:18

      Thank you. All right. Seeing no further lights, we will do a roll call. Vote. Representative Abbott turn to you. Yes. Acton? Yes. Er gracious. Yes. Hawkins? Yes. Manga. Aye. Millard Aye. Thompson Aye. And Libe. Aye. And Clancy. Clancy. Clancy? Yes. My apologies. Did you vote? Yep. Okay. All right. That passes. Thank you for being here. Thank you for hearing this. I'm turning the chair back over to Representative Clancy.

• Feb 19, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (39 turns)

  1. Floor clerk1:32:51

     for further consideration matter. Meeting clerk First substitute House bill 3 0 3 Family court amendments by Representative Cutler. This bill was served in judiciary with the vote of 10 0 1 Representative Cutler.

  2. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:33:04

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill, uh, improves the experience in family court for those going through high conflict, uh, divorce or child custody cases. And it focuses on four things that will protect children and put children first. Number one, when a court orders mental health therapy and there is a conflict between the parents on, on what to do or, or who to, uh, select as a, uh, for mental health treatment. It gives a structured process for how to handle that conflict, um, uh, and, and some guidelines when people don't agree. Number two, which I think is the most important part of the bill, is it adds a definition of coercive control and improves court's ability to determine, uh, child custody and parent time based on evidence of coercive control. Number three, uh, often in a high conflict, uh, family law case, there is the request for a custody evaluator to give an outside opinion current. This sets up a roster of qualified custody evaluators and provides some guidelines so that people know what their options are and how to best select a custody evaluator that could help in their case. And we think this will give parents more tools to make better choices for their, uh, in that case and, and makes it clear that it's not the custody evaluator's decision, it's the judge's decision in the end. And last, it makes some tweaks to attorney's fees to make sure that people who aren't, uh, who, who try to show that they don't have income by purposefully not working, are not, uh, uh, that a protective parent is not penalized if someone is trying to manipulate the system by voluntarily underemployed meant or, or not working. So these four, uh, areas we think will improve the experience for those going through the very difficult situation of, uh, a high conflict case in family court. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:35:19

     Thank you Representative Cutler discussion to the bill Representative Shallenberger.

  4. Rep. David Shallenberger1:35:25

     Thank you, Mr. Speak. Uh, speaker ProAm, uh, permission to ask some questions to the bill sponsor. Will the Sponsor yield to a question?

  5. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:35:33

     I'm not an attorney, but I'm happy to answer questions. Go Ahead. Thank you.

  6. Rep. David Shallenberger1:35:37

     Um, I'd like the intent of where this is going. Do you see if, uh, do you foresee any of, uh, possibilities where this may increase litigation costs or conflict between parties in this area?

  7. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:35:51

     Uh, the purpose of this is to decrease litigation costs and decrease conflict by making it clear how a court should handle, uh, high conflict cases by setting guidelines on how to choose a custody evaluator, which would hopefully reduce the, the cost and the conflict, and especially more guidelines around coercive control.

  8. Rep. David Shallenberger1:36:13

     Thank you. Uh, one more question, if I may.

  9. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:36:16

     Go ahead. Uh, can you describe, uh, in detail,

  10. Rep. David Shallenberger1:36:20

      if you can, the, like, how the, this compares to the current status and then how this might affect upgrades and technologies that works into these court systems? Uh, is there a specific AR area, Mr. Speaker, or just in general on these four areas? Just, just in general would appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah,

  11. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:36:42

      I, I'd help, help me just conceptually understand it. So I, I don't think there's anything here specifically related to technology in improvements in their courts, but, uh, this should help the process when there is a conflict about if the court orders mental health therapy, how to choose and select that, uh, uh, therapist or that mental health treatment should reduce the time in court, because now there's a clear process. Uh, each parent brings three names and there are some, uh, guidelines around conflict of interest. It improves the process to say children shouldn't be missing school for court ordered therapy. And if there is the possibility that, uh, one of the parents' insurance can pay for that therapy, that should be, uh, given preferred status. So that should lower the overall cost for, uh, for those in the, in the system.

  12. Rep. David Shallenberger1:37:40

      Thank you. Uh, this is an important area and I appreciate the good sponsors, uh, work on this. I think it's gonna impact the courts in a, in a good way and help families get to a peaceful resolution and, uh, I am wholeheartedly in support of it. Thank you.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:37:57

      Thank you, Representative Shallenberger. Further discussion to the bill Representative Hansen.

  14. Rep. Leah Hansen1:38:02

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker Proton. Will the sponsor yield to a Question Sponsor yield?

  15. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:38:06

      Yes, go ahead. Thank

  16. Rep. Leah Hansen1:38:08

      You, Mr. Speaker. Um, I just wanted to know if it was the proper role of government to be involved in what courts are doing if when, like, if we are supposed to be making those laws for them.

