Utah HB 303 unanimously passed the House on February 12, 2026, making coercive control the top judicial consideration in child custody cases. The bill defines nine specific behaviors—including isolation, financial control, and psychological manipulation—that courts must now prioritize when determining parenting arrangements under Utah Code § 30-3-10. This follows Utah's 2024 Om's Law and mirrors similar reforms in California and Hawaii.
Key Facts
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| What happened | HB 303 unanimously passed first and second House readings |
| When | February 12, 2026 |
| Sponsors | Rep. Paul Cutler (R-Davis County) and Sen. Mike McKell |
| Key change | Coercive control placed atop judicial custody considerations |
| Behaviors defined | 9 specific categories of coercive conduct |
| Prior law | Builds on Om's Law (HB 272, signed March 20, 2024) |
| Comparison states | California (2020), Hawaii (2020) |
Why This Matters Legally
HB 303 fundamentally shifts how Utah family courts evaluate custody disputes by elevating psychological abuse patterns to the same legal weight as physical violence. Under the current Utah Code § 30-3-10, courts consider domestic violence as one factor among many when determining custody. HB 303 moves coercive control to the top of that analysis.
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." This language mirrors definitions already codified in California Family Code § 6320 (effective September 2020) and Hawaii Revised Statutes § 586-1.
The nine enumerated behaviors Utah courts must now evaluate include:
- Isolating someone from friends, relatives, or support sources
- Depriving basic necessities
- Monitoring or controlling movements, communications, or daily behavior
- Limiting access to finances or economic resources
- Threatening harm to the person, relatives, or pets
- Using self-harm threats as coercion
- Threatening to publish information to harass or intimidate
- Damaging property
- Compelling abstention from lawful conduct through force or intimidation
The bill explicitly carves out "reasonable and appropriate parental conduct" to prevent everyday parenting decisions from being weaponized.
How Utah Law Handles This Now
HB 303 builds directly on Om's Law (HB 272), which Governor Cox signed on March 20, 2024. That law mandated judges prioritize child safety in custody decisions and required consideration of domestic violence evidence. HB 303 takes the next logical step by defining what non-physical abuse looks like.
Under current Utah Code § 30-3-10, custody factors include evidence of domestic violence, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse. However, the statute provides limited guidance on what constitutes "emotional abuse." HB 303 fills that gap by giving courts a specific framework for evaluating psychological control patterns.
The legislation also addresses court-ordered mental health treatment in custody cases and adds new language on custody evaluation standards—continuing reforms that began with Om's Law's restrictions on reunification therapy. Rep. Cutler stated the bill "continues the work" initiated by the 2024 reforms.
HB 303 next faces a third House reading before moving to the Senate. Given the unanimous support thus far, passage appears likely.
The Criticism: A Subjectivity Trap
Not everyone supports the bill. Critics argue that codifying coercive control creates a "subjectivity trap" that courts are poorly equipped to navigate. Unlike physical abuse, which leaves medical documentation, psychological control relies on competing narratives.
The concern centers on behaviors that appear identical depending on perspective. A parent monitoring a teenager's phone could be protective parenting or controlling abuse. A spouse managing family finances could be responsible budgeting or economic coercion. The difference lies entirely in interpretation.
Critics also worry that lower intervention thresholds incentivize strategic allegations in contested custody cases. When accusations are difficult to disprove and courts err toward child protection, false claims become tactically valuable.
Supporters counter that victims of psychological abuse have long been unprotected precisely because their injuries are invisible. The nine specific behaviors enumerated in HB 303 provide more guidance than the previous undefined "emotional abuse" standard.
Practical Takeaways
-
Document patterns, not incidents. Coercive control requires demonstrating a "pattern of behavior," not isolated events. Keep dated records of controlling behaviors over time.
-
Financial documentation matters more than ever. Four of the nine enumerated behaviors involve financial or resource control. Maintain independent records of account access, spending restrictions, and economic decisions.
-
Expect custody evaluations to change. HB 303 includes new language on custody evaluation standards. Evaluators will likely incorporate coercive control assessments into their reports.
-
The "reasonable parenting" carve-out is key. Courts must distinguish between appropriate parental boundaries and controlling behavior. Age-appropriate monitoring of minors remains protected.
-
California and Hawaii provide precedent. Utah courts may look to how those states have interpreted similar statutes over the past five years when deciding contested cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does coercive control now count as domestic violence in Utah?
Yes, if HB 303 passes. The bill elevates coercive control to the top of judicial considerations in custody cases under Utah Code § 30-3-10. This mirrors California's 2020 amendment to Family Code § 6320, which added coercive control to the legal definition of abuse for protective order purposes.
What evidence do I need to prove coercive control?
Utah courts will require evidence of a "pattern of behavior"—not isolated incidents. Documentation such as text messages, emails, financial records showing restricted access, witness statements from friends or family members, and therapy records may all be relevant. The nine enumerated behaviors in HB 303 provide the framework courts will use.
Can my ex claim my parenting decisions are coercive control?
The bill explicitly carves out "reasonable and appropriate parental conduct." Setting curfews, monitoring a minor's phone usage, or managing family finances are not inherently coercive control. Courts must evaluate whether behavior "unreasonably interferes" with another person's independent decisions, considering the family context.
How does this affect existing custody orders?
HB 303 applies prospectively to new custody determinations. However, Utah courts have continuing jurisdiction to modify custody orders when circumstances substantially change. If you can demonstrate a pattern of coercive control that was not previously considered, a modification petition may be appropriate.
When does HB 303 take effect?
The bill must still pass a third House reading and the full Senate before reaching Governor Cox's desk. If it follows the timeline of Om's Law (HB 272), which passed in March 2024 with a May 1, 2024 effective date, HB 303 could take effect by mid-2026.
Get connected with a Utah family law attorney. If you're navigating custody issues involving controlling behavior, understanding your rights under current and pending Utah law is essential. Find an attorney in your county who can evaluate your specific situation.
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.