Court Opinion

ID: 9595578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:41:58.783993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:28.992983
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result. In this matter the Utah State Department of Social Services intervened in a divorce proceeding between Margo Bartholomew and Dick Dale Bartholomew. I find no basis in law for such intervention.1 It goes without saying that the State could not have intervened in the divorce proceedings filed by the plaintiff. Those proceedings were initiated pursuant to Section 30-3-1, U.C.A.1953, and there is no provision for intervention by any third person, and I find no sound legal basis for permitting the State to intervene after judgment. The Uniform Civil Liability For Support Act which includes Section 78-45-9 referred to in the majority opinion creates a new and different obligation for the support of dependents and a new cause of action is created to enforce that duty. Under the provisions of the act the State may initiate proceedings to enforce the right of support, but nowhere in the act is the State granted authority to intervene in divorce proceedings between spouses. The remedies provided for in the Uniform Support Act are different from those permitted in divorce proceedings. While the court under the provisions of the Uniform Support Act has continuing jurisdiction to modify any judgment entered, there is no provision to enforce the judgment by proceedings in contempt of court.
*242In my opinion the State is in the position of an interloper in these proceedings.
MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the views expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Tuckett.

. Rule 24, U.R.C.P.