Utah

Statutory framework; factor structure: 3 mandatory + 18 discretionary (including catch-all). Subsection (10) separately requires consideration of domestic violence evidence and primary consideration of safety and well-being. H.B. 303 § 4 added coercive control, with a special effective-date clause in its § 10.

Authority

Utah Code Ann. § 81-9-204 (recodified 2024)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

3 mandatory + 18 discretionary (including catch-all)

Operative language

shall / may

Catch-all language

yes, (4)(r)

Presumptions in the original survey

Express anti-presumption, (7); preponderance burden stated at (2)

Child's voice / age rule

14 (added weight)

Compare best interests nationally

"Irreconcilable differences of the marriage," § 81-4-405(1)(h)

Authority

Utah Code § 81-4-405 (formerly § 30-3-1)

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"Irreconcilable differences of the marriage," § 81-4-405(1)(h)

Other grounds and proof conditions

Impotency, adultery, willful desertion more than one year, willful neglect, habitual drunkenness, felony conviction, cruel treatment (7) ; incurable insanity (1)(i) is a separate non-fault status ground

Separation

3 consecutive years living separately under a decree of separate maintenance, (1)(j) ; no ordinary living-apart ground

Timing

30 days from filing unless extraordinary circumstances, § 81-4-402(3)(a)

Relief without dissolution

Yes, separate maintenance § 81-4-202

Compare divorce grounds nationally

General best-interest factors; no general relocation burden allocation identified. Written notice at least 60 days before the intended relocation, with the statute’s safety and court-order qualifications.

Authority

Utah Code 81-9-209

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

no general relocation allocation identified

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

mileage threshold

Effect of silence

No deemed-consent effect identified in the relocation statute; court-order terms remain separate

What the court weighs

At the hearing the court determines whether the custodial parent's relocation is in the child's best interest, considering 'any other factors that the court considers relevant' (no enumerated relocation factors, no presumption). If not in the child's best interest and the custodial parent relocates, the court may order a change of custody (Pingree: no separate best-interest analysis needed for that change). If in the child's best interest, the court sets parent-time and allocates transportation costs, considering the reason for the move, added cost or difficulty, both parents' resources and other relevant factors. If a parent relocates because of domestic or family violence by the other parent, the court must make specific findings and orders on the section's application (subsection (8)). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a statutory minimum parent-time schedule applies on relocation for children 5 to 18 (alternating holiday blocks, half of summer, one weekend per month at the noncustodial parent's option and expense), plus at least twice-weekly telephone contact and virtual parent-time if equipment is reasonably available, at reasonable hours and for a reasonable duration. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the relocating party pays the child’s holiday travel and half of the child’s summer travel if the noncustodial parent is current on support. § 81-9-209(5)-(9), (13), (17). Pingree v. Pingree, 2015 UT App 302, 365 P.3d 713 Since May 6, 2026, § 81-9-204(10)(d) also provides that when a parent relocates because of domestic or family violence by the other parent, the court may not require that parent to disclose the parent's address to the other parent.

Who carries the burden

No express relocation burden allocation was identified in §81-9-209 or the named cases. Kelly’s additional-best-interest-analysis holding does not establish a general burden allocation.

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes. Written notice to the other parent at least 60 days before the intended relocation. Notice must affirm that the statutory minimum parent-time schedule (or an agreed schedule) will be followed and that the parent will not interfere with the other's parental rights under a court-ordered or mutually approved parent-time schedule. A parent who fails to give the notice 'is in contempt of the court's order.' § 81-9-209(2), (3), (20)

Which moves trigger the rule

'Relocation' means moving 150 miles or more from the residence of the other parent (no in-state or out-of-state distinction). The best-interest and change-of-custody provisions speak of 'the relocation of a custodial parent.' § 81-9-209(1), (5), (6). Kelly v. Johnson (2025) applied the statute in a joint physical custody case.

Objections and the effect of silence

No objection deadline. On motion of any party or on its own motion the court 'shall schedule a hearing' to review the notice and the parent-time schedule and costs. The hearing may be expedited. The statute does not say silence authorizes the move and does not require a hearing absent a motion: unclear. § 81-9-209(4), (19)

The modification threshold

Kelly v. Johnson, 2025 UT App 175, ¶¶ 22–24, applies Pingree to hold that no additional best-interest analysis is required before changing custody when the custodial parent relocates after the move is found not to be in the child's best interest. Kelly did not decide whether a separate material-and-substantial-change finding is ever required. The trial court had alternatively found one. Before the relocation statute governed, Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App 290, ¶¶ 22-23, 989 P.2d 491, upheld a changed-circumstances finding resting on both parents' remarriages and moves too far apart for daily contact plus the child starting school.

Other qualifications

150-mile trigger and a full statutory default parent-time package. Failure to give the 60-day notice is deemed contempt, and the court may apply the section to any preexisting decree of divorce. Military: when an issue before the court involves custodial responsibility in the event of deployment of one or both service-member parents and the service member has not yet been notified of deployment, the court resolves that issue based on §§ 81-10-306 to -309 under § 81-9-208(9).

Burden summary

No general allocation identified

Notice summary

60 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

150 miles or more

Compare parental relocation nationally