LIVE COURT | Taylor Frankie Paul v. Dakota Mortensen Restraining Order Hearing - 4-30-26
YouTube · LXZxCedy5jY
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖Taylor Frankie Paul is currently on probation for a 2023 aggravated assault against Dakota Mortonson.
- ❖Dakota's lawyer presented nine exhibits, including videos and audio, alleging Taylor's continued domestic violence since 2023.
- ❖Taylor's lawyer argued Dakota's actions, including kicking Taylor and shoving her head into a dashboard, warranted a protective order against him.
- ❖An affidavit from Jesse Draper stated Dakota confessed to leaking Taylor's 'bar stool incident' video to TMZ to intentionally embarrass and destroy her career.
- ❖Dakota allegedly stole Taylor's phone twice to read her messages, demonstrating an 'obsession' and 'inability to move on'.
- ❖The city prosecutor found both Taylor and Dakota 'not credible witnesses' regarding a February 2026 incident, leading to no criminal charges.
- ❖The host noted the surprising fact that Taylor's probation was never violated despite multiple alleged domestic violence incidents post-conviction.
Insights
1Dual Protective Orders and Allegations
Both Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Mortonson have filed competing protective orders against each other, alleging domestic violence. Taylor is currently on probation for a 2023 aggravated assault against Dakota, which involved a 'bar stool incident.'
Host's introduction and summary of the case. Dakota's lawyer references Taylor's 'aggravated assault charge and plea of guilty' from 2023.
2Dakota's Allegations and Fear of Retaliation
Dakota's lawyer presented multiple exhibits (videos, audio, photos of injuries) detailing alleged incidents of Taylor's violence from 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. The lawyer argued that Taylor's threats to 'ruin his life' and ensure he'd 'never work again' (from a recorded phone call) explained Dakota's delay in seeking a protective order, demonstrating his fear beyond physical harm.
Dakota's lawyer cites 'aggravated assault under 765103' and presents nine exhibits. The recorded call includes Taylor saying, 'it will ruin your life' and 'you are never working again.'
3Taylor's Counter-Allegations and Dakota's Admissions
Taylor's lawyer acknowledged her past actions but provided context, such as miscarriages and alcohol issues for the 2023 incident. For a May 2025 incident, Taylor's lawyer alleged Dakota kicked her multiple times while she was on the floor after he pushed her. A text message from Dakota stating, 'Not in a million years after what you did to me and my son,' was presented as a 'tacit admission' to the kicking.
Taylor's lawyer discusses the 'bar stool incident' (), mentions 'two recent miscarriages' and 'alcohol' (). For the May 2025 incident, Taylor's lawyer states Dakota 'kicks her multiple times' () and cites Dakota's text message 'Not in a million years...' as an admission ().
4The February 2026 'Truck Tussle' and Credibility Issues
During a February 2026 incident, an argument escalated from Taylor's home to her truck. Dakota drove off with Taylor in the car, leaving their 2-year-old child alone inside. Taylor's lawyer alleged Dakota assaulted her by grabbing her shoulder and shoving her head into the dashboard. However, the city prosecutor's analysis of this incident found both Taylor and Dakota to be 'not credible witnesses' due to 'inconsistencies,' and no criminal charges were filed.
Taylor's lawyer describes the February 2026 incident (), including Dakota driving away with Taylor, leaving the child alone (). The police report's summary of the city prosecutor's analysis states 'neither Taylor or Dakota are credible witnesses' and 'both parties are misrepresenting their behavior.'
5Dakota's Alleged Obsession and Media Leak
Taylor's lawyer argued Dakota's 'obsession' and 'inability to move on' were evident through actions like getting a lip tattoo of Taylor's initials without her permission (which she found 'creepy') and stealing her phone twice to read her messages. Most significantly, an affidavit from Jesse Draper revealed Dakota explicitly told her he planned to leak embarrassing videos, specifically the 'bar stool video,' to TMZ to 'embarrass Taylor' and 'destroy her,' which occurred days before the video's public release and coincided with his protective order filing.
Taylor's lawyer discusses Dakota's lip tattoo (), stealing Taylor's phone to read messages (), and the affidavit from Jesse Draper detailing Dakota's plan to leak videos to TMZ ().