  17. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:38:19

      Un unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in our society, we do, uh, uh, marriage is, uh, uh, a role of of government. We provide a marriage license and the courts system is set up to help deal with these unfortunate cases of, uh, when there is a child custody dispute. It would, it is obviously much better when people can resolve these issues on their own without government intervention. But a core function of government is to protect the most vulnerable in our society and victims of domestic violence. And those who, uh, have suffered abuse are among the most vulnerable. And, uh, in my opinion, it's entirely appropriate for the courts to step in and protect those who have been abused and, and harmed and try to settle things fairly when there is a dispute between parties.

  18. Rep. Leah Hansen1:39:09

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, um, I appreciate why this is being done. I do have concern about, um, the legislature staying in its own lane and the courts staying in their own lanes and families being able to be protected. I wish government didn't have to be involved in matters like this. Thank you.

  19. Speaker (presiding)1:39:27

      Thank you, Representative Hansen. Further discussion to the bill Representative Shepherd.

  20. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:39:32

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Em, will the sponsor yield to a question? Will the sponsor yield? Yes, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Em. So my question deals with the special master. Does this bill affect special masters at all?

  21. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:39:46

      My my understanding is this does not have any, does not deal with the policy around special masters.

  22. Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:39:52

      Thank you. Uh, I'm gonna rise in support of this bill. I have a constituent that has spent, I think there are about $400,000 in a high, high conflict case in a marriage, a divorce with children, and, uh, is desperate for us as government to act as a legislature to step in and to fix these things that are happening. And so I think that this bill will really help for and towards that we really do need to fix this. Thank you.

  23. Speaker (presiding)1:40:24

      Thank you, Representative Shepherd. Further discussion, Representative MacPherson.

  24. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:40:29

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker Broan with a sponsor yield to a brief question.

  25. Speaker (presiding)1:40:33

      Will the sponsor yield? Yes, go ahead.

  26. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:40:35

      Um, I'm looking at the definition of course of control under lines 82 through 96, and I'm just, I'm curious, uh, on the language here, there's a section that says, um, that it includes a pattern of threatening to harm or kill, threatening self-harm, threatening to publish information, but it doesn't say threatening or causing harm or threatening or causing self-harm or causing or, or actually publishing. And I'm just curious if that is an oversight if that's covered in another section of code, or is the intent to include not only threats, but the actual activity itself?

  27. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:41:13

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's an excellent question that, that others have also asked the actual harm if there is evidence or, uh, credible allegations, uh, of harm is already covered in this statute. I don't believe we brought that part of the statute in, but that was covered. Uh, and, and that was, uh, actually improved a couple of years ago. We passed M'S Law, so if there is evidence of actual harm, then that is already covered in the statute. This just deals with threats, uh, under the definition of, of course, of control.

  28. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:41:45

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could follow up

  29. Speaker (presiding)1:41:47

      with an additional question now? Yes. Answer Yield to another question.

  30. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:41:50

      Um, there's a new definition though, it looks like for a household animal. And so I guess I'm, uh, does the threaten to harm or kill a household animal, um, if we have a new definition for that, does that mean that that's not covered then under the other section of actually harming or, uh, killing a household animal?

  31. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:42:10

      Uh, uh, Mr. Speaker, I'd, I'd have to look at the reference for the actual harm, but, uh, this was often this section was brought in because, uh, by domestic violence advocates and family members is often the threat to harm a pet is, is used by, um, uh, a cove, um, uh, parent or, uh, abuser as, as a way to say, you know, if you don't do this, I'm gonna kill or harm your pet. And that, uh, as, as a way to manipulate behavior, um, that I can't speak to whether the existing code references that, uh, household animal definition or not.

  32. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:42:50

      Thank you, Mr. Uh, Mr. Speaker Pro tem. Very supportive of the policy. Just wanna make sure the definitions are correct. Thanks.

  33. Speaker (presiding)1:42:56

      Thank you Representative MacPherson for the discussion to the bill. Representative Dominguez.

  34. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez1:43:03

      Thank you so much. Uh, speaker Pro tem, I rise in support of this bill. I know that the good sponsor has worked really hard in working with all agencies and families and getting it to where it needs to be. And, um, I thank for the, for the hard work. Thank you.

  35. Speaker (presiding)1:43:20

      Thank you, Representative Dominguez. Further discussion, representative gracious.

