S.B. 304 Protective Order Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak to the sub. There's a, a, a substitute online I'd like to speak to. Alright. Please stop That. Uh, as a segue in, I I I, this is a very sensitive area areas, we look at protective orders because of the, we have protective orders to protect those that are being abused. And I, I don't have words strong enough to condemn those that are acting that way. And it's, it's very important that we have a, a good robust policy here, that that does a, does much as possible to completely protect those victims. When we have a, a policy like that, it, it impacts the overall. There's, there's also when someone manipulates that or takes advantage of it or, or falsifies to get the benefit of something that, that should not be there. So, as a segue, I'd like to just state some data points each year. This from our district courts. Each year we have 6,500 plus or minus requests for a temporary protective order. Of those 6,500, the judge, as we know, is required to immediately meet, but those are meetings are ex parte and evidence presented. 4,000 are granted. So there's a, a filtering of about 2,500 within when the hearing takes place, which is 21 days after the grant, within 21 days granting, there's 1600 orders that are made, made final. Now, there's a lot of reasons for that, but a piece of that reason is that the judge doesn't find the evidence compelling enough. So that's with our adult protective orders. With child protection, the numbers are 1,960 requests, 1200 given, and 350 of those 1200 actually come into, uh, being after the 20, after the temporary, the 21 day hearing. With that, we have this, this, uh, amendment that seeks to balance in a better way, those that may not be acting in good faith. And also strengthen those that by giving, giving some strength and some relief to those where the actor makes actor that is claiming to not, uh, be acting bad faith actually is, or the, the actor that needs a restraining order in that we make attorney's fees available to be collected by the victim and the innocent, the innocent party in these circumstances. I think with that, with the additional notion that it addresses makeup parrot time for a parent that is involved in this, that probably given the time that we have, I know there's some that would like to testify on this. I'll turn it to the committee for questions.

Yeah. On Senate Bill 3 0 4? Yep. So moved.

I wanna speak to that motion. I have thoroughly reviewed both bills. Um, I really had some concerns about, um, the first bill, the original bill. Not, I don't, I don't have any concerns about Senator Stratton's motivations 'cause I know that he really wants to help. And, um, but I, I had some concerns about the language and so I want to compliment him. Um, I, I am very much more comfortable with the first sub, so I, I'll be voting in favor of that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Stuart Ralphs. I'm the Executive Director of Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake Legal Aid Society does about 40% of the protective orders filed in Salt Lake County in the third district court. Um, I want to, uh, express to the committee, first of all, um, the great working relationship, um, with Senator Stratton and the stakeholders on this bill, uh, with very little time to work on this, um, especially addressing our major concerns that were adopted in this first substitute. So I just wanna acknowledge that the numbers that, uh, Senator Stratton, uh, conveyed to you in my experience, shows that the system is working as is the court is doing its job when it hears from a petitioner and respondent whether or not to grant a protective order, uh, on an emergency basis for the ex parte protective orders or at, at the due process, hearing whether to grant an ongoing protective order. So I think the system is working. I don't think that we need to have a separate step for a respondent to file a separate motion that would then have to be heard by the, the court separately from the petitioner's underlying petition alleging falsification of material misstatement. I think that can be done in that due process hearing. I don't think there needs to be additional, an additional step. I also don't think that, I also think that putting this in code will have a chilling effect on victims coming forward. I think that the mandatory, or even the optional attorney's fees is a, will provide a chilling effect, especially the fact that this motion can be filed even 60 days after the due process hearing. Now, I understand that the argument that's being made that you may not find that it, that there was a falsified statement until after the hearing. So that, that makes some sense. Um, the one thing that I, I've already talked to Senator Stratton about is that line one of 47 where it talks about that the court could order uh, counseling for a minor child, I would just ask the, the sponsor to consider that, um, it be chosen by the respondent unless the court finds good cause to choose another therapist. There might be already, the child may be in therapy. The, the, the, there might be a final decision maker in the divorce or the custody case. So I think the court needs to take that into consideration. The preference should be given to the, the party who prevails on a motion, if that's what the body accepts. Thank you. Thank You.