6February 22nd/23rd Incident Details and Conflicting Narratives
Dakota's attorney presented text messages indicating Taylor invited Dakota for intimacy on February 22nd/23rd. During the visit, Taylor allegedly strangled him, broke his necklace, threw his phone into a wall, and kicked his truck's infotainment system. Dakota called 911 during the incident, later admitting he fabricated a story about a sick child to avoid Taylor's wrath. Taylor's attorney, however, frames this as Dakota leveraging control and trying to destroy her career, arguing he would not disengage.
Text messages submitted by Dakota's attorney showing Taylor's invitation for intimacy and subsequent apologies for breaking a necklace. Dakota's 911 call, where he initially gave a false reason for calling.
7The 'Dad Talk' Tattoo and Reality TV Influence
Dakota's inner lip tattoo of Taylor's initials, initially presented as a sign of his possessive behavior, was revealed to be a staged event for a segment of their reality TV show, 'Secret Lives.' This revelation significantly impacts the perception of his actions as either genuine harassment or performative for entertainment, and raises questions about the overall credibility of both parties.
Dakota's attorney stating the tattoo was part of a 'filmed segment of the TV show' where 'all the dads decided to go down to the tattoo parlor' and thought it would be 'so funny.'
8Credibility Issues with Phone Records and Call Logs
A significant point of contention arose regarding the evidence of phone calls. Dakota's attorney claimed Taylor made 151 phone call attempts in two hours based on phone logs, while previously citing carrier records for 11 calls. Emily D. Baker, the host, highlights that phone logs can be manipulated (e.g., changing contact names), whereas carrier records are more reliable. This inconsistency raises questions about the veracity of the evidence presented by Dakota's side.
Dakota's attorney mentioning 'phone logs' for 151 calls vs. 'carrier records' for 11 calls. Emily D. Baker's explanation of how phone logs can be manipulated compared to carrier records.
9Guardian Ad Litem's Consistent Child Safety Concerns
The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), representing the child's best interests, expressed consistent and serious concerns about Taylor's inability to control her violent behaviors, particularly when the child is present. The GAL referenced the 2023 incident where Taylor threw a chair (hitting another child) and the May 2025 incident where she pushed Dakota while he held their child, noting that even court-mandated programs had not stopped these reactions.
GAL stating concerns go back to the 2023 incident with the chair being thrown while a child was present. GAL's concern about the May 2025 incident where Taylor pushed Dakota while he held the child. GAL noting Taylor completed DV assessments and probation but incidents continue.
10DCFS Findings and Mandated Assessments for Both Parents
The Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigated the family and 'supported' findings against both parents: Taylor for domestic violence in the presence of a child (DVRCA) and Dakota for 'failure to protect' the child from the domestic violence. As a result, both parents are now required to undergo domestic violence and mental health assessments, and follow their recommendations, to avoid formal child welfare petitions.
GAL stating DCFS 'supported mom for DVRCA and supported dad for failure to protect.' DCFS requiring both parents to complete DV and mental health assessments by May 27th.
11Legal Argument on Domestic Violence in Custody Cases
Dakota's attorney cited a Utah Court of Appeals case (NRAY CCW, 2019 Utah App 34) to argue against 'compartmentalizing' a parent's history of domestic violence towards other adults from child custody decisions. The statute emphasizes that such violence has relevance to a child's best interests, even if the child is not directly harmed or witnessed the violence, reinforcing the idea that a history of violence impacts parental fitness.
Citation of Utah Code 78B-7-108 (mutual protective orders) and NRAY CCW, 2019 Utah App 34 (domestic violence relevance in custody).
12Mutual Protective Orders Issued Due to Bilateral Toxicity
The court ordered mutual three-year protective orders against both Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Mortensen, requiring a 100-foot stayaway. The judge explicitly stated that violence occurred both ways and that both parties needed to stay away from each other to prevent further incidents and manipulation. This decision was made to avoid creating an uneven playing field where one party could leverage a protective order against the other.
The judge stated, 'My recommendation is going to be mutual protective orders. I want there to be a 100 foot stayaway for each of their orders.' and later, 'I don't think there's an extreme power imbalance between the two of them... I am just concerned that if I don't order both of them to stay away from each other that there's going to be some additional problems.'
