Utah House Bill 303 formally defines "coercive control" under Utah Code § 81-9-101 and adds it as a factor courts may consider in custody and parent-time decisions. The bill passed the Utah House 68-1-6 and the Senate 25-0-4, with most provisions taking effect May 6, 2026. For Utah parents navigating divorce or custody disputes, HB 303 creates new legal tools to address patterns of manipulation that fall short of physical violence but cause real harm.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Utah Legislature passed HB 303, formally defining coercive control and adding it to custody and parent-time factors |
| When | Passed House Feb. 19, 2026 (68-1-6); passed Senate Mar. 5, 2026 (25-0-4); most provisions effective May 6, 2026 |
| Who sponsored it | Rep. Paul A. Cutler (R-Davis County) and Sen. Michael K. McKell (R-Spanish Fork) |
| Key statutes amended | Utah Code §§ 81-9-101, 81-9-204, 81-9-206, 81-9-104, 81-1-203 |
| New sections enacted | §§ 81-9-501 through 81-9-504 (Custody Evaluation framework) |
| Who is affected | Any Utah parent involved in custody or parent-time proceedings where patterns of controlling behavior are alleged |
Why This Matters Legally
HB 303 closes a gap that has frustrated Utah family courts for years. Before this bill, a parent experiencing financial manipulation, surveillance, isolation from family, or threats of self-harm had limited statutory language to bring those behaviors before a judge in custody proceedings. Physical domestic violence was covered under Utah Code § 77-36-1 and the protective order framework in Title 78B, Chapter 7, but non-physical patterns of control occupied a gray area.
The bill defines coercive control as "an individual's pattern of behavior that, intentionally or in effect, unreasonably interferes with another individual's ability to make or act on independent decisions." That language is significant because it covers conduct that produces a controlling effect even when the person did not specifically intend to dominate their partner. Courts will look at the pattern and its impact, not just the intent behind individual acts.
HB 303 builds directly on Om's Law (HB 272, 2024), which required judges to prioritize child safety in custody cases involving domestic violence. Both bills share the same co-sponsors, and legislative testimony framed HB 303 as "continuing the work" of that earlier reform.
How Utah Law Handles This
Under the amended § 81-9-204(4)(a), evidence of coercive control is now the first listed discretionary factor a court may consider when determining custody and parent-time in the best interests of the child. The same language appears in § 81-9-206(4)(a) for parent-time schedules. Courts are not required to find coercive control dispositive, but placing it first in the statutory list signals legislative priority.
The bill enumerates 9 specific behaviors that constitute coercive control:
- Isolating someone from friends, relatives, or support systems
- Depriving someone of basic necessities
- Controlling, regulating, or excessively monitoring movements, communications, or daily behavior
- Controlling, regulating, or limiting access to finances or economic resources
- Threatening to harm or kill the other person, their relatives, or household pets
- Threatening self-harm if the other person does not comply with demands
- Threatening to publish information to harass or intimidate
- Damaging property or household goods
- Compelling or restricting conduct by force, threat, or intimidation
The statute includes a carve-out: "reasonable and appropriate parental conduct undertaken in the care of a minor child" does not constitute coercive control. Setting a curfew for your teenager or limiting screen time will not trigger this provision.
Custody Evaluation Overhaul
HB 303 also creates an entirely new Part 5 under Chapter 9 of Title 81, establishing formal qualifications and procedures for custody evaluators. Under § 81-9-502, evaluators must hold a license as a clinical social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, marriage and family therapist, or clinical mental health counselor, and must complete 18 hours of specialized training on child development, family dynamics, and the effects of domestic violence and abuse.
Custody evaluator findings are advisory only with no presumption in their favor under § 81-9-504. Either party may request removal of an evaluator for bias, conflict of interest, or misconduct. This is a meaningful safeguard: it prevents an evaluator's conclusions from becoming a rubber stamp on the final custody order.
The bill also addresses court-ordered mental health treatment under § 81-9-104. Parents must mutually agree on a licensed mental health professional; if they cannot agree, each submits a list of 3 professionals and the court selects from those lists. The treating professional may not serve in any other capacity in the custody case, preventing dual-role conflicts.
Practical Takeaways
-
Document patterns, not isolated incidents. Coercive control under § 81-9-101 requires a "pattern of behavior," so a single controlling text message will not meet the statutory threshold. Keep a dated log of controlling behaviors over time, including screenshots, financial records, and witness accounts.
-
Understand what the carve-out protects. Normal parenting decisions like grounding a child, setting rules about social media, or managing a child's schedule are explicitly excluded from the coercive control definition. The statute targets conduct directed at the other parent, not ordinary child-rearing.
-
Expect custody evaluations to become more rigorous. The new 18-hour training requirement and formal qualification standards under § 81-9-502 mean evaluators will be better equipped to identify coercive control patterns. If you are selecting an evaluator, confirm they have completed the required training.
-
Know the timeline. The coercive control definition and its addition to custody and parent-time factors take effect upon the governor's approval, potentially before May 6, 2026. The custody evaluation framework and mental health treatment provisions take effect May 6, 2026. Cases filed before the effective date may not benefit from these provisions.
-
Talk to your attorney about existing protective order options. If you are experiencing coercive control right now, Utah's existing protective order framework under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 6 remains available and does not require waiting for HB 303 to take effect.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does HB 303 make coercive control a crime in Utah?
No. HB 303 is a civil family law provision, not a criminal statute. It adds coercive control as a discretionary factor under § 81-9-204 and § 81-9-206 for custody and parent-time decisions. A finding of coercive control can affect custody outcomes but does not result in criminal charges or a criminal record.
When does the coercive control definition take effect?
The definition under § 81-9-101 and the custody/parent-time factor amendments take effect upon the governor's approval, potentially before May 6, 2026. The custody evaluation framework (§§ 81-9-501 through 81-9-504) and mental health treatment provisions take effect on May 6, 2026.
Can normal parenting decisions be called coercive control?
No. The statute explicitly excludes "reasonable and appropriate parental conduct undertaken in the care of a minor child" from the definition of coercive control. Setting household rules, managing a child's schedule, or enforcing age-appropriate boundaries will not meet the statutory standard.
How do I prove coercive control in a Utah custody case?
You will need evidence of a pattern of behavior, not just a single incident. Courts will look for documented examples of the 9 enumerated behaviors in § 81-9-101(2), such as financial control, isolation, surveillance, or threats. Bank records, text messages, emails, witness statements, and therapist records can all serve as evidence.
Does HB 303 guarantee a change in custody if coercive control is found?
No. Coercive control is one of several discretionary factors under § 81-9-204. Utah courts weigh all relevant factors in determining the best interests of the child. A finding of coercive control strengthens a case for modifying custody or parent-time but does not automatically change the outcome.
Utah residents facing custody disputes involving controlling behavior should speak with a family law attorney who understands the new HB 303 provisions. Find an exclusive divorce attorney in your Utah county through our directory.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.