Custody in Utah.

Decisions against where the child lives

Utah separates legal custody (decision-making) from physical custody (where the child stays), and the split matters more here than in most states because of Utah's 30% overnight threshold. Utah Code § 81-9-205(3) is explicit that the two are not linked: "Joint legal custody does not affect the physical custody of the minor child except as specified in the order of joint legal custody," and "[j]oint legal custody is not based on awarding equal or nearly equal periods of physical custody of and access to the minor child to each of the parents because the best interest of the minor child often requires that a primary physical residence for the minor child be designated." In a joint legal custody order the court may still "include an award of exclusive authority by the court to one parent to make specific decisions" and may "specif[y] one parent as the primary caretaker and one home as the primary residence." Section 81-9-205(4) says joint PHYSICAL custody "may result in equal or nearly equal periods" but may still require a designated residence and a designated primary caretaker.

What the judge must weigh

(1) In a proceeding between parents in which the custody and parent-time of a minor child is at issue, the court shall consider the best interests of the minor child in determining any form of custody and parent-time. (2) The court shall determine whether an order for custody or parent-time is in the best interests of the minor child by a preponderance of the evidence. (3) In determining any form of custody and parent-time under Subsection (1), the court shall consider:

1. (3)(a) for each parent, and in accordance with Section 81-9-104, evidence of domestic violence, physical abuse, or sexual abuse involving the minor child, the parent, or a household member of the parent;
2. (3)(b) whether the parent has intentionally exposed the minor child to: (i) pornography; or (ii) material harmful to minors, as "material" and "harmful to minors" are defined in Section 76-5c-101; and (c) whether custody and parent-time would endanger the minor child's health or physical or psychological safety.
3. (3)(c) whether custody and parent-time would endanger the minor child's health or physical or psychological safety.
4. (4)(a) evidence of coercive control;
5. (4)(b) evidence of psychological maltreatment;
6. (4)(c) the parent's demonstrated understanding of, responsiveness to, and ability to meet the developmental needs of the minor child, including the minor child's: (i) physical needs; (ii) emotional needs; (iii) educational needs; (iv) medical needs; and (v) any special needs;
7. (4)(d) the parent's capacity and willingness to function as a parent, including: (i) parenting skills; (ii) co-parenting skills, including: (A) ability to appropriately communicate with the other parent; (B) ability to encourage the sharing of love and affection; and (C) willingness to allow frequent and continuous contact between the minor child and the other parent, except that, if the court determines that the parent is acting to protect the minor child from domestic violence, neglect, or abuse, the parent's protective actions may be taken into consideration; and (iii) ability to provide personal care rather than surrogate care;
8. (4)(e) the past conduct and demonstrated moral character of the parent as described in Subsection (9);
9. (4)(f) the emotional stability of the parent;
10. (4)(g) the parent's inability to function as a parent because of drug abuse, excessive drinking, or other causes;
11. (4)(h) the parent's reason for having relinquished custody or parent-time in the past;
12. (4)(i) duration and depth of desire for custody or parent-time;
13. (4)(j) the parent's religious compatibility with the minor child;
14. (4)(k) the parent's financial responsibility;
15. (4)(l) the child's interaction and relationship with step-parents, extended family members, or other individuals who may significantly affect the minor child's best interests;
16. (4)(m) who has been the primary caretaker of the minor child;
17. (4)(n) previous parenting arrangements in which the minor child has been happy and well-adjusted in the home, school, and community;
18. (4)(o) the relative benefit of keeping siblings together;
19. (4)(p) the stated wishes and concerns of the minor child, taking into consideration the minor child's cognitive ability and emotional maturity;
20. (4)(q) the relative strength of the minor child's bond with the parent, meaning the depth, quality, and nature of the relationship between the parent and the minor child; and
21. (4)(r) any other factor the court finds relevant.

