Utah divorce and family courts sometimes wander into nanny-court social engineering, issuing orders that treat parents like fools and/or helpless children who can’t be trusted to act sensibly without judicial babysitting. Such mandates rarely solve conflict, are nearly impossible to enforce, waste time and money, often insult the litigants, and erode respect for and trust in the courts. Parents should not passively accept this overreach. If the opposing party’s bad behavior truly requires court action, insist on clear, specific, enforceable orders, not orders that apply “mutually” to both the innocent and the guilty. Resist busybody micromanagement when it’s neither necessary nor lawful.
“Nanny Court” Is Not the Job You Think It Is
Divorce courts exist to decide legal rights and duties, not to referee every petty squabble or parent’s personality flaw. Yet in Utah’s domestic relations courts, it’s become common to hear commissioners and judges issue well-meaning but condescending social engineering directives: “You will communicate kindly and only via Our Family Wizard,” “You will refrain from disparaging each other to or around the children,” or “You will not speak to each other during child custody and parent-time exchanges.”
These orders feel good to the bench; a quick way to “teach” warring parents how to behave. But they send two corrosive messages:
1. that adults need a judicial babysitter to keep them from figuratively walking off cliffs or diving into empty pools. Worse, they often reward the least mature party; the more childish someone acts, the more the court feels compelled to parent them.
2. Courts arrogate to themselves the power to trample your basic rights by claiming “doing good” permits it.
Why Vague Social Orders Fail (and Backfire)
- They can’t be enforced.
A court order must be clear enough that you can tell when it’s been violated. “Be respectful in emails” or “act in good faith” means nothing when you’re deciding whether to hold someone in contempt. Judges end up shrugging or refereeing semantic fights about tone. - They create endless motion practice.
Vague orders invite “he said/she said” contempt motions over whether a message was rude, whether a purchase was “reasonable,” or whether a party acted “adult.” Every new fight costs litigants money and clogs court calendars. - They distract from real issues.
Instead of resolving property division, custody schedules, or support calculations, the court spends time micromanaging etiquette and personality. Meanwhile, children and finances stay in limbo. - They infantilize both parties.
When a judge treats parents like toddlers, it erodes dignity and undermines confidence in the system. Litigants feel insulted and controlled rather than protected by the law.
A Utah Reality Check
Utah’s has seen this trend grow. Some commissioners and judges routinely tack on “be adults” conditions to temporary orders: directing parents to “speak only positively about each other’s homes,” or “maintain civility at extracurricular events.” These might seem harmless until one parent uses them as weapons.
Example (anonymized but real): one parent was ordered to “refrain from disparaging the other’s housekeeping.” Months later, that turned into a contempt motion alleging that a single sarcastic text (“Your place smells like a litter box”) violated the order. Thousands of dollars in fees later, nothing was solved.
Another case: a court ordered parents to “communicate only in a businesslike manner by email.” One parent printed dozens of borderline messages and moved for contempt every few months. The fight over “tone” cost more than the disputed matter itself.
Courts Have Powerful Tools; They Must Use Them Responsibly and With Restraint
Utah law already gives courts the power to step in when there’s real harm:
- They can issue protective orders in response to real danger
- They can hold parties in contempt for violating specific obligations (pay support, produce documents, deliver property)
- They can enforce parenting plans with clear, measurable terms (exchange times, travel rules)
What courts must not do is issue unenforceable, moralizing, and excessive commands. Orders need to be definite, enforceable, and no more extensive than necessary. A judge can’t punish someone for failing to meet a standard no one can objectively measure or for failing to meet a subjective standard that infringes an adult’s lawful and legal autonomy.
How to Push Back (Without Burning Bridges)
If you’re in a Utah divorce or custody case and the court tries to slip in a “nanny” order:
- Ask your lawyer to object on the record.
Respectfully request that the court issue only specific, enforceable, necessary directives. - Request findings of necessity.
Ask the judge or commissioner to explain:
a. why a social-behavior order is needed; and
b. how it can be enforced.
Often, the explanation falls apart under scrutiny.
- Document bad behavior if it’s real.
If the other side truly acts recklessly (e.g., wastes marital assets, threatens safety), gather solid proof (text messages, emails, receipts) so the court can craft a concrete order that is actually feasible and that actually protects you. - Consider appeal or reconsideration.
If an order is overbroad or vague but harmful, your attorney may be able to challenge it through a motion to reconsider or an appeal.
Demand Law and Restraint, Not Parenting Lessons
Courts are to apply and enforce the law, not act as family therapists or etiquette coaches. They don’t get to impose their views of what constitutes fit parenting on others. When Utah judges or commissioners step into the role of parent-to-the-parents, they blur legal boundaries and waste everyone’s time and money. Clear, enforceable orders protect families; vague, busybody mandates do not.
If your case starts drifting into nanny court territory, speak up — or have your lawyer do it for you. The system only changes when parties refuse to accept judicial micromanagement disguised as “help.”
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277