CASE MANAGEMENT
CS
089P De Novo Review
01/10/01
Revised 09/01/25 Training Completed 09/15/25 Last Reviewed 09/29/25
Statutory Authority
Utah Code 26B-9-230 states:
“(1) (a) Within 30 days of notice
of any administrative action on the part of the office to establish parentage
or establish, modify or enforce a child support order, the obligor may file a
petition for de novo review with the district court.
(b) For purposes of Subsection
(1)(a), notice includes:
(i)
notice actually received by the obligor in accordance with Section 26B-9-207;
(ii) participation by the obligor
in the proceedings related to the establishment of the parentage
or the modification or enforcement of child support; or
(iii) receiving a paycheck in
which a reduction has been made for child support.
(2) The petition shall name the
office and all other appropriate parties as respondents and meet the form
requirements specified in Section 63G-4-402.
(3) A copy of the petition shall
be served upon the Child and Family Support Division of the Office of Attorney
General.
(4) (a) If the petition is
regarding the amount of the child support obligation established in accordance
with Title 81, Chapter 6, Utah Child Support Act, the court may issue a
temporary order for child support until a final order is issued.
(b) The petitioner may file an
affidavit stating the amount of child support reasonably believed to be due and
the court may issue a temporary order for that amount. The temporary order
shall be valid for 60 days, unless extended by the court while the action is
being pursued.
(c) If the court upholds the
amount of support established in Subsection (4)(a), the petitioner shall be
ordered to make up the difference between the amount originally ordered in
Subsection (4) (a) and the amount temporarily ordered under Subsection (4)(b).
(d) This Subsection (4) does not
apply to an action for the court-ordered modification of a judicial child
support order.
(5) The court may, on its own
initiative and based on the evidence before it, determine whether the
petitioner violated Rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure by filing the
action. If the court determines that Rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil
Procedure was violated, it shall, at a minimum, award to the office attorney
fees and costs for the action.
(6) Nothing in this section
precludes the obligor from seeking administrative remedies as provided in this
chapter.”
Within 30 days of notice of any administrative action initiated by
the Office of Recovery Services/Child Support Services (ORS/CSS) to establish
paternity, or to establish, modify or enforce a child support order, the
noncustodial parent (NCP) may file a petition for de novo review with the
district court. A de novo review is a review that starts “afresh” or “anew,” as
if the matter has not been previously heard or a decision rendered.
A “notice of administrative action,” as associated with de novo
review, is different than a Notice of Agency Action (NAA) and can include
actions such as the ones listed below:
1.
A notice
generated by CSS and actually received by the
NCP/obligor in accordance with Utah Code 26B-9-207. For example, the NCP
received and is responding to the “Annual Notice of Past-due Child Support”
form.
2.
Participation by the NCP in the proceedings related to the
establishment of paternity, or the establishment, modification or enforcement
of child support.
3.
Receiving a paycheck in which child support has been withheld at
the request of CSS.
When petitioning the district court for a de novo review, the NCP
must include CSS as a party and serve a copy of the petition upon the Child and
Family Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General.
If you receive a copy of the petition for de novo review from the NCP, or are informed of the de novo review by the Attorney
General’s Office (AGO), you must refer the case to the AGO.
If you are currently enforcing on the case, review the case with
your manager (and other members of the management chain as needed) and the
assigned Assistant Attorney General to make a determination
as to whether it is prudent to continue enforcement while waiting for the de
novo review. CSS is not legally obligated to discontinue enforcement; however,
after further review, you may determine that it is in the best interests of the
agency to discontinue enforcement until the de novo review has been completed.