Utah’s 2026 legislative session includes a proposal that deserves attention well beyond juvenile court. House Bill 372—particularly its substitute versions—revisits Guardian ad Litem (GAL) duties and standards in child welfare proceedings.
Although the bill lives primarily in Title 80 territory, the principles underlying it have real implications for divorce child custody and parent-time cases under Title 81.
The central issue is simple:
When a GAL appears in court, whose voice are we actually hearing?
A Structural Shift in How GALs Operate
Recent substitute drafts of HB 372 reflect a meaningful shift in how the Legislature views a GAL’s role. Among other things, the proposed changes suggest:
Ÿ Different advocacy standards depending on the child’s age—including direction that, for children eight and older, a GAL may be expected to advocate for the child’s expressed wishes, rather than substituting the GAL’s own best-interest analysis.
Ÿ Clear disclosure obligations at hearings—including communicating the minor’s expressed wishes and identifying the date of last contact.
Ÿ Expanded expectations regarding investigation, ongoing contact, and independent reporting.
These are not cosmetic edits. They are structural.
For years, Utah courts have wrestled—sometimes implicitly—with a core tension: Is the GAL the child’s attorney, or is the GAL an investigator who makes recommendations to the court?
Those are not the same role.
An attorney represents a client’s position. An investigator makes evaluative conclusions. When those roles blur together, something important can get lost: the child’s unfiltered voice.
The Risk of Substitution
In many contested divorce child custody cases, GAL recommendations carry enormous weight. Sometimes they become the gravitational center of the case. Judges rely on them. Attorneys structure strategy around them. Parents measure their chances by them.
That reliance can gradually become deference. And deference can quietly become substitution.
Courts can respect and value the work of a Guardian ad Litem while still insisting on transparency. Verification is essential when the child’s voice is ostensibly being conveyed through another adult.
The danger is that the GAL’s opinion begins to function as a proxy for the child’s voice rather than a report about it. When that happens, the child’s actual preferences may be filtered, softened, interpreted, or reframed through the GAL’s perspective.
HB 372 reflects a legislative instinct that this distinction matters.
Children—particularly older children—are not merely subjects of child custody and parent-time litigation. They have the greatest stake in the litigation. Their preferences may not control the outcome, but a court cannot claim to have adequately conducted the statutory analysis without taking into consideration what the child knows, what the child wants, and why. Best interest remains the governing standard. That does not change. A child does not get to dictate custody. But best-interest determinations are stronger—and more intellectually honest—when courts clearly understand what the child has actually said.
Accountability and Transparency
Requiring disclosure of the child’s expressed wishes and the date of last contact may sound procedural. It isn’t. It reinforces accountability.
It forces confirmation that the GAL has had recent, meaningful contact with the child. It creates transparency about whether the court is hearing the child’s words or the GAL’s interpretation of them. It invites a disciplined distinction between:
Ÿ “The child told me X,” and
Ÿ “In my professional judgment, the child should want Y.”
Those are different statements. Courts should treat them differently. But they cannot treat them differently if the child’s own, unfiltered words are withheld from the court.
Expanded investigation and reporting requirements serve a similar function. They strengthen the legitimacy of GAL advocacy by ensuring it rests on ongoing engagement rather than limited interaction.
Why Divorce Courts Should Pay Attention
Even if HB 372 ultimately applies primarily in juvenile proceedings, the principles underlying it are relevant to divorce courts.
In private child custody disputes under Title 81, courts would be wise to apply the same discipline:
- Clearly distinguish between the child’s expressed wishes and the GAL’s evaluative conclusions.
- Avoid allowing the GAL’s recommendation to eclipse the court’s independent statutory best-interest analysis.
- Ensure that when a child’s preference is reported, it is conveyed accurately, transparently, and in context. And there is no better way to ensure this than by having an unredacted audio and video record of the child’s interview in evidence.
Judges can and should ask:
Is this the child speaking?
Or is this the GAL interpreting?
That distinction is not academic. It goes to the integrity of the process.
Preserving the Child’s Voice
The goal is not to weaken GALs. It is to clarify their role.
A well-functioning GAL system can be valuable. Independent investigation, careful reporting, and informed advocacy all serve important purposes. But those functions should not overshadow the child’s own perspective—especially when the child is old enough to articulate one.
The more transparent the distinction becomes between the child’s voice and the GAL’s conclusions, the more credible custody proceedings become.
Best-interest analysis is not undermined by hearing the child clearly. It is strengthened by it.
If HB 372 reflects anything, it is a recognition that representation and substitution are not the same thing. Courts in divorce child custody and parent-time cases would do well to keep that principle in view.
When the child’s voice is preserved rather than overshadowed, the system is more disciplined, more transparent, and ultimately more just.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277