Next, Marise Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. Um, I, first of all, I want to thank Senator Stratton. I didn't have a chance to talk to him until just before this hearing, and then I had to leave quickly to speak to another bill. Um, but he was very gracious in carving out some time for me to do that. Um, the Victim Services Commission is opposed to this bill for all the reasons, which I will not repeat for in the interest of brevity, um, that Stuart Ralphs, Mr. Ralphs has indicated. Um, our primary concern of those reasons is that frequently in situations where there is abuse and a protective order at ex parte level has been granted and then goes to an evidentiary hearing, and then the evidentiary hearing is ruled in a way that allows that protective order to be granted on a more permanent basis for the victim, then this additional step, again, is afforded to them to come back another 60 days later. In other words, it allows another opportunity for the court system, which in, in all the good intents of Senator, um, Stratton, which I appreciate, can then be turned and weaponized against a victim and put through. Um, there, there is the relief of attorney's fees, but that that is small compared to the emotional distress and turmoil that that causes for victims of domestic violence that have already gone through a process that is created to vet out, uh, bad actors and, and these types of situations. So we are opposed to it, uh, but we look forward to continuing to talk with Senator Stratton, and hopefully we can come to a better place. Thank you.

I thank you for, um, allowing me to briefly address the committee in opposition of this bill in its current form. Um, my name is Leah Moses. I'm a protective parent and a longtime family court patron, a former recipient of temporary protective orders. And I was never able to secure a permanent, uh, protective order despite evidence of domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse, uh, by my children's father, who was ultimately able to maintain so much access to my children that he eventually murdered our teenage son. Um, oh, it took immense courage for me to seek a protective order while living under my abuser's, uh, relentless threats that if I ever revealed the abuse, he would claim that I was falsifying those, um, allegations, and he would seek sanctions against me and take the children, which he was able to do several times. He appeared very professional and persuasive and could afford strong legal representation. I was low resource, often self-represented, afraid, and ultimately unable to, again, obtain that permanent protection. So sadly, courts can get these cases wrong due to many confounding factors, as it was in my case, and I'm not alone. Even as evidence continued to emerge, supporting the abuse denials of my earlier petitions were used against me in court proceedings, um, at extraordinary financial and emotional cost. Although my children disclosed their abuse, instead of prioritizing their safety, the court did order makeup parent time for their father while he was under, um, because of the time that he lost while under investigation for child maltreatment and child sexual abuse, uh, which later was, um, determined to be accurate and true. In reviewing the contents of this bill, and with many other protected parents with many other protected parents and survivors of abuse, we concur that not only would it in its current form embolden abusers to use current language to burden survivors emotionally and financially, greatly discouraged victims who should be seeking protective orders from doing so and possibly discourage children as it did from my own, from believing that systems will prioritize their rights, um, or prioritize the rights of an aggressive abuser or even a vexatious litigant over child safety and child best interest, and use that cost shift leverage of make up parent time. So, in short, we know that the court is already allowed to and has mechanisms in place to oppose sanctions for falsifying information. National studies show very low numbers of falsified abuse allegations, especially by protective parents who are victims of domestic violence. And I ask that we don't allow this bill to move forward in its current form. And we do have understanding as, as, um, that the sponsor is sensibly aware of survivor's desires to find and support better solutions at least, and especially by removing that make a parent time portion.

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Aaron Jemison, director of Public Policy at the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition. I wanna, uh, I won't repeat some of the comments from Mr. Ralphs, but also wanna express our appreciation to the sponsor for, uh, meeting with us and hearing our concerns. Our committee of victim advocates and survivors have not yet had a chance to vote, um, about the substitute bill. I I really do appreciate how much better that version is. Um, it did address a lot of our major concerns, but I think at the end of the day, um, the premise that there are enough of knowingly falsified documents when it comes to protective orders, that we need an additional process, as you've heard some from some of the other witnesses, is just not something that in representing my community and the folks that I'm here to represent, that they can get behind. They feel that the remedies already exist. I think, uh, we acknowledge that of course, there are times that people lie to get protective orders. I wish that we had some kind of hard data that we could look at that for. I also acknowledge that it hurts everyone. It hurts, um, legitimate victims who need protective orders when there are people who are misusing the system. As I, uh, conveyed to Senator Stratton, I, we've been wrestling with that issue and that concern for years. I wish I had the magic answer, uh, to address that because I do think it hurts the whole system, and I wish we understood how often it was happening. But from the folks that I represent, um, they see the exact opposite. The ways that they, the folks who need protecting are still not able to get that protection when they need it. So, um, at this point, we can't support the bill, but again, really appreciate the efforts to make it significantly better with the first sub. Thank you.

Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kim Boyce. I am a firsthand witness to a concerning legal strategy, often referred to as the silver strategy, where upon the advice of an attorney, one spouse files fictitious abuse allegations at the start of a divorce case to gain immediate legal advantage. The accused parent is removed from the home without notice, before any meaningful hearing and without evidence being tested because of those false claims, the additional financial costs to this individual exceeded $25,000, but the emotional damage was lasting for him and his children. It was later discovered that the written notes indicated her attorney was advising her to use these tactics and make false statements of abuse. If attorneys are facilitating or encouraging false allegations to gain an advantage, that conduct must be addressed. Attorneys and clients who participate in this activity should face meaningful sanctions. Protective orders are essential for true victims, but when they're used as litigation weapons rather than shields for safety, families are harmed and due process suffers. When you sign a petition, it says, I swear that I understand it is a serious crime to lie, to get a protective order. If I lie, I can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. I just say SB 3 0 4 is an opportunity to protect real victims while strengthening fairness, accountability, and integrity to our system. Thank you for your time. Thank

My name is Danny Bordeaux. I'm an attorney who specializes in family law policy, and I have been studying this particular area of the law for over 16 years. And my, um, we brought a bill very similar to this, uh, 10 years ago, and we just ran out of time during the session to get it passed. And so this bill has been, um, has addressed, um, many of the concerns of those who are in opposition to it still. What I have seen in my experience and with talking with a lot of clients is that our current system does not address and does not have a, a, an effective mechanism for fighting false child abuse charges. I feel that this bill is very fair in that they would only be able to bring a motion within 60 days of that hearing when they can show that the other party knowingly falsified the information. That's a pretty high standard to say that they knowingly falsified that, whereas the standard for is issue in a civil protective order is only the preponderance of the evidence. And so we feel that though no system is perfect, there needs to be a remedy for those who false child abuse charges are brought, or, or abuse charges are brought against. Um, this oftentimes changes custody in cases. It oftentimes, um, causes other financial havoc in a person's life and all kinds of other things where they currently have no remedies. It is against the law, but the word on the street. And, and no one has ever seen it actually, um, enforced because prosecutors, that's not their priority. And, and so we feel that this bill provides a civil remedy that is doable and fair. Thank you. Thank

Thank you, uh, chair and Senator Pon, uh, Senator Stratton for sponsoring this. Um, my name is Mark Stewart Allen. I'm a state and county delegate, and I'm speaking today in support of Senate Bill 3 0 4. I'm a survivor of wrongful accusations and, uh, weaponized lawfare, uh, our creator included. You shall not bear false witness among the top 10 commandments because truth is the foundation of justice when truth is distorted, whether through false allegations, selective disclosure, or withholding material evidence, real lives are changed. Protective orders and temporary parte injunctions are necessary. They protect people in genuine danger. And I'm aware of any people go through painful divorce and custody proceedings where these are critical. My comments today are broader than that scope. This is not about attacking victims or minimizing legal claims when an ex parte issue can be issued without the other party present. The system depends entirely on honesty and full candor. Temporary accusations can create lasting harm to employment parent any time, and to reputation. In my own experience, it took nine years to, for me to obtain the exculpatory and, and inculpatory evidence for manner spanning Utah County Attorney's Office and, uh, Derek Brown's office of the state. Ag, uh, evidence in my view, should have been accessible much earlier. The prolonged effort has resulted in what has been retaliation. Regardless about my case, no citizen should have to wait 10 years to access material evidence. SB 3 0 4 strengths account strengthens accountability when material statements are knowingly falsified. Ex parte petition should include a clear statement made under penalty of perjury. I never had an e evidentiary hearing and police officers mistook a ex parte temporary for a protective order. The law must shield those in danger, but must never become a weapon through false hitter suppression of truth. Uh, safeguards do not weaken protections. They preserve trust. We need trust. We've got, um, we got some transparency problems. I urge your support for Senate Bill 3 0 4. Thank you.

