Monday, January 18, 2010

Proposal to Revise Utah's Custodial Interference Statute

Among the bills proposed during the Utah State Legislature's 2010 session is H.B. 197, which proposed to repeal and replace the current criminal code section dealing with custodial interference. The link to the bill is http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0197.htm.

I have prepared this side-by-side comparison of the current version § 76-5-303 and of the proposed the revisions of H.B. 197, with my comments.


To continue reading, please visit http://www.divorceutah.com/proposal-to-revise-utahs-custodial-interference-statute/

10 comments:

SauronsEye said...

My ex lives out of state with my daughter except my court ordered visitation. Does this new law mean that if she does not send her down for her scheduled visitation she is now guilty of a felony. (since she will have kept removed her out of state during my visitation time.)

Anonymous said...

I read your review of the custodial interference law. While I respect the fact you have an opinion on the matter you are very wrong. Law enforcement have been looking to plug holes in a broken custodial interference statute for a long time. While it would be wonderful to allow an exception for every circumstance. Way too many have been abusing ordered custody and treating children as property. This new law allows for swift action to be taken. You should know if you deal with divorce that people don't walk away very often with love and cooperation in there hearts when it comes to custody and visitation rights.

Thank goodness more can be done now to calm the petty drama between sqabbling divorced parents, and get them to follow the rules and put consistancy back in children's lives. There are protections for suspected abuse but parents are forced to take proper steps, limiting abuse of false reporting.

Paul said...

I am responding to your web blog relating to H.H. 197.

I am sure that we are on the same page; for the most part. Some of the information in your opinion regarding subsection (1) (b) is unclear. I do not see how there would be any diminishment of joint custody over sole custody and parent time. How I read it is that the legal rights to the children, whether sole or not, has more strength with this bill.

The comment about the “Abhorrent Idea” relating to subsection (2)(a) and (b) has very little grounds for good faith. As we both know, an ex parte order withholds the parent time in a case of drug use concerns. The filing is swift and strong until the issue can be heard before the judge.

The real concern, and I mean realistic, is that the law enforcement officers do not enforce the laws. I will give you an examples below.

8-6-2010 I was doing a child exchange at WillWin and the communication did not go through to the agency to perform this. I called for a keep the peace with law enforcement. The grandmother of my estranged wife took the children away from the exchange. My estranged wife told her mother not to deliver them and in essence hide them. This conversation was on speaker phone and the Unified Police refused to follow the laws of Custodial Interference or even Child Kidnapping. They (Unified Police) refused to assist me in acquiring my children from the non-custodial person who was holding my children at Costco. This was even after I showed them that the actions were criminal and not civil in their own criminal code book.

8-7-2010 I had a scheduled time to pick up my children at WillWin. My estranged wife did not show. She took the children with her boyfriend to an unknown location. Mr. Michael K. Mohrman (attorney for x- wife) informed me prior of their intentions to go to Colorado for a camping trip. I provided substantial documentation to the Unified Police and they told me that that (criminal behavior)is why there is divorce court. He told me that if they even make a phone call to find out where the children were that it would be harassing my estranged wife. I informed him that the actions were criminal and that their job is to find out were missing children were at. He threatened to contact my employer if I pursued the issue any further with them. They (Unified Police (Salt Lake County Sheriff Office)) would not give me an incident or case number.

The real issue should not be the writ of the law but rather the enforcement. Attorneys (like Mr. Mohrman)who inform their clients that they can do what they want because their experience shows that nothing will be done about; through law enforcement and the courts, should be reviewed.

I have written documentation by Mr. Mohrman who has personally refused court ordered visitation.
This is my first hand observations.

Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.