On August 12, 2026, a new Colorado law changes what counts as domestic violence when parents split up and a court has to decide who cares for the children. House Bill 26-1309, titled Abuse in Cases of Separation, broadens the definition of abuse used in dissolution and custody proceedings to reach conduct that many people would not associate with the word violence: isolating a partner, monitoring their movements, and controlling their access to money, work, or school.
One correction matters before anything else, because the headline framing can mislead people about where they stand. This is primarily a change to Colorado family law, not the criminal code. HB26-1309 amends the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, which is Title 14 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. It governs divorce, legal separation, and the allocation of parental responsibilities. If you are reading this because you are in or near a separation, the stakes here are about custody and parenting time, not about being charged with a crime.
What actually changed on August 12
HB26-1309 was carried by Reps. Meg Froelich and Tammy Story and Sen. Katie Wallace. Gov. Jared Polis signed it in late May 2026, and the General Assembly's bill page lists a signing date of May 27, 2026. The law takes effect August 12, 2026. Because the bill carried no safety clause, it followed the standard timeline of taking effect roughly 90 days after the legislative session adjourned.
The core of the change is definitional. When a Colorado court is allocating parental responsibilities, it now has an expanded set of behaviors it can weigh in deciding whether a party committed domestic violence. Advocacy groups and legal commentators describe this expansion using the term "coercive control." It is worth being precise about the language: the official title and summary use "abuse in cases of separation" and an expanded definition of domestic violence. Whether the enrolled statute uses the literal phrase "coercive control" is something a reader should confirm against the final bill text before treating it as the statute's exact wording.
The conduct the statute reaches
According to the bill's summary and the sources analyzing it, the expanded definition covers patterns of conduct that go beyond physical harm. These include:
-
Isolating a person from family, friends, or other support
-
Monitoring, surveilling, or tracking a person's activities
-
Controlling access to money, employment, or education
-
Degrading or demeaning treatment
-
Using children to monitor, control, or punish the other parent
A defining feature of the law is that this conduct can count "regardless of whether it constitutes a criminal offense." In other words, behavior that would never support a criminal charge can still support a family court finding of domestic violence. The court applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning more likely than not, which is the ordinary civil burden and a much lower bar than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The custody mechanism: a finding, then a presumption
The practical engine of the law is a two-step sequence. Before allocating parental responsibilities, a Colorado court must determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether a party committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault that resulted in the conception of the child. If the court makes that finding against a parent, a rebuttable presumption arises against allocating parental responsibilities to that parent.
Rebuttable is the operative word. The presumption is not automatic loss of a relationship with a child. It shifts the weight of the analysis, and the parent it applies to has the opportunity to overcome it. But it changes the starting position in a contested case, and it does so based on a finding that need only be more likely than not.
The decoupling clause: no criminal case needed, and none forecloses a finding
This is the part most likely to surprise readers, and it is the clearest signal that the law operates independently of the criminal system. Under HB26-1309, the absence of a criminal outcome does not, by itself, settle the family court question. Specifically, none of the following is sufficient on its own for a court to conclude that domestic violence did not occur:
-
The lack of a criminal conviction
-
The absence of a guilty or nolo contendere plea
-
The dismissal of criminal charges
-
An "unfounded" or "inconclusive" child welfare finding
For a party in a divorce or custody case, the meaning is direct. You can never have been charged with anything, or you can have had charges dropped, and a family court may still find that domestic violence occurred for purposes of the custody decision. The family court finding stands on its own record and its own lower standard of proof.
The bill also adds qualification requirements for the mental health treatment providers used with parties accused under these provisions, directing that such clinicians hold master's or doctoral level credentials with specialized training in domestic violence and child abuse.
The genuine open questions
Reasonable people disagree about this law, and the disagreement is worth laying out honestly on both sides.
