Utah law now gives “coercive control” a definition and a place among the factors courts may weigh when they decide custody and parent-time. The change does not create a new cause of action. It does not automatically flip custody. It does change what lawyers must screen for, what they must plead, what evaluators must investigate, and what parents should document.
This article walks through the statute as written and then turns to the work that actually happens in a Utah family case: screening, investigation, exhibits, risk management, and defense. The practice points come from the code and from the training Utah judges and family-law lawyers now receive on intimate-partner violence and coercive control.
What the statute says
Utah Code 81-9-101 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.”
The statute then lists nine patterns. Coercive control includes a pattern of:
1. Isolating another person from friends, relatives, or sources of support.
2. Depriving another person of basic necessities.
3. Controlling, regulating, or excessively monitoring movements, communications, daily behavior, or access to services.
4. Controlling, regulating, excessively monitoring, depriving, or limiting finances, access to finances, or economic resources.
5. Threatening to harm or kill the other person, a relative, or a household animal.
6. Threatening self-harm if the other person does not comply.
7. Threatening to publish information with the intent to harass or intimidate.
8. Damaging property or household goods.
9. Compelling another person by force, threat of force, or intimidation to engage in conduct they have a right to refuse, or to abstain from conduct they have a right to pursue.
Two words do most of the work: pattern and unreasonably. One ugly text thread, standing alone, is not coercive control. A parent who sets a reasonable curfew, limits a teenager’s phone at midnight, or confirms a young child arrived at a court-ordered exchange is not, by that fact alone, exercising coercive control. Subsection (2)(c) says so directly: coercive control “does not include reasonable and appropriate parental conduct undertaken in the care of a minor child.”
Courts may consider evidence of coercive control when they decide custody and parent-time. They still decide the case under the child’s best interest. The legislature put the factor first on the discretionary list. It did not make the factor dispositive.
The statute also supplies the right trial theme. The definition reaches conduct that interferes “intentionally or in effect.” Counsel who stay locked in a debate about what the other parent subjectively “meant” miss half the statute. Counsel who prove isolation, financial cutoff, surveillance, or compelled compliance—and show how that pattern limited the other adult’s ability to decide and act—are trying the case the statute describes.
Screen every case. But do not treat the screen as the verdict.
Best practice starts with a simple rule: screen for intimate-partner violence and coercive control in every family case. Screening puts the issue on the radar. It does not decide the case.
That distinction matters. An intake checklist, a question about threats to withhold the children, or a client’s first account of monitoring can generate “hits.” Those hits require a story behind the allegation. Surface descriptions collapse under ordinary questions. A child who says a parent “hit me” may be describing a parent who accidently struck them with a baseball while playing an innocent game of catch; not an assault. Screen in. Then investigate.
The opposite error is just as common. Professionals sometimes treat the absence of a police report or a DCFS finding as proof that no domestic violence occurred. That is not an investigation. Utah lethality research has shown that a substantial share of domestic-violence homicides in this state had no prior reported incident. A coercive-control relationship can become dangerous without a bruise file. A clean paper trail is a relevant fact. It is not the end of the inquiry.
Screening also has to continue. These cases change after filing. Separation often moves the fight onto children and money. Conduct that looked like ordinary high conflict in week one can look like post-separation control by the time of the custody evaluation or trial.
Lead with behavior, dates, and exhibits—not labels
The fastest way to lose a commissioner is to argue slogans. “This is textbook coercive control.” “Every professional who has met him dislikes him.” “She has no real interest in parent-time.” Those sentences ask the court to adopt your conclusion.
The better method maps a date, an act, and an exhibit to a statutory hook:
– Isolation under § 81-9-101(2)(b)(i): On March 12, Parent A blocked Parent B from a sibling’s wedding and said Parent B would “pay for it” if Parent B went. Texts at Bates 214–218. Two relatives will corroborate the cutoff from family events over the prior year.
– Meeting the child’s medical needs under § 81-9-204: Clinic notes from June 3, September 19, and January 8 record Parent A berating nursing staff in front of the child and leaving before the child received prescribed follow-up. Exhibit C.
