Why should an ordinary divorce or child custody dispute take a year or longer to resolve? “These cases are complicated” is an explanation for some cases. It is not an explanation for every case, much less a justification for months when nothing meaningful happens.
Utah should establish an expedited family-law docket with early trial dates, enforced disclosure deadlines, and extensions tied to demonstrated needs. The objective is straightforward: give each case the time necessary to decide it fairly, and require an explanation for additional delay.
We already have much of the procedural foundation. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 100A directs courts to certify standard domestic relations cases—those requiring neither expert witnesses nor complex discovery—directly for trial. It requires mediation before trial when mediation has not occurred. It does not require postponing trial certification until mediation is finished. Rule 16 expressly authorizes early judicial control, discovery deadlines, and trial settings.
Rule 26 also provides a standard 90-day fact-discovery period for domestic relations actions, measured from when the first defendant’s initial disclosures are due. Expert discovery is additional. These rules do not guarantee a quick trial, but they demonstrate that prolonged litigation is hardly a procedural necessity.
Delay matters because families continue living under its consequences. Children grow older. Savings disappear. “Temporary” orders arrangements become established routines. A parent who receives inadequate time with a child cannot recover the lost months simply because a later ruling recognizes the problem.
Delay can also distort settlement. A spouse who cannot afford another six months of litigation may accept terms the evidence would not justify. Meanwhile, the person benefiting from the temporary arrangement may have little incentive to reach a final decision. Calling the eventual agreement “voluntary” does not answer whether avoidable delay helped extract it.
A workable rocket docket would begin with an early conference identifying what actually needs deciding. Which facts are disputed? Which records are missing? Is expert testimony necessary? How much hearing time will the evidence require? The court would then assign a trial date and schedule preparation backward from it.
For ordinary contested cases, Utah could test a presumptive trial target of 120 to 180 days after the answer. That is a proposed pilot target, not an existing deadline. The schedule would accommodate required disclosures, proportionate discovery, mediation, and trial preparation. Mediation would proceed alongside necessary preparation, rather than becoming a reason to suspend it.
Exceptions would remain available, but they would require specifics. “We need more time” should prompt questions: For what evidence? Why is it material? What has been done to obtain it? When can it reasonably be available? A party withholding records should not gain a scheduling advantage from that obstruction.
Complex financial questions and serious safety allegations deserve careful investigation. But neither a difficult issue nor an accusation should produce an indefinite procedural detour. When an evaluation or other professional involvement is necessary, the court should define its purpose, scope, and completion date. Rule 100A already calls for considering whether custody evaluations and private guardians ad litem are necessary; it does not make those appointments automatic.
The strongest objection is resources. Courts need actual hearing time, adequate staffing, and judges available to decide cases. Imposing deadlines on lawyers while leaving trial availability unchanged would accomplish little. A pilot must reserve courtroom capacity and measure whether earlier decisions reduce repeated interim motions, postponed-hearing preparation, and other work generated by prolonged litigation.
Another legitimate concern is unequal preparation. The spouse who planned the filing may already control the records and have counsel retained. An accelerated schedule must include prompt disclosure enforcement and enough time for the other party to prepare. Otherwise, speed could compound the very imbalance the reform should reduce.
Success also cannot be measured solely by how quickly files close. Courts should track costs, continuances, contested hearing availability, and subsequent proceedings that reveal unresolved problems. A rushed decision that generates another lawsuit is a poor bargain.
Families deserve sufficient time to present their evidence and receive a reasoned decision. They also deserve an explanation when the system makes them wait. Utah should begin with a funded, measured pilot and require every substantial extension to identify the work that justifies it. The question should become routine: What necessary work prevents this case from being decided sooner, and when will that work be finished?
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277