Posted: September 3, 2025
Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closed October 20, 2025
URCP005. Service and filing of pleadings and other papers. AMEND. The proposed amendments to this rule are primarily to address when service is required on parties in default, to clarify when a party in default must be served. There is also a new subparagraph (a)(2)(D) after review of the Standards of Professionalism and Civility, particularly Standard 16, and Utah Supreme Court case, Arbogast Family Trust ex rel. Arbogast v. River Crossings, LLC, 2010 UT 40. There is also a proposed amendment to (b)(3)(C) regarding a mailing address.
URCP042. Consolidation; separate trials; venue transfer. AMEND. The proposed amendments to this rule clarify the filings to be made in each action and by the parties when there are requests to consolidate cases. This includes clarification on motions to intervene, notices, orders, the assigned judge, and the use of a single case number. There is also new proposed language regarding severance of matters, and reassignment of cases where the cases to be consolidated may not be of the same case type.
URCP103. Child protective orders. NEW. This new proposed rule will apply when child protective order cases are transferred from the juvenile court to the district court under Utah Code section 78A-6-104(5). This rule covers procedures for live child testimony, recorded statements, and recorded testimony, and follows generally the substance of Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure Rule 37A.
Proposed Rule change 5(a)(2)(D) (“if represented by an attorney, with notice to the attorney, even if that attorney has not formally appeared in the action.”) needs to make clear that service is required only when an attorney’s representation of the party in default is known to the serving attorney. See Standards of Professionalism and Civility, ¶ 16 (“whose identity is known”); Arbogast Fam. Tr. v. River Crossings, LLC, 2010 UT 40, ¶ 41, 238 P.3d 1035 (emphasizing “known parties”).
Proposed Rule 5(a)(2)(c) would require Rule 4 service for a motion to augment:
Rule 76 already requires parties to maintain updated contact information in a lawsuit. In certain cases (at least those involving unlawful detainer), this change would conflict with Utah Code 78B-6-811(6)(a) and (b). Is there any exception if the Motion to Augment occurs within a short period of time (i.e. within 180 days under 78B-6-811(5)(b))?Requiring a second round of Rule 4 service would also increase work load on the courts because motions for alternate service would increase under Rule 4(d)(5)(A).
As an alternate option, would it be possible to effectuate Rule 5 service via at least two separate methods (emailing a second copy on top ofmailing, or mailing to two potential addresses, etc.)?
See also: Bodell Constr. Co. v. Robbins, 2014 UT App 203, ¶ 13, 334 P.3d 1004, 1009-1010 (2014 Utah Ct. App.) stating:
…we note that the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that personal service of process occur only once, at the beginning of a case. Utah R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Once a defendant appears before the court, it is that defendant’s responsibility to maintain contact with the court. Id. R. 76 (“An attorney and unrepresented party must promptly notify the court in writing of any change in that person’s address, e-mail address, phone number or fax number.”); Volostnykh v. Duncan, 2001 UT App 26, para. 4 (per curiam) (recognizing the parties’ duties to inform the court of any address changes and to “keep themselves apprised of ongoing court proceedings”). We agree with the district court that Robbins’s attempt to excuse his lack of diligence with his reliance on an adverse party for notice “plac[es] on Bodell and its counsel a duty not recognized in Utah law.”
Proposed Rule 103
I appreciate that the proposed rule change reflects a thoughtful effort to address the real and lasting trauma that testifying in court can have on children. Prioritizing trauma-informed practices in civil proceedings, especially those involving child protective orders, is an important step forward. However, I have significant concerns regarding the potential unintended consequences of this rule, particularly for the Children’s Justice Centers (CJCs) across the state and our multidisciplinary team (MDT) partners.
One major concern involves the potential impact on forensic interview (FI) services provided by CJCs. If the rule change results in an increased demand for forensic interviews, or leads to more subpoenas for FI staff to testify, this could stretch our already limited resources. Forensic interviewers may be pulled away from their primary role of service provision at the CJC to attend civil court proceedings. In many cases, CJCs may need to hire additional interviewers to meet demand—without any corresponding increase in funding. Additionally, there is a risk that forensic interviews could be submitted as evidence in civil proceedings while parallel criminal investigations or prosecutions are still ongoing, potentially compromising those criminal cases.
