Update: HB 26 - 1309 - How Abuse is addressed in Family Law matters

COLORADO FAMILY LAW

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

NEW LAW · HB 26-1309

Colorado Rewrites How Family Courts Weigh Abuse in Custody Cases

A sweeping new law puts safety first when parents separate — broadening what counts as domestic violence, requiring judges to make findings on the record, and limiting shared decision-making when abuse is proven. Here is what every Colorado parent should understand.

---

SIGNED MAY 27, 2026 HOUSE BILL 26-1309

On May 27, 2026, Governor Polis signed House Bill 26 - 1309 into law, and because the act carries a safety clause, it took effect immediately. Titled "Concerning Measures Related to Forms of Abuse in Cases Regarding a Separation of a Relationship," the law reshapes several core sections of Colorado's domestic relations code. For families navigating divorce, separation, or a parenting dispute, the practical message is direct: when abuse is at issue, the court must confront it first and safety drives the outcome.

The legislature was unusually candid about why. In its findings, the General Assembly pointed to record domestic violence fatalities, the reality that lethality often escalates after separation, and research that more than 62% of Colorado's child domestic violence fatality victims were killed during custody litigation. The result is a law built around a single organizing principle the legislature stated plainly: safety must be prioritized before contact.

01 A broader, clearer definition of "domestic violence"

Perhaps the most consequential change is definitional. For family-court purposes, "domestic violence" now lives in its own dedicated section of the code and reaches far beyond physical violence. It includes any one of the following — whether or not the conduct is a crime:

◆ An act or threatened act of physical assault or bodily harm against the other parent or a family or household member, including a child;

◆ An act or threatened act of damage to their property — or harm to an animal belonging to them;

◆ Stalking, sexual assault, economic abuse, human trafficking; and

◆ Coercive control — a pattern of conduct addressed in detail below.

Just as important is what the definition excludes. The law expressly states that domestic violence does not mean behaviors a parent uses to protect themselves, a family or household member, a child, or property from harm by the other parent. In plain terms, a survivor who acts to protect their family will not see those protective acts turned against them in court.

02 Coercive control, spelled out

The law gives coercive control a thorough, enumerated definition: a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions used to harm, punish, or frighten; conduct that strips away a person's liberty, independence, and sense of self. The statute lists concrete examples, recognizing that abuse is frequently invisible on a police report. Among them:

◆ Isolating someone from friends and family;

◆ Monitoring or controlling their finances, communications, or movements — including through technology;

◆ Frequent name-calling, degrading, or demeaning a person or their child;

◆ Threatening to harm the person, a child, a relative, or a pet — including displaying or "cleaning" a weapon in a menacing way;

◆ Threats of suicide used as a tool of coercion or control;

◆ Threatening to publish sensitive or intimate information, or to make reports to authorities;

◆ Immigration-based threats; and forcing someone to take part in criminal activity.

03 How the law treats child abuse

Domestic violence draws most of the attention in HB 26 - 1309, but child abuse runs through the law as a co-equal concern. Almost everywhere the statute says "domestic violence," it places "child abuse or neglect" right beside it; which means a finding of child abuse carries the same procedural weight as a finding of domestic violence. When a court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a parent committed child abuse or neglect, it must:

◆ Make that finding on the record before turning to the general best-interests factors;

◆ Apply the same presumption against shared (mutual) decision-making, unless it makes specific findings that joint decisions can be made safely;

◆ Impose the same mandatory safety conditions on parenting time - supervised time, protected exchanges, confidential addresses, and the rest of the menu; and

◆ Meet the same higher bar before ordering reunification: a parent found to have committed child abuse must show genuine accountability and complete qualified treatment before a court can press a child to repair the relationship.

The law also keeps child sexual abuse as its own distinct category a court must address when it restricts a parent's time with a child.