13Differing Natures of Conduct: Reactive vs. Calculating
The judge distinguished between Taylor's and Dakota's behaviors, finding Taylor's conduct to be 'reactive' and an 'inability to control emotions,' while Dakota's was 'deliberative' and 'calculating,' involving elements of manipulation and obsession. This distinction was crucial in the judge's assessment of their individual contributions to the toxic dynamic.
The judge stated, 'the nature of her her conduct is really reactive and the kind of this inability to control emotions. I think his his conduct really is more... deliberative.' and later, 'I felt that Dakota's behavior was a little bit more calculating rather than reactive.'
14Concerns Over Video Evidence and Failure to Protect
The judge expressed significant concern about Dakota's handheld video recordings of incidents, noting that he appeared more interested in preserving evidence than removing the child from dangerous situations. This led to Dakota being supported by DCFS for 'failure to protect' the child.
The judge observed, 'I didn't view the video as him trying to leave and get the child out of there. I viewed him is him standing there being more more interested in what the whether this video recording he's looking into the camera in some instances... a greater concern about preservation of evidence than it was about removing the child from the situation which I think is borne out by the fact that he was supported as well by the DCFS for failure to protect.'
15Court Emphasizes Co-Parenting Responsibility and Long-Term Impact
The judge delivered a stern message to both parties, highlighting that their dysfunctional relationship and conflict modeling would negatively affect their two-year-old child's future relationships and perpetuate a 'legacy of violence.' The court stressed that they are linked for life through their child and must learn to 'adult' and co-parent without continuous judicial intervention.
The judge stated, 'You have to figure out how to function as co-parents. This has been dysfunctional. This is a lifelong proposition between the two of you... You're modeling right now how you deal with conflict to a two-year-old. This is going to this can affect this child on a when the child grows up and becomes an adult and is... in his own personal relationships as well.'
Bottom Line
The court's nuanced approach to 'mutual protective orders' (Utah Code 78B-7-108) requires each party to demonstrate abuse and that their actions were not in self-defense, highlighting the high bar for such orders in complex, mutually combative relationships.
This legal standard prevents easy 'both sides' protective orders, forcing a deeper examination of who initiated violence and who acted defensively, which is critical in cases where both parties claim victimhood.
Legal professionals could specialize in navigating mutual protective order cases, focusing on meticulous evidence collection to prove primary aggressor status or clear self-defense, given the burden of proof on both parties.
The host's observation about the importance of 'carrier records' over 'phone logs' for proving call frequency and origin reveals a critical vulnerability in digital evidence when manipulation is possible.
Reliance on easily manipulated phone logs can undermine credibility and legal arguments, especially in high-stakes cases where parties have a motive to misrepresent interactions.
Forensic digital evidence specialists who can extract and verify carrier-level phone data would be invaluable in legal proceedings, offering a more robust and unalterable form of communication evidence.
The case highlights the ethical dilemma for reality TV production companies when participants' livelihoods are directly tied to perpetuating conflict, especially when domestic violence is involved.
This dynamic incentivizes continued toxicity, making it difficult for individuals to disengage from harmful relationships, even under court orders.
Production companies could explore new models that prioritize participant well-being and responsible storytelling, potentially through 'off-ramp' support or by diversifying income streams for participants to reduce reliance on conflict-driven narratives. Legal frameworks may also evolve to hold production companies accountable for harm caused by such incentives.
The judge's concern about weaponizing protective orders and the need for mutual orders to create an 'even playing field' reveals a sophisticated understanding of power dynamics in domestic disputes.
This approach aims to prevent one party from using legal protections as a tool for further control or harassment, which is a common issue in high-conflict separations.
Legal practitioners and policymakers can advocate for and implement similar mutual protective order frameworks in cases where both parties contribute to a toxic environment, ensuring fairness and reducing avenues for manipulation.
Key Concepts
Dynamic Abusive Relationships
The host notes that abusive relationships are dynamic, explaining why victims might stay or delay seeking protection, and why the court doesn't typically question 'why did you stay so long?'