– Impeding parent-time under § 81-9-206: Parent B canceled or withheld the child on four scheduled weekends. OurFamilyWizard entries and a December 2 police information report are attached as Exhibits F and R.
When the cites keep checking out, credibility compounds. The first accurate cite earns attention. The third accurate cite earns findings. Write the finding the court needs on the page. Do not ask the court to reconstruct a long marriage from closing argument.
The same discipline applies when you defend a false or inflated allegation. Lack of corroboration matters. So does context. Utah judges now receive more domestic-violence training than they did even a few years ago, including training on how trauma can affect memory, consistency, and courtroom presentation. A cross that treats every inconsistency as proof of fabrication can backfire. Disprove the pattern you can disprove. Do not treat a raw or dysregulated presentation as the cause of the family problem when it may be an effect of years of control.
Presentation traps in a short hearing
Commissioners often see the parties for a sliver of the case. The composed parent who says “I don’t understand why everything turns into a crisis” can look like the safer placement. The parent who snaps at small slights, calls repeatedly, or testifies in fragments can look unstable. That mismatch is an old trap.
A controlled partner often organizes every decision around the other person’s mood, stops initiating, and stops trusting their own read of events. The controlling partner treats the other adult as something to manage rather than as a person with a separate inner life. By the time the case reaches court, friends—and sometimes a therapist—may have seen only the recordings of the distressed parent’s worst moments.
Counsel’s job is not to romanticize either parent. Counsel’s job is to keep the court from mistaking presentation for cause. Ask what happened when no one else was in the room. Ask about the most serious incident, the ordinary daily tactics, the apologies that bought silence, the financial dependence, and the isolation sold as “protecting the family” or “protecting the children.” Then ask what that pattern did to parenting capacity and to the child’s day-to-day life.
This is not the same fight as a protective order—and not the same fight as parental alienation
Protective-order practice still turns on abuse, threats, and imminent harm under the cohabitant-abuse statutes. Coercive control can exist with or without a punch, a stalking charge, or a current protective order. Counsel who treat every monitoring allegation as an emergency miss the mark. Counsel who treat every monitoring allegation as dispositive overplay it.
The same caution applies on the alienation side. A parent who documents isolation, financial strangulation, and threats of self-harm is building a coercive-control record. A parent who answers a justified safety concern by slapping the label “coercive controller” on the other parent is asking the court to collapse two different inquiries. Too many of these cases arrive as an alienation claim on one side and a domestic-abuse claim on the other. Utah courts have grown less willing to let an alienation label outrun an uninvestigated safety concern. Make alienation arguments when the facts support them. Ground those arguments in specific, demonstrated behaviors that are not reasonably tied to protecting the child’s safety.
We wrote separately about resist-refuse dynamics. You can read that article here. Hybrid cases—real grievances plus disproportionate rejection—remain common. The statute rewards an accurate diagnosis, not a label.
Build a case theory the court can use
Court orders alone do not manage risk. A usable theory needs three parts and then an order that follows from them.
First, the legal premises. Sections 81-9-101, 81-9-204, and 81-9-206; the domestic-violence factors in § 81-9-104; modification under § 81-9-208; and, where the facts support it, the protective-order statutes.
Second, a coherent account of the conduct. Patterned interference with independent decision-making. After separation, those tactics usually travel through the children and through money. Structured analysis beats “I know it when I see it.”
Third, facts from more than one source. The client’s written chronology, the other parent’s account, collateral witnesses, bank and employment records, DCFS files, evaluator notes (including child interviews), audio and video reviewed in full, and deposition testimony.
From there, write orders that close the pathways the facts identify: exchange structure, communication platforms, temporary support, supervision where the risk supports it, and any therapy condition tied to a specific driver. A blank clause that says “complete counseling and then resume parent-time” can increase leverage instead of reducing risk. It can also ignore cases in which the harm is already so deep that later “insight” does not restore a safe parenting capacity.
Evaluators and depositions still turn on a short set of questions: What repeated conduct is alleged? How far back does it go, and how did it change? What did it do to each parent’s ability to parent? What harm followed? How did the child experience it?
Frameworks such as the Power and Control Wheel can organize fact-gathering. They do not replace facts. Do not let a model do the work the record should do.
