Utah Family Law Changes 2026: The Complete Guide

At a Glance (Utah Law):
Utah’s 2024 and 2025 legislative sessions recodified family law into a new Title 81, effective September 1, 2024, and the 2026 session added coercive control as a custody factor and created new child‑custody‑evaluation provisions through H.B. 303. This guide walks you through important Utah family law changes in 2026.

Key statutes: Utah Code Title 81; H.B. 303 (2026); H.B. 463 (2025).

Local jurisdiction: All Utah District Courts, including the Third District (Salt Lake City and West Jordan).

A law library bookshelf featuring the Utah Code, highlighting the transition to Title 81 for family law cases in 2026.

Utah’s family law framework has moved from Title 30 to Title 81. Understanding these citations is vital for any filing in 2026.

Intro

If you have a custody case pending in Sandy, a child support order in Draper, or a divorce filing anywhere along the Wasatch Front, the legal framework governing your case has changed over the last two years. Beginning in 2024, Utah reorganized domestic relations statutes into Title 81, and subsequent legislation has added new standards around coercive control, custody evaluations, and child‑care costs in support orders.

This post is your starting point. It maps the major changes in a way you can actually use, with links to deeper guides on each topic so you can ensure you are in alignment with 2026 Utah family law changes.

What Is Utah Title 81 and What Did It Replace?

Before September 1, 2024, Utah’s family law statutes were primarily located in former Title 30 of the Utah Code. The Legislature recodified those statutes into a new Title 81 as part of a domestic relations recodification effort that began with SB 95 in the 2024 General Session and continued with later clean‑up legislation, including SB 119 in 2025. The recodification reorganized and renumbered the law and updated terminology so the structure is more coherent for judges, attorneys, and litigants.

Your existing court orders were not invalidated by the recodification. A custody order or divorce decree entered under former Title 30 remains valid and enforceable; what changed is the numbering and organization of the governing statutes. If your existing order cites former Title 30 section numbers, those provisions now live under new Title 81 section numbers, but the obligations and rights in your decree remain in place.

Any new filings, modifications, or enforcement actions are governed by Title 81 and subsequent amendments, including new provisions on coercive control and custody evaluations.

Major Changes Affecting Utah Family Law Cases

Here is a current snapshot of the key changes and when they took effect.

Current Utah Family Law Changes

Change	What It Affects	Governing Law	When It Took Effect
Title 81 Recodification	All family law proceedings	SB 95 (2024), related recodification acts	September 1, 2024
Coercive Control Recognition	Custody and parent‑time decisions	H.B. 303 (2026)	General effective date in 2026 (see H.B. 303 effective‑date clause)
Three‑Track Case System	How domestic cases are categorized and managed	Utah URCP Rule 100A	November 1, 2022
Custody Evaluation Framework	Child‑custody evaluations in contested cases	H.B. 303 (2026)	General effective date in 2026 (see H.B. 303 effective‑date clause)
Child‑Care Costs in Support	Child‑care provisions in child support orders	H.B. 463 (2025)	July 1, 2026

Notes: The precise calendar effective date for H.B. 303 depends on its effective‑date clause; absent a different specification, Utah bills generally take effect 60 days after adjournment. For H.B. 463, the statute explicitly states “Beginning July 1, 2026” for the new child‑care‑expense requirement.

How Does “Coercive Control” Change Custody Cases in Utah?

H.B. 303 (2026) creates a statutory definition of “coercive control” and authorizes Utah courts to consider evidence of coercive control when making child custody and parent‑time decisions. When evidence of coercive control is presented, courts now have explicit statutory language recognizing that behavior as relevant to the child’s best interests.

Under H.B. 303, “coercive control” is defined as a pattern of behavior that, intentionally or in effect, unreasonably interferes with another individual’s autonomy and decision‑making. Examples discussed in commentary include patterns such as financial control, isolation from support networks, and intensive monitoring of a partner’s movements and communications.

The addition of coercive control does not rewrite Utah’s entire custody framework, but it does make clear that non‑physical patterns of abusive control may be considered alongside more traditional evidence of domestic violence when allocating custody and parent‑time.

H.B. 303 builds on earlier legislation such as Om’s Law (H.B. 272, 2024), which prioritized child safety in custody determinations and tightened standards for expert testimony regarding domestic violence and child abuse.

