Concerning measures related to forms of abuse in cases regarding a separation of a relationship.
HB26-1309 revises Colorado family-law standards for cases involving separation, custody, and parenting time when domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault is alleged or proven. The bill requires courts to determine whether domestic violence occurred before allocating parental responsibilities and, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, creates a presumption that awarding parental responsibilities to the abusive parent is not in the child’s best interests. It also directs courts to make specific written findings and, when parental responsibilities are still awarded, to impose safety-focused conditions such as supervised parenting time, protected exchanges, confidentiality of addresses, limits on substance use, and other protective measures.
The bill also expands and clarifies statutory definitions of coercive control, domestic violence, intimate relationship, and sexual assault for purposes of Colorado’s domestic-relations statutes. It changes the rules for treatment and remediation by requiring individual therapeutic treatment from a qualified mental health professional with specialized training in domestic violence, rather than relying on broader or less specific verification. In addition, it tightens standards for parenting coordinators, modifies parenting-time modification rules, and updates related statutes governing domestic violence definitions and the civil statute of limitations for damages claims arising from domestic violence.
The bill amends multiple sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes, primarily in Title 14 family-law provisions, to make domestic violence and related abuse central considerations in custody, parenting time, and decision-making disputes. It adds stronger presumptions against joint decision-making and against awarding parenting responsibilities to a parent found to have committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault resulting in conception of a child, while authorizing courts to impose detailed protective conditions on parenting plans. It also revises related definitions and cross-references in statutes governing parenting coordinators, domestic violence training, civil claims, and the limitations period for domestic-violence-related damages actions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of survivors and children and highly skeptical of family-court practices that may minimize abuse. The legislative declaration emphasizes domestic violence fatalities, coercive control, and the need for courts to prioritize safety over contact. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, but the bill’s enactment and safety-clause language suggest it was advanced as a public-safety measure with a strong policy rationale.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s stronger presumptions and mandatory findings in custody cases, especially the requirement that courts treat proven domestic violence as a basis for limiting or denying parental responsibilities and decision-making authority. Another likely area of debate is the bill’s narrowed approach to treatment and reunification, which requires specialized individual therapy and rejects anger-management-style or self-directed programs as substitutes. Critics may view these provisions as reducing judicial discretion or making reunification harder, while supporters argue they are necessary to protect abused parents and children from coercion, retaliation, and ongoing harm.