Alright, thank you very much. I'll be brief. My name is Seth Stewart, representing myself from American Fork. Um, as, as part of this bill, I looked up the history of protective orders and they're, they're not really original to the United States founding ethic as a civil remedy. And I think maybe one of the greatest weaknesses we're discovering here is that there's, there's a weakness in fact finding. It's, it's, it's the initial fact finding to issue, uh, one of these restraining orders, et cetera, was, uh, inadequate. And so where there's a need to revisit that decision later on, and I, I really don't see a need to exhaust remedies that were or to, to make unavailable remedies that were available previously. But that's kind of the effect that you have whenever you have a new system that comes along and displaces one that was previously available. And so, uh, for example, just the, the very fact that a jury trial is unavailable to, uh, to assess facts in these issues in family court cases generally, uh, I think that is a structural limitation that is, that has, uh, clearly and evidently resulted in this situation where, where the fact finding status is just not adequate because you're, uh, again, because of that ex parte nature and those allegations are not adequately vetted. And yet people are being deprived of their liberty, their freedom of association, their, uh, freedom to abide in their own homes, and in some instances, uh, just because of an allegation that was made against them without adequate substantiation. So I would, I would urge us to look at what are the founding mechanisms that afforded relief in those cases. There are emergency, uh, helps available, uh, asurity bond, et cetera, for an allegation of an actual crime based on probable cause. Uh, I would urge us to resort to that kind of assist system and have our fact finding done by juries. Thank you.

Yeah. I, I apologize. My computer. 3 0 4. 3 0 4, uh, I move that we favorly recommend it's first substitute 3 0 4, right?

Thank you. I, I think it's important. Uh, I think we have agreement on a few things. I think we can all agree that by and large this process is working. I think we can all agree that there is abuse in the system as well, that we do have some bad actors. I would hope that we can all agree while there is effective measure, uh, you know, there's, there's remedies, but they're not effective. They're not being used properly, and they're, it's, we don't have anything, from my perspective, we may not agree that, that there's, uh, that there, there is a need to give the court some levers that can be pulled without a prosecutor getting involved. And I also think we can all agree how important it is to protect those that are truly in need of the protective orders. That's my goal, and that's my effort to not have that whole system compromise because of the bad players. And, uh, I would hope that we can continue this discussion and, and move this forward. And my commitment is continue to work with the Great Brain Trust that we've heard from today. Thank you.

Um, I'm going to ask Senator Musselman to, uh, chair while I present my bills, and then we'll go to, I'm gonna be brief and then we'll go to Senator Pitcher after, 'cause I have to go to another committee.

Would it be okay if we do the, um,

Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, what we're doing here is for several years we've, we have, uh, some ch some, some challenges in our protective order process that from time to time there can be abuse. Generally, the, the, the process is working very well. We have, uh, over the course of, uh, a year, we have 6,500 protective orders issued that number once a, excuse me, 6,500 orders requested. When you have a protective order, because of the urgency of the situation, there's a hearing that needs to take place. Ex uh, it's an ex parte hearing. In other words, the, the person that's seeking it presents evidence and the judge determines whether they're gonna grant it or not. 2,500 of those 6,500, uh, don't get granted at that point. And then within 21 days after the temporary restraining order is issued, there needs to be another hearing and we go from 4,000 to 1600. Now, part of what's taking place in this space is we really need to protect those that are vulnerable and in need. And that, that's, we all agree with that, but it does give, in some circumstances, there's some vulnerability for, for abuse of the system that just drags the whole system down across the board. And with that in mind, what the bill does very surgically allows the court, uh, to provide that a party may file a motion alleging another party knowingly falsified certain information for the purpose of obtaining a protective order. Also allows the court to sanction a party after determining whether a party knowingly falsified and addresses some makeup parent time when a parent has been dis denied parent time due to the falsification. So why is this important when we have abuse of the system and it's a small percentage, granted, it drags down the whole system and you have some undesirable outcomes in this space. Uh, we worked with the stakeholders. Uh, the bill is in a good place to move forward. Uh, I think it's very important that we, it's very surgically and carefully move forward, but we need to show that from the legislatives perspective, that we're, we're intending to move this ball and have some, some very intentional corrections that still protect those are need, but prevents the abuse of the system and, uh, ongoing challenges. And with that, Mr. President, I do have a floor amendment I'd like to make on line 2 72. This bill takes effect on May 6th, 2026. I'd like to change the six there to seven. That'll give us time to continue to work on this, showing the legislatives intent to address a concern for further address and I that'll be appreciated by those. Senator,