What Is Utah’s Three‑Track Case System Under Rule 100A?

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 100A, effective November 1, 2022, requires that domestic relations cases be assigned to one of three case‑management tracks based on their complexity and custody issues. The track is typically determined at a case management conference after an answer is filed, and it shapes the scheduling of discovery, use of experts, and overall case timeline.

According to the 2026 Utah family law changes, the three tracks are:

Track 1 – Standard Track
For cases that do not require complex discovery or extensive expert testimony. These cases are managed on a more streamlined schedule, often moving more directly toward trial with mediation required along the way if it has not already occurred.
Track 2 – Complex Discovery Track
For cases with complex discovery issues, which may include business valuations, intricate financial questions, or other matters requiring extended discovery schedules and expert involvement. The court sets a detailed schedule with input from the parties.
Track 3 – Significant Custody Dispute Track
For cases involving significant custody disputes, such as those with allegations of child abuse, domestic violence, or other serious parenting concerns, and where custody evaluations or guardians ad litem may be required.

Getting onto the correct track matters because it determines how much time and procedural structure your case will have. An attorney can review your facts and challenge an assignment that does not fit the case profile.

What Changed About Child‑Care Costs in Utah Support Orders?

Beginning July 1, 2026, H.B. 463 (2025 General Session) requires that a child‑support order include a provision for reasonable ongoing child‑care expenses. The statute provides that:

“Beginning July 1, 2026, a court or administrative agency shall include in a child support order a provision requiring the obligor parent to pay a reasonable ongoing expense for child care…”

This requirement applies to orders entered on or after that date and to modifications where support is being recalculated; the amount must still be reasonable and tied to actual child‑care needs. The new law is best understood as creating a strong presumption that ongoing child‑care costs will be addressed in the support order, subject to evidentiary proof and the statute’s conditions.

For a detailed walkthrough of how this provision works in new and modified child‑support cases, see your internal guide on the 2026 child‑care provision.

What Most People Miss: Reunification Treatment and Om’s Law

Much of the public conversation about recent Utah custody reforms has focused on coercive control, but important limits on dangerous reunification practices arrived earlier, with Om’s Law (H.B. 272, 2024).

Om’s Law directs courts to prioritize child safety, restricts the use of controversial “reunification” programs that may separate a child from a safe parent, and requires that reunification orders be grounded in evidence‑based practice that does not endanger the child. Those provisions were enacted in response to documented concerns that children were being pushed into reunification programs in ways that could expose them to further harm.

H.B. 303 complements this framework by creating procedures for ordering mental‑health treatment in custody cases and by codifying standards for custody evaluations, giving courts a clearer statutory structure to apply when they consider evaluators and treatment options in high‑conflict custody disputes.

If your case involves a proposed reunification order or a custody evaluation, both Om’s Law and H.B. 303 may be directly relevant to your litigation strategy.

Questions? Contact us for a consultation.

FAQs

What happened to Utah Title 30 family law statutes?
Former Title 30 domestic relations statutes were recodified into Title 81, effective September 1, 2024, through SB 95 and related recodification legislation. The statutes were reorganized and renumbered, but existing decrees remain valid.

Does the recodification affect my existing Utah custody order?
Your existing order remains in effect. If you file a modification or new proceeding, those filings will be governed by Title 81 and later amendments, including the coercive‑control provisions in H.B. 303 once they are effective.

What is coercive control under Utah law?
H.B. 303 defines coercive control as a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with another person’s autonomy and personal liberty, and it allows courts to consider evidence of coercive control when making custody and parent‑time decisions.

What is Rule 100A in Utah family court?
Rule 100A assigns domestic relations cases to one of three tracks—Standard, Complex Discovery, or Significant Custody Dispute—based on case complexity and custody issues, and governs discovery, expert use, and scheduling.

When do child‑support orders need to include child‑care costs?
Beginning July 1, 2026, under H.B. 463, child‑support orders must include a provision requiring the obligor parent to pay a reasonable ongoing expense for child care, subject to the statute’s specific conditions.

How do I know which track my Utah family law case will be assigned to with the Utah family law changes in 2026?
Track assignment depends on whether your case involves complex discovery, significant custody disputes, or allegations of child abuse or domestic violence. An attorney can evaluate your facts and seek a different track if the initial assignment does not fit your case.