Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill extending civil protective orders to victims of dating violence
Summary
The Utah House passed House Bill 28 to allow victims of dating violence access to civil protective orders even when the parties do not meet the statutory "cohabitant" definition; the measure includes a 180‑day default expiration and carries a fiscal note estimated at $121,000 for courts and child and family services.
The Utah House on Wednesday approved House Bill 28, directing courts to provide civil protective orders to people who experience dating violence even if they do not meet the current statutory definition of a "cohabitant." Sponsor Representative David Litvak told colleagues the proposal narrows eligibility to situations involving physical violence or an imminent threat and sets a default 180‑day expiration unless a judge finds reasons to extend it.
Supporters said the bill fills a gap that leaves some victims without civil remedies. Representative Mark White, a former county attorney, urged colleagues to support the measure as a fairness issue: "It is a shame and unfairness that a young woman who chooses to date a man and not live with her doesn't get the benefits of the protective order," he said. Representative Litvak said the change is civil, not criminal, and that a violation of the order would be treated as a misdemeanor only if violated.
Members asked about costs and safeguards. Representative Art Bigelow raised the fiscal note of $121,000 and asked how the money would be spent; Litvak explained the estimate is split between the Division of Child and Family Services (about $23,000 for outreach and overtime) and court costs ($98,200), which the courts estimated based on a projected 7.5 percent caseload increase. Bigelow and others warned the bill could be misused as a "tool of aggression" and pressed for education and safeguards on frivolous filings.
Lawmakers also sought clarity about the bill's civil nature. Representative Winder asked whether protection here would create mandatory arrest or other criminal consequences; Litvak replied the statute is civil and only becomes criminal if the protective order is violated or if a filer makes a knowingly false claim (which the sponsor said carries a separate felony penalty). Litvak said the application form includes a warning about penalties for false filings so filers understand the seriousness of the process.
The House limited further debate by a two‑thirds vote and then approved House Bill 28 by voice and recorded tally: "House Bill 28, having received 70 yes votes, 2 no votes, passes this body, will be referred to the senate for further consideration." The sponsor said he will continue to press for funding and work with victim advocates and law enforcement to implement education and support measures, including an awareness video produced by the Sandy Police Department that he cited as a helpful resource.
The bill now moves to the Utah Senate for consideration.
