Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House defeats bill aiming to penalize 'without merit' allegations in divorce proceedings
Summary
First substitute HB285, which would have allowed courts to award fees and modify custody after allegations found 'without merit', failed on a 28–38 recorded vote after floor debate about the phrase 'without merit' and risks to mandatory reporters and children.
The Utah House debated and then rejected first substitute House Bill 285, a family-law measure that would have created remedies for parties found to have made allegations of child abuse, neglect or spouse abuse 'without merit.'
Sponsor Representative (name provided in transcript as the bill sponsor) described the bill as designed to deter false allegations that use children as leverage in custody disputes and to allow prevailing parties to recover court costs and attorney fees. The bill also included language enabling courts to consider interference with visitation as a substantial change of circumstances when modifying custody or support.
Floor debate focused on two central concerns. Several representatives warned that the term 'without merit'—the definition proposed by the Division of Child and Family Services and referenced in the bill—was not well understood and could chill mandatory reporters or expose people who reasonably reported suspected abuse to financial liability. Other members argued the bill could make children 'collateral' in custody disputes by incentivizing false-allegation claims.
An amendment proposed to add 'parental alienation' as a ground was debated at length and defeated after members called the concept vague, insufficiently established in law, and in some courts discredited. Opponents said codifying parental alienation risked creating inconsistent family-law standards.
The House recorded a roll-call of 28 yes and 38 no on the first substitute; the bill was defeated and will be filed. Sponsors and opponents agreed the language required clearer safeguards for reporters and clearer statutory definitions before similar remedies could be safely enacted.