  36. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:43:25

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. Coercive control is something that has actually been missing, um, from our statute for a long time. It's something everybody knows the term, everybody knows what that means, but we've never defined that for the purposes of court and custody. And putting these guardrails in allows a victim of coercive control to actually have something to point back to. If someone's being gaslit, it's usually because coercive control is being used against them. So this really just clarifies what is already happening, what the courts are already intermittently applying and makes it consistent so that everybody can have the same outcome. And the pattern, um, on the mental health section, the pattern that's used there where you submit three names. So the judge, it's the same process they use for putting in a private guardian ad litem in custody cases. It's how they choose custody evaluators. It's an existing process, so you're not going to have, um, additional court related time issues with that. It's, it's already what happens and I really appreciate the sponsor providing that clarity and putting this into statute so all of those victims who are being gaslit have something they can point back to instead of just, I promise this is happening, please believe me. But it really just adds that visibility to what's already existing. Thank you.

  37. Speaker (presiding)1:44:41

      Thank you representative. Gracious, further discussion Representative Lisonbee. Thank you. Seeing no further lights, Representative Cutler for summation.

  38. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:44:54

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. The, we spent significant time with, uh, both advocates, family advocates, and uh, also with the courts, talking with the courts about what changes would, uh, uh, improve the system. Uh, the courts have been supportive of these changes, especially bringing the definition of course of control in, so there would be more consistent definition that, uh, uh, the courts could point to as they were already considering this but didn't have it in code. So I appreciate the input from, from others and the help from my colleagues, uh, on improving the family court system. Thank you.

  39. Speaker (presiding)1:45:30

      Thank you. Representative Cutler Voting is open on first substitute house bill 3 0 3 Family court amendments Representative Mike Peterson, seeing all present Represe Schneider. Okay. Seen all present having voted voting will be closed. First substitute to house bill 3 0 3 having received 68 yay votes and one day vote passes the house and will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration matter Reading Clerk for rules report.

• Feb 26, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (21 turns)

  1. Committee chair2:22:36

     Um, we, we now have, uh, Representative Cutler, how long is your bill?

  2. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:22:41

     Uh, it's very short of an important bill.

  3. Committee chair2:22:44

     Okay. Is there any opposition that you know of? Because we're not gonna have time for a long public hearing.

  4. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:22:50speaker not certain

     Uh, I lots of comments. I'm not clear of opposition. Okay.

  5. Committee chair2:22:54

     Just comments. Alright. Um, go ahead.

  6. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:22:57

     Uh, house bill 3 0 3.

  7. Committee chair2:22:59

     You have a second sub? We have a handout.

  8. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:23:01

     Yes. I have a second sub that, uh, we'd like to have adopted. Uh,

  9. Committee chair2:23:05

     Go ahead and present the second sub. This,

  10. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:23:06

      This bill does four things. It, uh, changes some, uh, it makes some improvements around court ordered mental health therapy, especially when parents can't agree. It sets up a structured process on how to agree to provide, uh, therapy and ask the court to consider, uh, uh, therapy close by. It. It defines coercive control, puts some good language around there. The, uh, court, uh, encouraged that it makes rules around custody evaluators and sets up a roster so people know what custody evaluators are available. And then lastly, it to make some adjustments to awarding attorney's fees. And that's the, uh, the bill.

  11. Committee chair2:23:46

      Okay. And what's the adjustments on the attorney's fees?

  12. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:23:51

      Uh, it refines the criteria to, uh, ensure that court orders to pay costs and fees are reasonable. It, it, the primary change is if somebody is trying, is voluntarily not, uh, working or is underemployed as a way to try to show that they have lower income, it asks the court to address that. Okay.

  13. Committee chair2:24:13

      Alright. Does that conclude your presentation? That

  14. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:24:16

      Concludes my presentation. Alright.

  15. Committee chair2:24:17

      Listen carefully. Is there anyone here to testify against the bill? I want to see if there's anyone against the bill. All right. I'm gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee for action. Oh, you are against the bill. Danny? I'm not

  16. Unknown speaker2:24:31speaker not certain

      Against Bill, but I do, um, need to make some Comments on. Alright. You

  17. Committee chair2:24:36

      may kill the bill, but come forward. We, we have to adjourn in less than three minutes. Come forward. I'll talk to him later. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Um, representative ml,

  18. Sen. Michael K. McKell2:24:46

      would you like to move the sub? Yes, I move That we the substitute.

  19. Committee chair2:24:51

      All right. We have a motion to delete entitle and Body House bill 3 0 3 first sub and replace it with a second sub discussion to that motion. Second sub. Yes. See none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair that passes unanimously. Six to zero. Uh, Senator Mikel a favor.

  20. Sen. Michael K. McKell2:25:09

      We favorly recommend 3 0 3 second substitute house bill.

  21. Committee chair2:25:13

      We have a motion to favorably recommend the bill discussion. That motion? Do you waive representative? Yes. Waive. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Uh, that motion passes, uh, six to zero unanimously. Congratulations. Thank you. And you'll talk to Danny afterwards. All right. I'll take a final, final motion. Sure. Well hold on. How long has your bill haw Representative Hawkins?