Low Standard for Probation Violation
The host highlights that the standard of proof for a probation violation is 'incredibly low' compared to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal charges, making it surprising that Taylor's probation was never violated despite multiple alleged incidents.
Cycle of Abuse
The legal teams and the court repeatedly refer to a 'cycle' of toxic, on-again/off-again behavior between Taylor and Dakota, characterized by periods of intimacy followed by violence and subsequent apologies, making it difficult to establish clear victim/perpetrator roles for protective orders.
Reasonable Person Standard
In evaluating claims of stalking and harassment, the court is reminded to apply the 'reasonable person standard,' focusing on what an objective individual would believe constitutes harassment, rather than solely the subjective feelings of the claimant.
Cycle of Domestic Violence
The judge and host discuss the 'cycle of domestic violence' which involves an incident, followed by sorrow/apology, a 'honeymoon period,' tension building, and then another incident. The judge questioned if the parties' dynamic perfectly fit this cycle but acknowledged recurring incidents and toxicity.
Lessons
- Document all incidents: In domestic disputes, detailed records (photos, videos, texts, police reports) are crucial, even if not immediately leading to charges, as they can be used in civil protective order hearings.
- Prioritize child safety: The court expressed significant concern when parents left a young child alone to continue an argument, highlighting the paramount importance of a child's well-being in custody and protective order cases.
- Understand legal standards: Be aware that the standard of proof for a probation violation is much lower than for criminal charges, meaning even minor incidents could trigger a violation if properly reported and investigated.
- Document all incidents of domestic violence with objective evidence like carrier phone records, police reports, and third-party accounts, rather than easily manipulated phone logs or subjective recollections.
- Understand that participation in reality television or public platforms can turn personal actions into legal evidence, requiring careful consideration of how 'staged' content might be interpreted in court.
- Prioritize child safety by seeking intervention from child protective services (like DCFS) and adhering to their recommendations, as court-mandated programs alone may not be sufficient to change ingrained violent behaviors.
- If involved in a high-conflict co-parenting situation, explore using neutral third-party communication tools like 'Our Family Wizard' to document interactions and minimize direct contact.
- Seek individual therapy and assessments to address reactive behaviors or manipulative tendencies, as courts prioritize demonstrated efforts towards personal growth and emotional control.
- Understand that courts view parental conflict modeling as a significant harm to children; prioritize de-escalation and responsible co-parenting to avoid long-term negative impacts on your child's development.
Notable Moments
The judge's directness with lawyers, urging them to get straight to their arguments and exhibits without unnecessary preamble, indicating preparedness and a desire for efficiency.
This highlights the court's expectation for concise, focused arguments, especially in emotionally charged family court cases, and underscores the importance of lawyers respecting judicial time and preparation.
The host's surprise at Taylor Frankie Paul's probation not being violated despite multiple alleged domestic violence incidents post-conviction.
This points to potential gaps in the legal system's oversight or challenges in proving probation violations, even with documented incidents, and raises questions about the effectiveness of such orders.
The revelation that Dakota Mortonson allegedly confessed to a mutual friend about leaking Taylor's video to TMZ to 'embarrass' and 'destroy' her.
This moment shifts the narrative, suggesting a calculated, malicious intent behind some of Dakota's actions, potentially influencing the court's perception of his credibility and motives in seeking a protective order.
Emily D. Baker's detailed explanation of the difference between phone logs and carrier records, emphasizing the potential for manipulation in phone logs.
This highlights a critical aspect of digital evidence in court, showing how easily presented 'evidence' can be unreliable and underscoring the need for verifiable sources.
The host's strong opinion and critique of 'Dad Talk' as a 'plea for attention' by husbands on the reality show, rather than a genuine segment.
This provides insight into the underlying dynamics and motivations within the reality TV ecosystem surrounding the parties, suggesting that even seemingly minor actions can be driven by a desire for airtime and attention.
Emily D. Baker's advice to Taylor Frankie Paul (and defendants generally) to take notes in court, regardless of discomfort, to maintain a composed demeanor.
This offers practical advice on courtroom etiquette, emphasizing that a defendant's demeanor can influence judicial perception, regardless of the legal arguments being made.