(4) In determining the form of custody and parent-time that is in the best interests of the minor child, the court may consider, among other factors the court finds relevant, the following for each parent: [this is the lead-in to items (4)(a)-(4)(r) above, reproduced here because the mandatory list in (3) and the discretionary list in (4) each have their own lead-in]

Recently changed. Utah moved this provision. The Domestic Relations Recodification (Laws of Utah 2024, ch. 366) created Title 81 with effect from 1 September 2024, and what was section 30-3-10 is now section 81-9-204. A second recodification pass followed in 2025. Three 2026 acts then amended the section — chapters 309, 155 and 362 — and chapter 309 added a new first discretionary factor, evidence of coercive control, which re-lettered the whole list beneath it.

What the child wants

Age fourteen is Utah's number, but it is a weighting rule, not a switch. Utah Code § 81-9-204(5)(b)(i): "The court may inquire and take into consideration the minor child's desires regarding future custody or parent-time schedules, but the expressed desires are not controlling and the court may determine the minor child's custody or parent-time otherwise." Subsection (5)(b)(ii): "The desires of a minor child who is 14 years old or older shall be given added weight, but is not the single controlling factor." Utah also protects children from being dragged into the courtroom: § 81-9-204(5)(a) provides that "[a] minor child may not be required by either party to testify unless the trier of fact determines that extenuating circumstances exist that would necessitate the testimony of the minor child be heard and there is no other reasonable method to present the minor child's testimony." If the court does interview a child under subsection (5)(b), § 81-9-204(5)(c) requires the interview to be conducted "in camera" — privately, in chambers — and the parties' prior consent "may be obtained but is not necessary."

Where there has been violence or abuse

Domestic violence is a mandatory factor and it knocks out the joint legal custody presumption. Utah Code § 81-9-204(3)(a) requires the court to consider "evidence of domestic violence, physical abuse, or sexual abuse involving the minor child, the parent, or a household member of the parent," in accordance with Utah Code § 81-9-104. Utah Code § 81-9-205(2)(a)(i) removes the joint legal custody presumption entirely where there is evidence of domestic violence, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse involving the child, a parent, or a household member. Utah Code § 81-9-204(10) then sets the frame: "The court shall consider evidence of domestic violence if evidence of domestic violence is presented"; "The court shall consider as primary, the safety and well-being of the minor child and the parent who experiences domestic violence"; and "A court shall consider an order issued [under the Cohabitant Abuse Protective Orders act] as evidence of real harm or substantiated potential harm to the minor child." If a parent relocates because of an act of domestic or family violence by the other parent, § 81-9-204(10)(d) requires the court to make specific findings and orders regarding the application of the relocation statute, § 81-9-209. Utah also recognizes two forms of harm that many states do not name: § 81-9-101(2) defines "coercive control" in detail (isolating a person from support, depriving them of basic necessities, excessively monitoring their movements or finances, threats to harm or kill, threats of self-harm to force compliance, damaging property, and compelling conduct by force or intimidation), and § 81-9-101(12) defines "psychological maltreatment." Both are listed best-interest factors in § 81-9-204(4)(a) and (b). Crucially, the co-parenting factor in § 81-9-204(4)(d)(ii)(C) expressly protects a protective parent: a refusal to allow frequent contact is not held against you "if the court determines that the parent is acting to protect the minor child from domestic violence, neglect, or abuse."

The parenting plan

Yes, and the timing is strict. Utah Code § 81-9-203(2)(a): "In a proceeding between parents regarding the custody or parent-time for a minor child, the parent shall file and serve a proposed parenting plan at the time of the filing of the parent's original petition or at the time of filing the parent's answer or counterclaim." In a modification case, the plan goes with the petition to modify or the answer or counterclaim. Section 81-9-203(2)(c): "A parent who desires joint legal custody shall file a proposed parenting plan." And § 81-9-203(3) is the sting: if you file a compliant plan and the other parent does not, "the parent may move the court for an order of default to adopt the plan." The plan must carry a verified statement that it is proposed in good faith. Utah Code § 81-9-203(10)(a) requires the plan to contain provisions for resolving future disputes, allocation of decision-making authority, and residential provisions for the child; provisions addressing notice and parent-time responsibilities if a party relocates; and a dispute-resolution process, which may be counseling, mediation or arbitration, or court action. Section 81-9-203(11)(a) requires the plan to allocate decision-making authority for education, healthcare, and religious upbringing, while § 81-9-203(11)(c) preserves either parent's right to make emergency decisions affecting health or safety. Section 81-9-205(8) requires any joint custody order to include an agreed dispute resolution procedure to be used before seeking enforcement or modification. We could not confirm the name or link of an official Utah form; the Utah Courts Online Court Assistance Program generates one, so use that or ask the clerk.

