No, and I’ll tell you why in the context of discussing a newly proposed Utah Rule of Civil Procedure which would be Rule 53A, entitled “Special masters for parenting disputes in domestic relations actions. “
According to the Utah courts, “This new rule is proposed to cover the court appointment of special masters specific to domestic relations actions. A separate rule is being drafted and will be proposed to cover the training and qualifications of a special master in domestic relations actions.”
You can read the text of the proposed rule by clicking on this link: proposed Rule 53A.
Proposed rule 53A would provide, inter alia:
A court may appoint a special master by order after entry of a court ordered parenting plan, temporary order, or final order in a case. A court may appoint a special master only upon stipulation of the parties. If the parties stipulate to the appointment of a special master, the court may select the special master.
Proposed rule 53A is a bad idea for many reasons, chief amongst them being that appointing special masters is a bad idea.
For one, a special master is paid by the parties themselves, not by the court.
And as attorney Kayla Quam stated in her comments on proposed rule 53A, “The type of cases that need Special Masters appointed are the ones in which one of the parties will not agree to the appointment of a Special Master.”
Ms. Quam continues:
I would greatly prefer a version where the Court has the ability to appoint a Special Master. This Rule could be limited for “high-conflict cases” or for “exceptional cases where the Court determines a Special Master would greatly reduce high attorney fees or conflict that is harming the children.
I can sympathize with the reasons/circumstances underlying such a proposal, but I fear that granting courts a sua sponte right to appoint special masters in “high-conflict” cases would be too much of a temptation to treat virtually all cases as “high conflict” cases as an excuse for courts to outsource the work to a special master.
Regardless, special masters are generally a bad idea because they do not solve the problems for which they were created. I’ve never had a positive experience with a special master. They are insufficiently attentive, responsive, neutral, inquisitive, analytical, and resourceful. Special masters add an unneeded and unproductive layer of complexity and bureaucracy to a case. Special masters love the title, they love to bill, but their work product does not justify their appointment. Parties don’t take them seriously because they are so often perceived as “not the judge” and thus “possessing no real power”.
The problem with special masters lies not in a lack of rules governing the appointment and powers of a special master nor in the structure of a special master rule, but in the implementation of a special master appointment itself. Special masters generally do a mediocre job, for a premium price, that does not improve the situation as it existed before appointment of a special master.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
