When does a threatening text message justify a protective order in Utah? Canteros-Alvarez v. Green Explained

Background and facts

Esther Canteros-Alvarez and Lupita Angel Green are sisters whose relationship deteriorated into a bitter dispute over a shared car and, ultimately, custody of Canteros-Alvarez’s son. On July 20, 2024, Green sent a text message stating she hoped Canteros-Alvarez would “swing first” so she could “beat the shit out of” her. Following additional hostile conduct — including welfare checks, a DCFS complaint, and a guardianship petition — Canteros-Alvarez sought a protective order under Utah’s Cohabitant Abuse Act. A court commissioner found the July 20 text crossed the line for abuse by “the narrowest of margins” and recommended the protective order, which the district court adopted. Green appealed without first objecting to the commissioner’s recommendation under Rule 108 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

Key legal issues

The central question was whether the text message established the statutory element of imminent physical harm under Utah Code § 78B-7-102(1), which defines abuse as intentionally or knowingly placing another individual in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. The court also addressed whether Green’s failure to file a Rule 108 objection barred her appeal — reaffirming prior precedent that such an objection is not a prerequisite to appellate review.

Court’s analysis and holding

Applying a clearly erroneous standard to the sufficiency challenge, the Utah Court of Appeals vacated the protective order. The court identified four factors that together defeated any finding of imminence. First, Green never stated she would actually hit Canteros-Alvarez — only that she wished she could. Second, the threat was explicitly conditional, triggered only if Canteros-Alvarez struck first. Third, the text was sent while the parties were physically separated, analogous to the phone-call scenario in State v. Berriel, 2013 UT 19, where the Utah Supreme Court held that a threat communicated remotely did not establish imminence at the time of a later confrontation. Fourth, the record contained no history of physical violence between the sisters that might contextually support a belief that harm was impending. Drawing on State v. Clara, 2024 UT 10, and State v. Farmer, 2025 UT App 57, the court held that a threat directed to some indefinite future time — and conditioned on an event that had not yet occurred — cannot satisfy the imminence requirement of the Act.

Practice implications

This decision offers important guidance for practitioners handling protective order appeals under the Cohabitant Abuse Act. Courts will scrutinize not merely whether threatening language was used, but whether the threat was unconditional, temporally proximate, and communicated in circumstances suggesting physical harm was about to occur. Practitioners representing petitioners should document any history of prior violence, the physical proximity of the parties at the time of any threat, and any unconditional statements of harmful intent — all factors the court treated as bearing directly on imminence. Respondents challenging protective orders should likewise anchor their sufficiency argument to the statutory text: the Act requires proof that harm was imminent, not merely feared at some indefinite future point.