House Bill 26-1309 was signed into law (administratively) on May 27, 2026. Pursuant to the safety clause in Section 9, this law took effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.

The General Assembly found that existing practices have, in some cases, resulted in unsafe custody outcomes, insufficient recognition of abuse dynamics, and increasing concerns regarding domestic violence fatalities and severe childhood trauma. To address these systemic failures, the General Assembly explicitly declares that safety must be prioritized over parental contact in custody determinations. Accordingly, the bill establishes more uniform standards for evaluating domestic violence in family court proceedings.

Below is a summary of the core provisions:

Expanded Definitions

  • “Coercive control,” “domestic violence,” “the definition of sexual assault,” and “intimate relationship” are now explicitly codified and expanded throughout the article.
    • This is found in the updated versions of C.R.S. 14-10-103 (1.5)(a), (1.5)(b), (1.5)(c.4), and (1.5)(c.6).

Presumption Against Allocating Parental Responsibilities to an Abusive Parent — Required Findings and Protective Parenting Conditions

  • While the Legislative Declaration states a broad presumption against allocating parental responsibilities to an abusive parent, the actual operational text of the bill does not establish a blanket presumption of “no parenting time.” Instead, it mandates protective parenting conditions and establishes specific objective hurdles an accused parent must clear to lift restrictions.
  • C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (1.5)(a)(III.5) establishes the requirement for the court to make threshold findings on the record by a preponderance of the evidence regarding whether domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in the conception of a child occurred before determining the allocation of parental responsibilities.
  • C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (1.5)(c)(I) governs the strict bans and specific rebuttal findings required to allocate mutual decision-making.
    • To overcome the mutual decision-making ban over an objection, the court must make specific findings that mutual decision-making can occur “without coercion, intimidation, retaliation, or risk of harm to the abused party or the child”.
    • Under C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (1.5)(c)(II), the court is strictly prohibited from appointing a parenting coordinator solely to ensure that mutual decision-making can be accomplished.
  • C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (1.6)(a) mandates the protective safety conditions (such as supervised time or protected exchanges) that must be imposed on parenting time when a court determines a party has committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in the conception of a child.
    • If the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a party has committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in the conception of a child, the court is legally mandated under C.R.S. § 14-10-124 (1.6)(a) to impose protective conditions on parenting time, but it retains a range of enumerated protective measures to choose from—such as limiting contact, requiring protected-setting exchanges, supervised parenting time, restricting overnights, restricting possession or consumption of alcohol or controlled substances, requiring child support payments through the registry, or maintaining address confidentiality.

Absence Due to Domestic Violence

  • Under C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.6)(d), if a party leaves or is absent from the home as a result of domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in the conception of a child committed by the other party, that absence cannot be used as a factor against them in the best-interests determination.

Stringent Treatment Provider Requirements

  • Parties found by the court to have committed domestic violence or child abuse who are ordered to undergo therapeutic treatment must work with a licensed mental health professional holding a master’s or doctoral degree and specialized training and expertise in treating both survivors and perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse and their effects on adults and children.
    • The party must complete a qualifying domestic violence intervention program meeting the requirements of C.R.S. § 14-10-127.5(3)(c) conducted in-person, or via real-time remote participation.
      • Self-directed, non-real-time, or standard anger management courses do not satisfy this requirement.
  • In custody disputes where a parent is found by the court to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, children often resist seeing that parent.
    • Under previous Colorado law, if a judge wanted to issue an “order to remediate the resistance of a child” (forcing the child or victim to undergo therapy or take steps to “improve the relationship” with the accused parent), the judge was barred from ordering those relationship-building steps until a specialized mental health professional—specifically approved by Colorado’s Domestic Violence Offender Management Board (DVOMB)—evaluated the accused parent and verified that their behavior was safe and appropriate.
    • HB 26-1309 replaced this with objective compliance metrics under C.R.S. § 14-10-127.5 (3)(c). Now, if an abusive parent seeks an order to remediate a child’s resistance to contact, a court imposing an order for relationship-building steps must require the party to clear specific ongoing compliance requirements:
      • Specialized Therapy Compliance: They must actively comply with individual therapy with a clinician meeting the specialized training and master’s/doctoral degree requirements outlined above.
      • Program Completion: The party must complete a qualifying domestic violence intervention program meeting the requirements of C.R.S. § 14-10-127.5(3)(c).
      • Accountability and Behavioral Goals: They must demonstrate “genuine accountability” for the abuse and show “sustained behavioral changes” as a condition of compliance under C.R.S. § 14-10-127.5 (3)(c).

Modification of Parenting Time

  • Courts must factor in findings of domestic violence when evaluating modifications to parenting time, including proposed relocations, under C.R.S. 14-10-129 (2)(c).
  • Additionally, under the newly enacted C.R.S. § 14-10-129 (2.5)(a), if a restricted party seeks to modify their parenting time conditions, the court must explicitly review whether that parent has “satisfactorily complied with any conditions set forth by the court” when the restrictions were originally imposed.