Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Utah Senate committee approves dating violence bill
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2013, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

A bill that would allow Utahns to seek protective orders against potentially dangerous dating partners earned a favorable vote Wednesday from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Dating Violence Protective Act, HB50, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 7-1 vote. The bill would allow adults and emancipated minors to ask judges for protective orders against people they are dating. State law now allows only spouses and people living together to ask for protective orders.

The bill was approved after an hour-long discussion led by sponsor Rep. Jennifer Seelig, D-Salt Lake City. Seelig provided an array of statistics about violence in dating relationships, noted that 42 other states have similar laws, and said the bill would "fill a gap in the Utah code."

Most committee members seemed supportive. But Sen. Daniel Thatcher expressed several concerns about the bill, including that there was no method to expunge a dating violence protective order. He still voted for the bill, saying he didn't want "perfection to be the enemy of good."

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, was the lone holdout. Madsen praised the bill's objectives, but suggested that allowing protective orders after a single verbal threat went too far. Instead, he suggested, they should be available after one "violent act or two threats."

Lawmakers will evaluate the bill's fiscal note before moving it onto the Senate floor for a final vote. If passed, the measure would cost the courts $124,200 and the Department of Corrections $27,400 in fiscal year 2014.

The bill was approved by the Utah House on Feb. 15 after a fight over exactly who it should cover. At that time, Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, offered an amendment that would have defined dating as a precursor to marriage.

Seelig opposed that amendment, calling it the "institutionalization of discrimination." The fear among supporters of the bill was that because Utah prohibits same-sex couples from marrying, they wouldn't be protected by the bill as amended by Christensen.

In the end, the house rejected Christensen's amendment and approved the bill 61-11.

jdalrymple@sltrib.com

Twitter: @jimmycdii

Article Tools

 Print Friendly
Photos
 
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Login to the Electronic Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.