The survivor-protection rationale is straightforward. Advocates argue that abuse in intimate relationships is frequently a pattern rather than a single incident, and that the most damaging conduct, such as cutting a partner off from money or support, often leaves no bruise and generates no police report. On that view, a family court that can only see physical violence is missing the abuse that most shapes a household. Tying custody analysis to that broader pattern, supporters say, protects children and the parent who has been controlled.
The due-process critique is also on the record. The Colorado Catholic Conference, representing the state's Catholic bishops, urged a no vote. Its objections centered on the vagueness of a broad, pattern-based definition, concerns about parental rights, and the low evidentiary threshold. Critics of this kind of statute generally raise a further worry specific to contested custody: that an expansive and somewhat subjective definition can be weaponized, and that allegations of controlling behavior are harder to test than allegations of a discrete physical act. The bishops' statement also raised specific concerns about how conduct tied to gender identity and abortion-related matters might be swept into the definition of abuse.
Both concerns can be true at once. A broader definition can capture real abuse that the old law missed, and a broader definition can be harder to defend against when the underlying dispute is really about custody. Colorado has decided the tradeoff in favor of the expanded definition, at the civil standard of proof.
Where this puts Colorado
The important context is that Colorado made this move inside its family code, in the law governing dissolution of marriage and parenting time, rather than inside its criminal statutes. Other states have taken different routes, with some addressing controlling conduct in civil or family law and others in the criminal code. One secondary legal analysis claims HB26-1309 also amends Colorado's criminal domestic violence statute at C.R.S. Section 18-6-800.3. That claim could not be confirmed against the primary bill text, and readers should not assume the criminal code was changed without verifying it directly. What the primary source supports is a family-law expansion.
Practical takeaway if you are near a separation
If you are separating, divorcing, or facing a custody dispute in Colorado on or after August 12, 2026, understand three things. First, conduct like monitoring, isolation, and financial control can now be part of a domestic violence analysis in your custody case even if no crime was ever charged. Second, the standard is preponderance of the evidence, not the criminal standard, so the fact patterns that matter and the proof that matters are different from a criminal case. Third, a favorable criminal outcome, or the total absence of a criminal case, does not by itself resolve the family court question.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Anyone weighing how HB26-1309 affects a specific separation or custody matter should confirm the enacted statutory language and speak with a Colorado family law attorney about their own facts.
Related reading
-
[The Sentencing Guidelines Just Swept 'Fentanyl-Related Substances' Into the Drug Quantity Table, and It Takes Effect November 1](/article/fentanyl-related-substances-drug-quantity-table-november-2026)
-
[The Fine Print That Waives Your Appeal Can Now Be Torn Up: In Hunter v. United States the Supreme Court Says a Plea Deal Can't Lock In a 'Miscarriage of Justice'](/article/hunter-v-united-states-appeal-waiver-miscarriage-of-justice)
-
['They Catch Everybody': A New National Investigation Says Roadside Sobriety Tests Fail Sober Drivers, and Courts Are Listening](/article/field-sobriety-tests-fail-sober-drivers-national-investigation)
Sources
-
Colorado General Assembly, HB26-1309 Abuse in Cases of Separation (official bill page): leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1309
-
Colorado General Assembly, HB26-1309 enrolled bill text (PDF): leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/116594/download
-
Divorce.law, analysis of HB26-1309 and the custody presumption: divorce.law
-
Colorado Catholic Conference, bishops' statement opposing HB26-1309: cocatholic.org
-
Colorado Resilience, HB26-1309 advocacy analysis: coloradoresilience.org
Note: This article contains AI-assisted content and has been reviewed by our editorial team.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: GavelDaily.com is an advertising and information service, not a law firm. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. The information you provide will be shared with licensed criminal defense attorneys in your area who may contact you about your inquiry. All submissions are treated as confidential by our service, but attorney-client privilege does not attach until you formally retain an attorney. Any attorney you connect with through this service is independently responsible for their legal advice and representation. Free consultations are subject to individual attorney availability. If you are facing an immediate legal emergency, contact your local public defender's office or call 911.