My Experience in Utah Family Court
My Utah family-court experience between 2005 and 2008 taught me that the outcome of litigation can depend on more than winning an individual argument. My central objective was to make continued enforcement financially unattractive to the state while continuing to support my children.
I raised many arguments and challenged the proceedings through numerous hearings. The accounting issue described below was one part of that broader effort, not my principal argument. Ultimately, the State of Utah withdrew, the support orders were dismissed, and I walked out of court with no remaining support orders.
My Strategy: Change the Economics of the Case
My goal was to make the litigation as expensive as possible for the state to continue. I wanted the time and resources required to pursue me to exceed what the state stood to receive from continuing the case. Obtaining a favorable ruling on every issue was not my primary objective. My intended result was the state's withdrawal.
I believe that strategy accomplished its purpose. In my view, the cumulative demands of the proceedings made my case financially unattractive to pursue. That is my explanation of the outcome; the withdrawal was not a judicial finding establishing the state's financial calculations or its reasons for leaving the case.
Support, Responsibility, and Personal Control
I continued providing support throughout the dispute. After leaving wage employment, I supported myself by building brick mailboxes as a self-employed mason and had substantial demand for my work. Every Friday, I made a deposit into my children's mother's bank account. On the back of each check, I wrote, “For child support only.”
My position was that supporting my children was a moral responsibility, while retaining control over how much I provided and for what purpose was a matter of parental autonomy. I was contesting government control over those decisions, not rejecting my responsibility to my children.
The state and trial court initially refused to credit those checks as child support. I appealed. As I recall the appellate decision, the court treated the checks as a contract and concluded that the payments counted as child support because the money had been accepted and not returned. This describes my experience with that appeal, not a guarantee that similarly marked checks will receive credit in another case.
Legality, Ethics, and My Moral Position
I do not regard legality, professional ethics, and morality as interchangeable. I believe a legally authorized practice can still produce an unjust result, and that a strategy others criticize on ethical grounds can be motivated by a sincere commitment to fairness.
Others may disagree with my methods. I believe I held the moral ground because I continued supporting my children while resisting a process I considered unjust. From my perspective, the result preserved parental responsibility, fairness, and personal agency. That is my moral assessment of my own actions, not a claim that personal conviction excuses a legal obligation.
Education and Preparation
During this period, I attended college and earned a paralegal certificate. I lived with my mother during a period when I maintained that I was indigent, documented my financial circumstances, submitted job applications to the court, and continued making regular support payments.
I relied on those circumstances in opposing incarceration and enforcement. In my case, I was not incarcerated, and the state did not collect through wage garnishment after I became self-employed. These circumstances were part of my particular case; they do not establish automatic protection from enforcement for other parents.
One of Many Arguments: Financial Accountability
Among the issues I raised was Utah's accounting for federal reimbursements associated with child-support enforcement. I contended that reimbursement receipts were credited to accounts different from those that paid the qualifying expenses, and I argued that this constituted unlawful commingling or misuse of funds under Utah law.
I also advanced constitutional arguments concerning the government's taking of private property for a public purpose without compensation. These were components of my broader litigation position. The accounting and constitutional theories were not resolved by a ruling establishing them as law.
The Outcome and Why I Share It
After numerous hearings and challenges, the state withdrew and the support orders were dismissed. I believe the expense of continued litigation was decisive. I had pursued the practical outcome I wanted, continued providing support, and ultimately left court without support orders.
I share this history because fathers deserve fair treatment and government agencies should be accountable. My story illustrates my beliefs about litigation, responsibility, and justice. It does not promise that another parent can obtain the same result.
This is a first-person account based on my recollection and personal convictions, not legal advice or a recommended litigation plan. Filings made merely to cause delay, harassment, or needless expense can lead to sanctions. Personal moral beliefs do not authorize disregarding court orders, choosing a different support amount, or avoiding lawful collection. Applicable orders remain enforceable unless changed or terminated through the legal process. Laws and procedures may have changed since 2005–2008.
Landing page updated November 6, 2026.