An equally pressing concern lies in how the rule might be interpreted regarding who is permitted to conduct interviews with children. If the rule is read to allow individuals who are not trained forensic interviewers—such as attorneys, custody evaluators, or even parents—to conduct and record interviews with children for submission in court, this could have serious consequences. Interviews conducted without adherence to evidence-based, trauma-informed protocols risk re-traumatizing children, introducing suggestibility, and jeopardizing the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations. The proposed rule lacks clear guidance on the scope, qualifications, and standards for such interviews, which leaves room for practices that may ultimately harm the very children the rule aims to protect.
While I strongly support efforts to make civil court proceedings more trauma-informed for children, I respectfully urge that this proposed rule change be returned to the committee for further consideration. It is essential that all relevant stakeholders—including CJCs, MDT partners, prosecutors, victim advocates, and child welfare professionals—are included in these discussions to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the broader implications.
Thank you for your commitment to protecting children and for considering this feedback.
I also would like to see this proposed rule change be returned to the committee for further consideration.
At the State Advisory Board on Children’s Justice meeting held on October 10, 2025, concerns were raised regarding the proposed Civil Procedure Rule 103 Child Protective Orders. Given these concerns, the Children’s Justice Center/CJC Program requests that the proposed rule be returned to the Civil Rule Committee so that these concerns may be addressed.
The overarching concern is that the rule will have unintended negative consequences for children. First, the proposed civil rule does not require that the interviewer in subsection (1) Recorded Statements, or in subsection (2) Recorded Testimony be a trained forensic interviewer. In criminal investigations of sexual and physical abuse of children, trained forensic interviewers interview the child regarding the abuse. There are no such protections in the proposed rule for civil protective orders. The concern is even more acute under subsection (2) Recorded Testimony, where attorneys are permitted to question the child outside the protections of judicial watch or the neutral environment of a professional forensic interview. This could result in a deposition of the child by divorce attorneys that is not trauma-informed and would not provide reliable information.
In addition to the training or identity of the interviewer, there were concerns on the scope of the interview. There is nothing in either subsection Recorded Statements or Recorded Testimony that would limit the scope of the interview. Within the context of divorce actions, untrained interviewers with no limits provided by the civil rule could go far afield, resulting in interviews that are not trauma-informed and that provide unreliable information. Further, neither subsection would prevent an interviewer from asking questions drafted by one party’s attorney, and could interfere with criminal and neglect investigations.
In addition to the above concerns regarding interviews conducted for the purpose of a child protective order, there are concerns about the use of existing Children Justice Center (CJC) or Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) interviews conducted as part of criminal and neglect investigations. Under the proposed rule, targets of investigations could receive a copy of the child’s CJC or DCFS interview as part of their divorce action discovery before police have completed their investigation. This could result in the target obstructing the investigation, destroying evidence, and increased danger of harm to the child.
Utah law acknowledges the importance of protecting the child and their recorded interviews in the Victim’s Bill of Rights. Utah Code § 77-37-4 (5)(a) states
Child victims have the right, once an investigation has been initiated by law enforcement or the Division of Child and Family Services, to keep confidential their interviews that are conducted at a Children’s Justice Center, including video and audio recordings, and transcripts of those recordings. Except as provided in Subsection (6), recordings and transcripts of interviews may not be distributed, released, or displayed to anyone without a court order.
This proposed rule could be used to obtain a court order to provide a CJC or DCFS recorded interview to the target parent as part of a protective order hearing.
Finally, a concern was raised was that the proposed rule adds another witness to the Court process not formerly required under criminal or juvenile court rules. The proposed rule requires an additional foundational showing that the recording equipment is “capable of making an accurate recording, the operator of the equipment is competent and the recording is accurate and has not been altered”. Unlike Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.5, which permits the interviewer to testify that the recording is accurate and not altered, the civil rule will require testimony or perhaps an affidavit from the person who pressed “play” on the recording device. If the interview is conducted at a Children’s Justice Center, this requirement could increase the resource drain from the center because two employees would be waiting to testify in the civil child protection order process rather than one.
