Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Mortensen face dueling protective order petitions in Utah. A custody decision for their young son hinges on allegations of domestic violence.
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah judge is set to hear competing requests for protective orders between reality TV star Taylor Frankie Paul and her ex-partner, Dakota Mortensen, in a case that could directly determine custody of their 2-year-old son.
The legal battle. scheduled for Thursday. centers on whether short-term restrictions should become long-term arrangements—and what that means for their child’s safety.. Misryoum will be watching closely because the hearing is unfolding at the intersection of allegations of domestic violence and the high-stakes question courts always face: what protects a child best.
At an earlier April 7 hearing. a Third District Court commissioner said there were “concerns going both ways” based on the claims made by both sides.. For now. Paul is not allowed to spend unsupervised time with her son. a restriction tied to a history of volatile behavior allegedly directed at Mortensen while their child was present.. Until Thursday’s proceedings, both adults were ordered to stay at least 100 feet apart.
The courtroom fight is not happening in isolation.. Their relationship—and the breakdown of it—became a public storyline through “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.” A leaked video from 2023. which showed Paul allegedly attacking Mortensen while their daughter watched and cried. helped fuel scrutiny well beyond the courtroom.. After the video surfaced. Misryoum reports that ABC shelved a previously filmed “Bachelorette” season featuring Paul. and Hulu paused production of “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” before resuming filming last week.
Paul’s legal situation has also been shaped by prior criminal proceedings.. Police body camera footage from her arrest appeared in the first season of the Hulu show.. She pleaded guilty to an assault charge. with the agreement tied to probation: the assault could be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor if she avoids legal trouble during a three-year probationary period that runs until August.. Prosecutors later declined to bring additional charges earlier this month. a decision that could matter to how the court evaluates the new protective order requests.
Utah protective orders can limit or even eliminate a parent’s access to a child.. When one parent receives an order against the other. commissioners may also decide it is in the child’s best interest to award custody to the protected parent.. When both sides pursue protective orders against each other. the decision becomes more complicated. and courts lean heavily on an attorney appointed to investigate the child’s best interests.
In this case, their son, Ever, will have a court-appointed attorney present at Thursday’s hearing.. That attorney’s role is to help the commissioner understand the safest arrangement for the child—an especially sensitive task when both parents accuse the other of violence and when each request for protection could narrow the other parent’s time.
During the April 7 hearing. the child’s attorney raised concerns about Paul’s pattern of conflict with Mortensen occurring in the presence of their son.. Paul’s attorney argued that Mortensen is the aggressor. pointing to photos presented in court of Paul’s bruises after an alleged incident in a truck.. Mortensen’s attorney. by contrast. described other confrontations and argued that Paul uses their son “as a pawn to start fights. ” framing the issue less as isolated incidents and more as a broader pattern of escalation.
The wider question for the court—and for families watching these proceedings unfold—is how to translate competing accounts into a workable. child-centered plan when credible safety concerns exist on both sides.. Protective orders are designed to reduce immediate harm. but long-term custody arrangements require courts to forecast what will likely happen next. not just what happened in the past.
Misryoum also recognizes the cultural pressure that can surround high-profile custody disputes, particularly when public footage is involved.. The case underscores how quickly private conflict can become a matter of public record. and how that visibility can amplify scrutiny while the legal process still depends on careful fact-finding and risk assessment.
What happens Thursday could set the tone for the child’s near future: whether restrictions tighten. whether supervised arrangements become the norm. and whether either parent gains more access.. For now. the key point is that the court is working through dueling narratives under a standard focused on the child’s best interests—one where even “short-term” protections can carry long-term consequences.