Mediation

Yes, for divorce. Utah Code § 81-4-403(1) establishes "a mandatory domestic mediation program to help reduce the time and tensions associated with obtaining a divorce." Subsection (2)(a): "If there are any remaining contested issues after the filing of a response to a petition for divorce, the parties shall participate in good faith in at least one session of mediation." The mediator must be qualified to mediate domestic disputes under Judicial Council criteria. On cost, subsection (4): "Unless otherwise ordered by the court or the parties agree upon a different payment arrangement, the cost of mediation shall be divided equally between the parties." There is no automatic domestic violence exemption, but subsection (5) provides that "[t]he director of dispute resolution programs for the courts, the court, or the mediator may excuse either party from the requirement to mediate for good cause." If there is a history of abuse, raise it with the court or the dispute resolution program before the session is scheduled. Separately, Utah Code § 81-9-203(1) allows the court in a custody or parent-time case that is not a divorce to require the mandatory educational course, and Utah Code § 81-4-402(4)(a) requires parents with a minor child in a divorce to attend the mandatory courses — the petitioner within 60 days of filing and the respondent within 30 days of being served. Section 81-4-402(6)(a) provides that except for a temporary restraining order, "a party may file, but the court may not hear, a motion for an order related to the divorce until the moving party completes the mandatory courses."

If the court appoints someone to look into it

Utah Rule of Judicial Administration 4-903, "Uniform custody evaluations," effective November 1, 2024. Its stated purpose is to give the court information for custody and parenting-time decisions, and "[u]nless otherwise specified in the order, evaluators must consider and respond to the custody factors set forth in Utah Code sections 81-9-204 and 81-9-205." On who pays, Rule 4-903(2) is unusually protective: "Custody evaluations shall be ordered only when a party requests it or when the court makes specific findings that extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant an evaluation. In either case, before appointing a custody evaluator, the court must find that the parties have a present ability to pay for the evaluation." A Utah judge cannot order an evaluation you cannot afford without first finding you can pay for it. Every motion or stipulation for an evaluation must include each nominated evaluator's name, address, and telephone number; the anticipated start and completion dates and estimated cost; any specific factors to be addressed; and each proposed evaluator's recent curriculum vitae showing they meet the rule's training requirements. Every order must require the parties to cooperate, restrict disclosure of the findings and privileged information outside the litigation, and assign responsibility for payment from the start of the evaluation through the custody evaluation conference and for the written report, subject to reallocation later.

Changing the order

Utah Code § 81-9-208 sets different bars for custody and for parent-time. Subsection (1): the court may modify "custody of a minor child if there is a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances since the entry of the order," but "parent-time for a minor child if there is a showing that there is a change in circumstances since the entry of the order." Changing the schedule is a lower bar than changing custody. There is no waiting period. Two specific triggers are worth knowing. First, subsection (2) makes it a substantial and material change if the other parent resides with, or gives the child access to, someone the parent knows is a registered sex, kidnap, or child abuse offender, or has been convicted of listed offenses including child abuse, child abandonment, child torture, committing domestic violence in the presence of a child, or sexual or kidnapping offenses against a victim under 18. Second, and this one is new: subsection (3) provides that for a custody order entered on or after May 6, 2026, "a minor child turning five years old constitutes a substantial and material change in circumstances," and the same for parent-time orders, "unless the order addresses custody of the minor child upon the minor child turning five years old." To modify a joint legal or joint physical custody order, § 81-9-208(4) additionally requires that a modification "would be an improvement for and in the best interest of the minor child," and that both parents have complied in good faith with the dispute resolution procedure in the order, or that the court orders them to participate in one.