Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders Pets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects bill to allow temporary pet removal in protective orders after floor debate
Summary
On Feb. 23, 2007, the Utah Senate defeated House Bill 342 (protective‑order revisions) after floor debate about law‑enforcement responsibilities and evidentiary basis for adding pets to ex parte protective orders; the measure failed 11‑15 and will be filed.
House Bill 342, a sponsor‑led proposal to permit temporary (ex parte) court orders addressing custody or removal of pets in domestic‑violence situations, failed final passage in the Utah Senate on Feb. 23, 2007, after an extended floor debate.
Sponsor Senator Knudson said the bill responds to control tactics in abusive relationships and is intended to help victims leave dangerous homes. “The bill is designed to protect people from abusive partners,” Knudson said, describing the measure as aimed at helping victims who might not leave while their pets remain in the home.
Opponents raised concerns about shifting discretionary burdens to law enforcement and the lack of empirical evidence on how often victims stay because of pets. Senator Griner urged the body to vote against the bill, saying, “You're asking law enforcement to put themselves in a civil situation and make a determination based on possession of a pet,” and noting she had not seen the requested study showing victims remain because of pets. Senator Romero acknowledged the bill created an ex parte mechanism (temporary relief before a full hearing) but said in her district judges review applications and could deny pet removal when inappropriate; she expressed support for the measure as providing short‑term relief in some cases.
Senator Bramble, speaking in opposition, questioned elevating pets to a protective‑order level and said he considered it “bad policy.” After debate, the Senate recorded 11 yes votes and 15 nay votes, with 3 senators absent; the bill therefore failed and will be filed.
Why it mattered: The bill touched on the intersection of domestic‑violence protections and animal custody. Sponsors argued an ex parte option could remove a barrier that keeps victims from leaving; opponents warned it would place judgment calls on police and courts without sufficient supporting study.
What’s next: With the bill defeated on final passage, no statutory change was enacted. Sponsors or advocates could seek to reintroduce adjusted language or submit studies to the Judiciary Committee for future consideration.