04 Judges must address abuse first — and on the record

Under the new framework, when a claim of domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in a child's conception is raised — or when the court otherwise has reason to believe it occurred — the court must take it up before moving on to the general "best interests of the child" factors. After considering the evidence, the court must make findings on the record, by a preponderance of the evidence, as to whether a party committed that abuse.

Courts may weigh a wide range of evidence in doing so: testimony from the parties, experts, and therapists; reports from a child and family investigator, a parental responsibilities evaluator, or the child's legal representative; input from the department of human services, parenting-time supervisors, school personnel, and other witnesses.

05 A presumption against shared decision-making

Once a court finds — by a preponderance of the evidence - that a party committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault resulting in conception, the law provides that it is not in the child's best interests to allocate mutual (joint) decision-making over the other parent's objection. A judge may order mutual decision-making only by making specific findings that it can happen without coercion, intimidation, retaliation, or risk of harm to the abused parent or the child. The court also may not appoint a parenting coordinator simply to force shared decision-making to work.

The legislature framed its broader intent even more strongly: it declared that if a parent has committed domestic violence, courts should presume it is not in the child's best interests to allocate parental responsibilities to that parent — while still allowing judges to weigh the individual circumstances of each case.

06 Mandatory safety conditions on parenting time

When abuse is established, safety is no longer optional. The court must treat the safety and well-being of the child and the abused parent as the primary concern, and must impose conditions on parenting time that protect them. The statute offers a menu of tools the court can draw on, including:

◆ Limiting contact between the parents to what the court deems safe;

◆ Requiring child exchanges to occur in a protected setting;

◆ Supervised parenting time, or restrictions on overnights;

◆ Barring alcohol, intoxicants, or controlled substances during parenting time and for 24 hours beforehand;

◆ Keeping the child's or a parent's address confidential; and

◆ Routing child support through the state registry as a nondisclosure case, so there is no need for direct contact.

◆ The court may also order the party who committed abuse to undergo a domestic violence evaluation and any recommended treatment at their own expense, and to provide progress reports.

07 A higher bar before pressuring a child to reconcile

The law also tightens "reunification" or so-called resist-refuse orders. Before a court can order a protective parent to take steps to repair a child's relationship with a parent the court has found committed domestic violence or child abuse, that parent must now first:

◆ Demonstrate genuine accountability for the abuse and its effect on the other parent or child;

◆ Demonstrate sustained behavioral change that addresses the underlying patterns of power and control; and

◆ Comply with court-ordered treatment by a qualified, master's or doctoral-level licensed mental health professional with specialized training in domestic violence and child abuse.

Critically, the law states that a self-directed program, a program that is not delivered in real time, or an anger-management course does not satisfy this requirement. The burden sits squarely on the parent who caused the harm — not on the child or the protective parent.

08 What this means for you

IF YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED ABUSE

◆ Patterns of control and financial abuse now

count - even without physical violence or

criminal charges.

◆ Documentation helps: texts, emails, financial

records, and witnesses can

support your account.

◆ Protecting yourself or your children -

including leaving - won't be used against you.

◆ Findings happen early, so raising concerns

and organizing evidence at the outset matters.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED

◆ A finding now carries real consequences for

decision-making and the structure of your

parenting time.

◆ A finding does not automatically end your

parenting time - but conditions are likely.

◆ Genuine accountability and qualified

treatment matter; shortcuts like anger

management won't satisfy the court.

◆ Because the standard is preponderance of the

evidence, early, careful representation is

essential.

The legislature noted that roughly 73% of family-court litigants appear without a lawyer. With abuse findings now shaping custody outcomes from the earliest stage of a case - and with the standard set at a preponderance of the evidence - understanding the new rules, and having guidance through them, has rarely mattered more.

Need guidance regarding a Colorado family law matter?

📞 Contact AWH Family Law today to schedule a confidential consultation You can reach our office at (720) 598-0957 or email info@awhfamilylaw.com.

This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

AWH FAMILY LAW - COLORADO