Discovery, evaluators, and the file you have to try
These cases often will not settle on fair terms when one party needs an unfair win to feel in control. Hope for settlement. Prepare for trial from day one. Delayed discovery pushes your own client into a bad deal.
Use the tools other litigators treat as ordinary: investigators who interview named witnesses, not only who sit on a house; subpoenas to employers and former employers; bank records that show more than the marital balance sheet; updated DCFS files as new reports appear; and the evaluator’s complete file.
H.B. 303 also created a statutory custody-evaluation framework in §§ 81-9-501 through 81-9-504. Evaluators must hold a qualifying license and complete specified training. Their findings are advisory. Send a focused package: a chronology, key communications, photos and videos, a collateral-contact list, completed forms, and the statutory definition. Then pay the invoice. Thin recommendations often start with thin packages. Cross-examine methodology. Ask whether the evaluator distinguished reasonable parental limits from adult-on-adult control. Ask whether the evaluator looked at both parents.
Do not let the lawsuit become the control
When household control collapses, filings and co-parenting messages become the remaining channels. A useful, if blunt, check is the docket itself: how many motions sit in the file, and how many did your client start?
Utah Code § 78B-5-825, as amended in the 2026 session and effective May 6, 2026, now requires a fee award when a civil action, defense, or motion is frivolous or has no reasonable basis in law or fact and the party brought it to harass, cause unreasonable delay, needlessly increase cost, or abuse the judicial process. The court may limit or deny fees for indigency or if it states reasons on the record. Used carefully, the statute can recoup fees spent defending harassing motion practice.
The same ethic runs both ways. If you represent a parent accused of control, the durable path is often real improvement you can prove by trial—treatment, parenting work, compliance with orders—not two years of denial. If you represent a parent who lived under control, do not rush mediation, do not treat the client as a bundle of symptoms, and do not become the only support system. Coordinate timing with a competent therapist when you can. Watch your own bias: the “too dramatic” first impression, the urge to rescue, and the habit of seeing everything as domestic violence—or nothing as domestic violence.
Utah practice adds forces the statute does not name. Close-knit faith communities can protect a parent or close the only door out. Delay and unpaid support can leave a parent unable to feed children while temporary orders crawl. A quiet drift from best interest toward a reflex 50/50 arrangement can keep a frightened parent from filing at all. Name those forces when they are in the case. Do not pretend the courthouse is the only system on the board.
A short checklist
– Screen every matter for patterned control. Treat hits as a reason to investigate, not as a verdict.
– Get a written chronology before you lock the theory of the case. Read it. Then interview the gaps.
– Lead with dates, conduct, and record cites mapped to §§ 81-9-101, 81-9-204, and 81-9-206.
– Prove effect on independent decision-making. Do not litigate unspoken intent.
– Separate adult-on-adult control from reasonable care of a child.
– Collect facts from more than one source. Do not stop at “no police report, no DCFS file.”
– Anticipate the composed-versus-raw hearing. Prepare the court for it.
– Update the financial declaration. Economic control often shows up there first.
– If the court appoints an evaluator or GAL, send a complete, focused packet and fund the work.
– Count your own filings. Do not use the docket as a substitute for household control.
– Keep § 78B-5-825 in the trial notebook for harassing motion practice.
Bottom line
H.B. 303 gave Utah courts a definition and a checklist item. It did not replace best-interest analysis, and it did not turn every high-conflict divorce into a coercive-control case. Parents who lived through a real pattern of isolation, financial domination, threats, or compelled conduct now have a clearer way to put that evidence in front of the court. Parents who face inflated labels now have a statutory carve-out and a demand that the other side prove a pattern, not a grievance.
The lawyers who will win these hearings are the ones who screen early, investigate the story behind the allegation, try the facts the statute actually describes, and write orders that manage risk instead of performing it.
This article provides general information about Utah Code §§ 81-9-101, 81-9-204, 81-9-206, 81-9-501 through 81-9-504, and 78B-5-825. It is not legal advice specific to your situation. Coercive-control and custody disputes turn on the record in your case. If you have questions about a Utah custody or parent-time matter, contact the attorneys at the Law Office of Wiser & Wiser at 855-254-2600 or through our Contact Us page.
No responses yet