For the reasons discussed above, the Children’s Justice Center/CJC Program respectfully requests that proposed Civil Rule 103 return to its committee so that these issues may be addressed.
I agree with this comment.
Formal Comment – Proposed Rule 103
I appreciate the thoughtful intent behind the proposed rule, particularly its aim to mitigate the
emotional trauma children experience when participating in court proceedings. The
commitment to trauma-informed practices in civil matters, especially those involving child
protective orders, represents meaningful progress toward more child-centered judicial
processes. However, I have significant concerns regarding the potential unintended
consequences this rule may have for Children’s Justice Centers (CJCs) statewide and for the
multidisciplinary team (MDT) professionals who collaborate to ensure the safety and
well-being of children. Impact on Forensic Interview Services
If the proposed rule results in an increased demand for forensic interviews (FIs), or leads to
additional subpoenas requiring FI staff to testify in court, it could place an undue burden on
CJC resources. Forensic interviewers may be diverted from their primary duties at the CJC,
limiting service availability and delaying response times for other children in need. To meet
increased demands, centers may be forced to hire additional interviewers without a
corresponding increase in funding. ***Moreover, there is substantial concern that forensic
interviews could be introduced as evidence in civil proceedings while related criminal
investigations or prosecutions are still ongoing. Doing so risks compromising active criminal
cases and the integrity of the investigative process. In addition, if individuals involved in civil
proceedings—such as a parent or party to the case—are permitted to view a forensic
interview while a related criminal matter remains pending, this may have unintended
procedural consequences. Specifically, such individuals could be classified as witnesses in
the criminal case, thereby rendering them ineligible to be present in the courtroom as
support persons for their child during trial. This outcome would not only diminish the child’s
access to emotional support but also run counter to the trauma-informed intent of the
proposed rule.***
Concerns Regarding Interview Protocol and Qualifications–
There is also ambiguity in the proposed rule regarding who may conduct interviews with
children. If the rule is interpreted to allow individuals who are not trained forensic
interviewers—such as attorneys, custody evaluators, or parents—to conduct or record
interviews for court submission, this poses significant risks. Interviews conducted outside of
established, evidence-based, trauma-informed protocols may inadvertently re-traumatize
children, introduce suggestibility, and jeopardize ongoing investigations. Recommendation
While I support the overarching goal of making civil court processes more trauma-informed for
children, I respectfully urge that this proposed rule be remanded to the committee for further
consideration. It is critical that all relevant stakeholders—including CJCs, MDT partners,
prosecutors, victim advocates, and child welfare professionals—be consulted to ensure a full
understanding of the potential legal and practical implications. Thank you for your continued
commitment to child protection and for your consideration of this feedback.
Thank you for your work on including children’s voices in child protective orders. This has long been an area of concern for caregivers and the professionals tasked with keeping children safe. There are no easy answers; while to a lay person Rule 103 as proposed may sound reasonable, there are numerous issues with it that are alarming to those who work in this realm. I respectfully suggest that a group of those professionals, including but not limited to a Children’s Justice Center Forensic Interviewer, a criminal prosecutor, a GAL, a CJC MDT specialist, a mental health professional trained in treating childhood trauma, a representative from Child Protective Services, a representative from the Attorney General’s office, an attorney specializing in family law, and, perhaps most importantly, an individual with lived experience be convened to work through standardized ways of including children’s input in CPO and high-conflict custody situations. Guiding principles of any solutions should:
• Put the well-being of the child first
• Be trauma informed
• Minimize the number of times a child is interviewed
• Ensure the integrity of a child’s interview/testimony
• Not overburden current systems
• Not undermine criminal investigations/prosecutions
While the solution will doubtless be nuanced and require considerable good-faith efforts on the part of numerous experts, I am confident that in a state that values children, we can come to a reasonable conclusion.
