Senate advances bill lowering age for added weight of child custody preference to 14 after heated floor debate

Senate Bill 18, a measure that would allow judges to give added weight to the expressed custody preferences of 14‑ and 15‑year‑olds, was the subject of an extended floor debate before the Utah Senate advanced the measure for further consideration.

Sponsor Senator Robles said the proposal does not make a child's preference the controlling factor in custody proceedings but gives judges an additional tool to take a child’s wishes into account in chambers when appropriate. "This is just a way of letting them know that their voices are being heard," Robles said during floor remarks.

Opponents argued the bill risks creating unrealistic expectations that a 14‑year‑old can choose where to live. "I stand in opposition to this bill," Senator Hilliard said, urging caution. Hilliard warned it could place "tremendous pressure" on young teens, increase opportunities for parental coercion, and create a public perception that the statute allows children to pick a parent rather than leaving final decisions with judges.

Supporters replied that the bill merely formalizes discretion judges already exercise and can provide a lower‑cost alternative to expensive custody evaluations. Senator Madsen, who has overseen interim committee hearings on the issue, said the measure allows judges to privately question a young person in chambers and assess whether the child is being manipulated — a step he described as preserving judicial discretion rather than handing control to the child.

Senator Weiler noted recent courtroom experiences in which young people were already expressing preferences and argued the bill would simply acknowledge reality and add deference at an earlier age for some children.

After debate and explanations of intent, the Senate held a roll call. The clerk announced that SB 18 had received 21 yay votes, 5 nay votes and 3 absences; the bill was read for a third time (next procedural step: third read and final passage vote would follow under the Rules and calendar procedures in effect).

The exchanges during debate repeatedly stressed that the bill does not bind judges to a child’s preference but adjusts how much weight may be given to that preference. Several senators asked for clarifying language and emphasized the role of guardians ad litem, custody evaluators, and judges’ discretion in determining the child’s best interest.

The Senate record shows the measure advanced on the floor with clear majority support but with substantive dissent from several members.

The next procedural step for SB 18 is the chamber’s third‑reading consideration; the transcript shows senators indicating they expect additional debate and the final recorded vote to occur under the usual calendar rules.