Rule 100.Coordination of cases pending in district court and juvenile court
Part XII: Family Law · Last amended November 1, 2019 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 100 requires parties in a custody, child support, or parent-time case to tell the court about any related case in another court, so judges and commissioners can coordinate or consolidate proceedings involving the same family.
(a)Notice to the court. In a case in which child custody, child support, or parent time is an issue, all parties have a continuing duty to notify the court:
(1)of a case in which a party or the party’s child is a party to or the subject of a petition or order involving child support, parent time, or child custody, including minor guardianship, adoption, or any similar child custody case;
(2)of a criminal or delinquency case in which a party or the party’s child is a defendant or respondent;
(3)of a protective order case involving a party regardless whether a child of the party is involved. The notice shall be filed with a party’s initial pleading or as soon as practicable after the party becomes aware of the other case. The notice shall include the case caption, file number, and name of the judge or commissioner in the other case.
(b)Communication among judges and commissioners. The judge or commissioner assigned to a case in which child support, parent time, or child custody is an issue shall communicate and consult with any other judge or commissioner assigned to any other pending case involving the same issues and the same parties or their children. The objective of the communication is to consider the feasibility of consolidating the cases before one judge or commissioner or of coordinating hearings and orders.
(c)Participation of parties. The judges and commissioners may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties have not participated in the communication, the parties shall be given notice and the opportunity to present facts and arguments before a decision to consolidate the cases.
(1)The court may consolidate cases within a county under Rule 42.
(2)The court may transfer a case to the court of another county with venue or to the court of any county in accordance with Utah Code Section 78B-3-309.
(3)If the district court and juvenile court have concurrent jurisdiction over cases, either court may transfer a case to the other court upon the agreement of the judges or commissioners assigned to the cases.
(e)Judicial reassignment. A judge may hear and determine a case in another court or district upon assignment in accordance with CJA Rule 3-108(3).
Amendment History
Added effective November 1, 2003; amended effective November 1, 2008; November 1, 2019.
Plain-English Summary
Families often end up in more than one court at once. A divorce may be pending in district court while a protective order, a criminal case, or a juvenile delinquency matter involving the same parent or child moves through another courtroom. Rule 100 makes sure the judge handling custody, support, or parent-time knows about those other cases. Parties have a continuing duty to disclose them, whether the connection is a custody or guardianship case, a criminal or delinquency case naming the party or the party's child, or a protective order involving the party. The notice goes in with the initial pleading, or as soon as the party learns of the other case, and it must identify the case number, caption, and assigned judge or commissioner.
Once a judge or commissioner learns of a related case, the rule directs them to talk to whoever is handling the other matter. The goal is to line up hearings and orders rather than let two courts issue conflicting rulings about the same child. Parties can take part in that conversation if the judges allow it; if they don't, they still get notice and a chance to weigh in before any case gets consolidated. The rule also spells out how consolidation and transfer can happen — within a county under Rule 42, to another county with venue, or between district and juvenile court when both have jurisdiction — and it lets a judge be assigned to hear a case outside their usual court or district so one person can see the whole picture.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kinds of related cases must a party disclose under Rule 100?
A party must notify the court of any other case involving a child support, parent-time, or custody dispute over the same child (including guardianship or adoption), a criminal or delinquency case naming the party or the party's child, or a protective order involving the party. The disclosure duty continues throughout the case.
When and how does the notice have to be filed?
The notice goes in with the party's first pleading, or as soon as practical after the party finds out about the other case. It must include the other case's caption, file number, and the name of the judge or commissioner assigned to it.
Who decides whether to consolidate related cases?
The judges or commissioners assigned to the cases communicate and consult with each other about whether to consolidate the cases before one judicial officer or coordinate hearings and orders between the two cases.
Do the parties get a say before cases are consolidated?
Yes, unless they already took part in the judges' communication. If they didn't participate, the rule requires notice and a chance to present facts and arguments before the court decides to consolidate.
Can a case be moved to a different court or county?
Yes. Cases can be consolidated within a county under Rule 42, transferred to another county that has venue, or transferred between district court and juvenile court when both have jurisdiction, with agreement from the assigned judges or commissioners.
Source & verification. Rule text, Advisory Committee Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Utah Supreme Court. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:coordination of family court casesnotify court of related caseconsolidating custody and juvenile court casestransfer case between district and juvenile courtmultiple family court cases same child