I echo the concerns of other CJC Directors in regard to URCP103. While I understand and appreciate the intent of the Rule to protect children from having to testify in another court proceeding by mirroring existing rules, the rule, as it is written, creates more, potentially damaging concerns. Should URCP103 move forward without further consideration, the timing of the hearings affected by this rule may have an adverse effect on ongoing investigations, create undue burden on Forensic Interviewers requiring more time away from interviews to testify in cases, place an undue burden on children who might be asked questions outside the scope of the testimony, open the possibility for untrained interviewers to interrogate children, and create an undue burden requiring other CJC staff to testify regarding their involvement in recordings. I believe my colleagues have articulated clearly, and specifically the concerns listed above in detail. I add this to their statements in requesting that this Rule be returned to committee to address these concerns.
My comments pertain to the proposed rule change for the Civil Procedure Rule 103, and understand and appreciate the intent for its construction, However, this proposal is lacking critical information, which could create unintentional consequences and likely additional harm to a child when a case falls within this rule. There are three points to this proposal that are concerning
The first point is the option to have a child interviewed by an untrained interviewer. Having a child interviewed by an untrained and uniformed of trauma-informed techniques could cause additional harm to a child. Having an interview conducted without appropriate forensic training leads to unreliability, and possibly one sided testimony. An untrained interviewer who is not trauma-informed, can easily lead to revictimization, victim blaming and coercion concerns. Untrained interviews typically guide a child to say what a child believes the interviewer would like to hear. As the courts require authentic, truthful, and reliable information, this proposal is lacking structure and clarification in how that may be accomplished.
The second point is the requirement is having the forensic interviewer (FI) testify but also have the person who oversaw, started or was in charge of the recording be present for the hearing. This creates a financial obligation that would burden the local CJC, not just by one person, but two. There must be better ways to verify this information without requiring the FI and the record button pusher to be present which would require taking those employees away from their assigned job duties.
The third concern surrounds the use of Children’s Justice Center’s (CJC) recorded forensic interviews. This could affect the overall purpose of the interview and the investigative process. As these interviews are protected information, the role of the investigative team is to complete the investigation prior to this information being shared. The use of these interviews prior to an investigation being complete, could jeopardize an investigation, allowing for evidence to become accessible to those being investigated. This process could allow the loss of evidence and jeopardizing a criminal case. This is one more way it could increase the possibility of harm and revictimization of the child.
These concerns highlight the issues as our CJC staff, forensic interviews, law enforcement, DCFS and others work to help protect and work to begin the healing process for children.
Along with others who have commented, I also respectfully urge that the proposed rule be returned to the committee. Also, I respectfully recommend that all essential stakeholders be included in these discussions to help fully support the safety, healing and support the children of our state. I propose inviting those who would support further discussion, including the Children’s Justice Center and MDT partners or investigative teams, prosecutors, victim advocates and DCFS. Please let me know if you have questions.
Thank you for the work you do and for taking the time to review my comments.
This rule appears to be one of those solutions to a problem that does not exist.
One problems with the comments critical of child testimony in protective order matters is that they presume the child is abused and then assert that presumption as the reason to be so careful in questioning a trial that the child ends up never being questioned, out of an abundance of caution. This presumption of abuse is causing many innocent parents and children to be harmed unduly. The idea that we go soft on investigating and getting to the bottom of factual disputes for the sake of protecting children does far more harm than good.
The current draft of rule 103 is drafted in such a way that a court could site and construe it to justify or reject questioning a child witness.
One good thing about the discussion around this new proposed rule. 103, however, is that at least the courts are finally moving off. Off this idea that child testimony is anathema.
Family courts are far too differential to the mental health profession, which is already a highly subjective, soft, and frequently pseudoscientific field. New idea that competent judges and attorneys cannot question a child without a therapist standing by is embarrassing.
Making it harder to get reliable evidence from child witnesses, particularly when the children are the most recipient witnesses and have the greatest stake in the outcome of the action, is the antithesis of acting in the best interest of the child.