Utah House approves bill to enforce court-ordered parenting time, sends substitute House Bill 10 to Senate

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives on Feb. 26 approved substitute House Bill 10, a measure creating a structured enforcement regime for court-ordered parenting time when a court finds "substantial noncompliance," and sent the bill to the Senate by a vote of 38-32.

Representative Brent Farrin, sponsor of the substitute, told the House the bill’s core enforcement provisions are on page 9 and listed the remedies a court "must" order after an initial finding of substantial noncompliance: prevailing-party costs and attorneys’ fees; makeup parent time; a minimum of 10 hours of compensatory service; and a permanent injunction against the noncompliant party. "When a court finds an initial finding of substantial non compliance, there are 4 items that the court must do or shall order," Farrin said during his floor presentation.

The bill also lists additional remedies a court may impose on subsequent findings of noncompliance, including increased compensatory service, makeup time at twice the amount wrongfully denied, temporary or permanent custody changes if in the child’s best interest, and other sanctions. Farrin acknowledged concerns about possible jail time as an enforcement tool but said sentencing choices remain for the court to decide in individual cases.

Opponents raised procedural and constitutional cautions during floor debate. Representative McGee argued the House should be wary of embedding detailed procedural rules in statute rather than leaving issues to courts and professionals. "I rise to express my concern about putting this kind of definition in detail in public policy," McGee said, questioning whether the change would help high-conflict cases or simply add stress and litigation.

Debate also touched on language and scope of factors courts may consider when determining custody. Sponsors said the bill largely codifies existing court practice and case law; Farrin cited the Utah Supreme Court’s approach in Pusey v. Pusey (1986) in arguing the measure aligns statute with practice.

The House adopted several floor amendments during debate to narrow and clarify the bill’s language before the final vote. After a motion for previous question cut off further debate, the House recorded 38 yes votes and 32 no votes; the clerk announced that substitute House Bill 10 "passes this body and will be referred to the Senate for further consideration."

The bill would take effect under whatever schedule the enacted statute specifies; final enactment will depend on the Senate’s consideration and any subsequent concurrence or conference actions.

The House also discussed other family-law measures and committee reports during the same session; substitute House Bill 10 was the most consequential vote recorded during the morning proceedings.