Will you gimme that line again?

Line 2 72. Line two 70. Yes. Striking the, it's, it reads May 6th, 2026 and it, you want it to read May 6th, 2027, seven. Yes. Replace the sixth with the seventh. Okay.

I'm fine. I just wanted to clarify. It's, there's two sixes in that line. So it is 2027.

Thank you. May 6th, 2027. Correct. Thank You. It's a second six to the seven. Thank you.

Thank you With that, Mr. President, I think the bill is in a, is a, in a really good place to move forward, do the course correction very intentionally and surgically and working with all the stakeholders to see that that's accomplished. And I will for questions. Thank

Thank you. I, I rise in support of the bill. I, I had some concerns with the original draft, but um, the sponsor was good enough to listen to a lot of stakeholders and has made some great changes. I think this, uh, bill landed in a really good place, so I would encourage everyone to vote. Aye,

Motion. Thank you, Mr. President. I will, under suspension the rules move that Senate Bill 3 0 4 first substitute as amended pass.

Thank you Mr. President. Motion encircle Senate Bill 2 88 Medicaid provider amendments.

Thank you Mr. President. This, uh, this, i, I need first, if I can, to move, uh, fifth substitute, uh, to SB 2 88 and delete and body entitled s SB 2 88 with fifth substitute SB 2 88. That motion is in order. Do you wanna explain the fifth substitute? We've been working with the stakeholders and then going through our fiscal process. And this, this substitute reflects the, uh, from the best I can understand, uh, uh, a unified, uh,

Motion. Motion to substitute first substitute Senate bill 3 0 4 and title and Body with second substitute Senate Bill 3 0 4.

the substitute? I think it just Changes. Yes. What we're doing here is we're allowing, uh, an implementation, delaying the implementation to work with the stakeholders that, uh, have desired express to, to engage in the communication. See, see if we can, if there's any banking or parameters we need to add as, as we go forward with this policy. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. President. A motion to concur what we, what the amendment was is that it raised actually the level of evidence required when, uh, falsification claims are made, which is very friendly to the victim. In this case, preponderant wants for preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. With that I move, we concur.

Mr. President? The house passed as substituted and amended.

Just very quickly? There is an amendment on there that I ask that the body look at and since didn't get a committee hearing, wanna circle it?

Personal privilege please. Personal

Uh, motion to adopt, uh, house Amendment one.

Uh, yes. This just adds a higher standard of, um, of clear and convincing evidence, um, to this bill.

Thank you Mr. Speakers. So what this bill does is under sur circumstances when a protective order is filed in child, uh, uh, custody cases or in, uh, cohabitants, uh, relationships, um, and that, uh, uh, protective order is used as a method to change a, uh, parent time relationship or to, uh, remove custody, that there is an, uh, an option to file a motion, um, that would petition the court to state that if the other party had knowingly, knowingly submitted false information in order to, um, adjust that, uh, um, uh, custody, uh, situation. Um, and if the court finds it now under the amendment under a clear and convincing, uh, standard, and then there's some remedies that apply as far as attorney's fees, um, restoring, uh, and making up the, uh, parent time that was lost. And they could, uh, request from the court that the, uh, that um, uh, child uh, mental health therapy can be awarded to the parent that, um, that prevailed in that case is their choice of, uh, mental health, uh, therapists. Um, and happy to answer any questions.