Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House restores preponderance standard for permanent protective orders, approves SB 208
Summary
After hours of debate over access to protection and potential abuses, the Utah House adopted an amendment replacing a corroboration requirement with a preponderance-of-evidence standard for permanent protective orders and passed first substitute Senate Bill 208 38-31. Supporters said the change safeguards victims; opponents warned of potential misuse and fiscal impacts.
The Utah House on March 2 adopted an amendment and passed first substitute Senate Bill 208, altering evidence rules for protective orders in domestic-abuse cases.
Representative Goodfellow introduced the amendment, saying it would delete a corroboration requirement in permanent protective orders and restore a "preponderance of evidence" standard. "A preponderance of evidence is not just hearsay," Goodfellow said during debate, adding it must be "credible" and "convincing." He argued the change preserves victims' access to court protection while preventing permanent orders from being effectively impossible to obtain.
Supporters — including Representatives Cox and Dilley and advocacy groups named during debate — said the amendment prevents an overly strict standard that could deny protection to people with legitimate claims. Representative Cox urged colleagues to back the amendment, noting that temporary protective orders would still be subject to a raised standard and that the aim is to avoid shutting victims out of permanent relief.
Opponents pressed on possible abuses and process implications. Representative Vania (responding for the Senate sponsor) said the Senate sponsor had asked members to "resist any amendments" that would raise standards too high. Representative Barca, who declared a conflict because she works with victims, warned the amendment would place additional financial and procedural burdens on victims and local agencies: "This puts the victim in a position where she will not be able to defend herself," she said.
The debate also touched on an estimate cited in media coverage that "as many as 30%" of temporary orders were "not necessary," which members traced to a State Bar family-law polling of roughly 40 attorneys; members requested the poll be shared with the House.
Following discussion and a voice-count series of procedural steps, the House adopted Goodfellow's amendment and then voted on SB 208. The bill passed the House 38 yes to 31 no and was referred back to the Senate for further action.
Supporters said the amendment balances access to protection against procedural fairness; critics said it risks creating new barriers for victims or added burdens on local court resources. The House record shows the motion to adopt the amendment and the final passage were entered into the Journal and the bill was transmitted back to the Senate.
