Code of Judicial Administration

CJA 04-509. Court-appointed parent coordinator. New. Establishes the role, qualifications and procedures of the parent coordinator.
CJA 06-501. Reporting requirements for guardians and conservators. Amend. Exempt OPG from test requirement.
CJA Chapter 11. Article 1. Advisory Committees and the Rulemaking Process. Amend. Creates from Rule 11-101 a series of rules. Each rule regulates a particular topic in the rulemaking process.
CJA 11-101. Creation and Composition of Advisory Committees. Amend. Adds a provision that committee members are officers of the court and not representatives of any interest.
CJA 11-102. Advisory Committee Procedures. New. Adds quorum and voting requirements.
CJA 11-103. Rulemaking Procedures. New. Recognizes reliance on written comments.
CJA 11-104. Procedures Pertaining to the Practice of Law. New. Technical amendments.
CJA 11-105. Supreme Court Action on Rule Modifications. New. Adds distribution and comment provisions to rule amendments initiated by the Supreme Court.
CJA 11-106. Rule Distribution Process. New. Adds a distribution and publication provision.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
2 thoughts on “Code of Judicial Administration
  1. Eric K. Johnson

    Re: proposed CJA Rule 4-509.
    In short, I urge everyone committed to the rule of law to oppose passage of proposed Rule 4-509 on the grounds that the practice of divorce and family law is being overrun by a regulatory policy that, at the pace it’s on now, seems poised to challenge the U.S. Tax Code for sheer volume, complexity, redundancy, and rigidity.
    Please see my comments, and the table I created to comment on the rule at length, at:

  2. Dan Goodkind

    Re: proposed CJA Rule 4-509 Parent Coordinator Rule
    In short: This is an unnecessary administrative rule that misses the point (which is to assist the courts in high conflict divorce and child custody cases).
    The Parenting Coordinator model has been implemented in other states. This service can be helpful in difficult and adversarial child custody situations, especially where there is a history of domestic violence and/or parental alienation. “Parenting (or Parent) Coordinator” has not been legally defined in Utah to this point, but Parenting Coordinators have been appointed by judges. There was a Utah Law Journal article addressing the appointment of Special Masters in high conflict divorces (Aug/Sept. 2002). That model has been used in the Third and Fourth District Courts. I don’t know whether or not Parenting Coordinators need to be appointed as Special Masters – or whether this is even appropriate, from a strictly legal point of view – however, if this role is to be operationally defined by the Office of the Courts, Parenting Coordinators should have some authority to assist the courts in high conflict divorce and child custody cases. The current proposal misses the point by defining a purely voluntary role outside of the jurisdiction of the courts. A Parenting Coordinator would be of little use in high conflict case without some sort of authority vis-à-vis the courts (i.e., the authority to serve as an expert witness for the court when parenting conflicts cannot be resolved outside of court).