The judge's visible frustration and direct admonishment for the parties to 'adult' and 'stop it,' emphasizing the lifelong connection through their child and the legacy of violence being modeled.
This highlights the emotional toll on judges in family court and the severity with which the court views the impact of parental conflict on children, moving beyond legal technicalities to address fundamental behavioral issues.
The revelation that Dakota Mortensen filmed himself getting Taylor's initials tattooed on his lip, presented by his lawyer as 'dad talk' for a reality show, which the court likely viewed as further evidence of obsession/manipulation.
This bizarre detail underscores the blurred lines between personal life, reality TV production, and manipulative behavior, illustrating the extreme lengths some individuals go to for content, even in the context of a protective order hearing.
Quotes
"My feelings about this case are everybody needs to stay away from each other. That would be best for a while. Everybody just separate sides of the state of Utah and that will be best for everyone."
"She demands, 'You apologize for kicking me while I'm down on the floor.' His response is, 'Not in a million years after what you did to me and my son.'"
"She advised that neither Taylor or Dakota are credible witnesses with both their statements being fraught with inconsistencies... both parties are misrepresenting their behavior."
"He specifically told Miss Draper that he planned on leaking embarrassing videos of Taylor to the press, starting with the bar stool video. He specifically named TMZ as the outlet."
"She invited him and she invited him for the sole purpose of intimacy."
"It was a filmed segment of the TV show, your honor."
"She didn't file it to protect her son. She filed it to protect her image."
"My client has already contacted Mr. Paul and they've worked it out so that they will be able to make sure that the siblings have contact even if my client is the primary custodian."
"We need to call out who's the abuser and who's the one that's failing to protect from the abuser."
"I don't understand from his position how when he's being attacked, rather than booking it out of there, which would probably end things, he pulls out a camera and films it."
"The two of them can't be together in the same place at the same time for very long before it starts to turn violent. And that's that's part of the problem."
"You have to figure out how to adult function as co-parents. This has been dysfunctional. This is a lifelong proposition between the two of you. You're going to be... You have a child. Stop it."
"You're modeling right now how you deal with conflict to a two-year-old. Um this is going to this can affect this child on a when the child grows up and becomes an adult and is... in his own personal relationships as well. When we talk about cycles, this is part of your legacy, you know, the legacy of of uh of violence being passed on from perhaps generation to generation."
"I didn't view the video as him trying to leave and get the child out of there. I viewed him is him standing there being more more interested in what the whether this video recording he's looking into the camera in some instances... a greater concern about preservation of evidence than it was about removing the child from uh the situation which I think is borne out by the fact that he was supported as well by the DCFS for failure to protect."
"I'm really intent on trying to keep the two of you away from each other for now. All right. And then uh later on as the hopefully the dust settles uh we can perhaps scale some of that back a bit."
"The court actually had quite a lot to say to these parties about the nature of their relationship and did not think much of it. Said that he found that Taylor's behavior was reactive, that Dakota's behavior was calculated, that these parties need to stay away from each other. and basically sat there and said, 'The two of you need to do better for your child because right now the legacy that you are leaving is a legacy of domestic violence and abuse.'"
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
The YouTuber Who Had Her Husband Murdered
"A young YouTuber with dreams of online fame orchestrated the brutal murder of her husband, Ernie Abara, after staging a home invasion, leading to a complex investigation that exposed her calculated deception."
Imelda se trata de justificar y culpa a todos - Ninel también pierde hijo | Javier Ceriani
"Javier Ceriani exposes alleged domestic violence, substance abuse, and legal corruption surrounding Imelda Tuñón and the late Julián Figueroa, drawing parallels to Ninel Conde's custody battle and revealing Eduardo Verastegui's controversial past."
The Love Bombing of Gloria Choi | Full Episode
"This episode details the brutal murder of Gloria Choi by her ex-boyfriend, Billy Rickman, and the controversial police response that failed to protect her despite multiple warnings and clear evidence of escalating danger."
Gen Z Prosecutor Corners Lying Husband with FACTS
"A doctor's meticulously planned attempt to murder his wife on her birthday hike is thwarted by her desperate screams and the timely intervention of two nurses, leading to a dramatic court trial and his eventual conviction."