Utah House passes dating-violence protective-order bill after heated debate, 61–11

The Utah House on Feb. 14–15 passed H.B. 50, a bill establishing a distinct dating‑violence protective order process, including procedures to set hearings within 20 days, a 180‑day protective order duration, and heightened evidentiary language tied to firearm restrictions. The House passed the bill 61–11.

Sponsor Representative Selig framed the measure as filling a gap in the law for non‑cohabiting adults who experience threats or violence in dating relationships, telling colleagues that "15 people have died in Utah in 2011 due to dating violence," and urging the chamber to provide a narrowly tailored remedy.

Floor debate focused on several contested issues: whether the bill creates a new protected class or otherwise implicates marriage policy; the proper definition of "dating" (including whether the statutory definition should say dating involves "romance or intimacy as a goal"); due-process protections tied to ex parte temporary relief; the scope and duration of the proposed remedy; remedies for respondents falsely accused (attorney's fees, expungement) and constitutional concerns flagged by legislative counsel.

Representative Christiansen and other members offered substitute amendment language intended to narrow or clarify aspects of the bill (including adding attorney‑fee and expungement protections and clarifying evidentiary thresholds); one substitute (amendment 5) failed on the floor but amendment 4 (which clarifies that the bill "is not related to marriage," narrows cohabitation coverage and raises evidence standards to "clear and convincing" for firearm restrictions) was adopted.

Opponents warned that the bill risks infringing due process and asked whether judges will be asked to make determinations about romantic relationships. Representative Nelson said existing remedies (criminal charges, arrests, civil remedies) already address many violent situations and raised concerns about creating ex parte orders lasting 180 days without fuller procedural protections.

Sponsor and supporters emphasized the bill had been vetted in multiple committees (criminal-justice, judiciary) and had broad law-enforcement and advocacy endorsements; they argued a narrowly drawn remedy would protect vulnerable adults while including safeguards against abuse of the process.

After debate and floor amendment votes (amendment 5 failed; amendment 4 passed), the House approved H.B. 50, which will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.