• Mar 5, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (14 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker1:38:40speaker not certain

     and replace it with third substitute. And that is online with a beautiful fiscal note of zero Online with a fiscal note. Uh, I'm Looking at Senator Sandall when I say that. Yeah, Yeah. We're all watching those close.

  2. President Adams (presiding)1:38:55

     So we are have a motion to substitute. You want to talk about the changes?

  3. Sen. Michael K. McKell1:38:59

     Yeah. What we're doing is this deals with family law and in the third substitute, we add some language to prioritize health insurance. We want courts to consider that, uh, when, when they're ordering some care, if we wanna make sure we prioritize health insurance because that is much more efficient and more cost effective for Utah families.

  4. President Adams (presiding)1:39:16

     Thank you. Seeing no discussion on motion to circle, I'm not motion to substitute. I'm gonna place the motion. The motion is to delete and title embody second substitute house bill 3 0 3. And replace it with third substitute house bill 3 0 3. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule That motion passes. The bill is substituted now to the bill if there's any further explanation.

  5. Sen. Michael K. McKell1:39:39

     Yep. This, this is a bill that does a few things that I think are important. It, it provides a, a better definition of course of control. It also provides some, some more guidance for custody evaluation. It also provides some language for fairness and cost and fees in, in these disputes. It also sets some guardrails for court ordered mental health therapy and with a third substitute. We also, again, prioritize health insurance when it's available. This is, this has been a long effort. Representative Cutler worked on this bill last year. This is a, a, a follow up. Last year, I think there was a lot of, a lot of, a lot of work, a lot of opposition, a lot of stakeholder input. This year this bill came through with, with good broad support, with good support from all stakeholders. With that, I think we've got a good bill, bill before us, but I'm happy to answer questions.

  6. President Adams (presiding)1:40:25

     Thank you. Uh, looking for questions to your bill. Not seeing any questions. I'm gonna go back to you for summation and a motion.

  7. Sen. Michael K. McKell1:40:32

     Thank you. I'm gonna waive summation to move this bill pass.

  8. President Adams (presiding)1:40:34

     Thank you. The question is shall th subject to house bill three oh three pass. Roll call vote.

  9. Unknown speaker1:40:40speaker not certain

     Senator Ipson Baldy Aye. Lewin Aye. Brammer bus Esia Fillmore Rover Harper Hankins Ipson Johnson. Quan McKay. Mikel Milner Aye. Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Pickers LER Wilson Winterton. Bill more? Aye.

  10. President Adams (presiding)1:41:47

      President Adams Third substitute house Bill 3 0 3. Third substitute house bill 3 0 3. Having received, what was your vote? Oh, I sorry. Third substitute house bill 3 0 3. Having received 25 yay votes, zero nay votes. Four being absent passes this body and will be returned to the house for further consideration.

  11. President Adams (presiding)1:42:15

      Senator Cullimore, do you wanna encircle or, okay, I'm gonna go to you to encircle. Motion to UNC circle second. Substitute house bill 4 38. We have a motion to encircle, second substitute house bill. 4 38 Artificial intelligence amendments. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Roll that motion passes. The bill is Uncircled. Senator Moore.

  12. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:42:40speaker not certain

      Motion to delete title and body of second substitute house bill 4 38. And replace it with fifth substitute house bill. 4 38. We have a motion to substitute.

  13. President Adams (presiding)1:42:50

      You wanna explain the changes?

  14. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:42:52speaker not certain

      Yeah. This, this has been response to a bunch of input

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)21:03

     House Bill 3 0 3 Family Court amendments by Representative Cutler. Representative Cutler.

  2. Rep. Paul A. Cutler21:10

     Mr. Speaker motion to concur with the Senate amendments,

  3. Speaker (presiding)21:13

     That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. Paul A. Cutler21:15

     Yes, I would. Part of this family law bill required, uh, the court to take into consideration whether a parent had insurance when mental health therapy was required. This last substitute just clarified some of the language such as order mental health treatment, uh, if the provider, if coverage is available and some language around to the extent possible to cover situations when insurance is not available. It also changed the effective date. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank Representatives.

  5. Speaker (presiding)21:47

     Can we bring the volume down? Discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on third substitute HB 3 0 3. See none. We will go ahead and place the motion. The motion be forced The house concur with the Senate amendments on HB threes third substitute HB 3 0 3. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes Voting now be open for final passage. Seeing all president having voted voting is now closed. Third substitute HB 3 0 3 passed this body with 67 yes votes one no vote and will be sent to the Senate for the signature of the President matter Marine clerk