Colorado's Custody Law Admits False Abuse Claims Are Used as a Weapon, Then Raises the Stakes of Every Abuse Finding

What should a family court do when one parent says the other is dangerous, and the other parent says it is a lie?

HB26-1309 is Colorado's answer, and the law's own findings show why both sides of that question matter.

Start with the danger. The law's findings report that in 2025, Colorado's domestic violence fatality review board recorded a record number of deaths from domestic violence. Five of those cases involved child custody fights that were still going on in court. More than 62 percent of Colorado children killed in domestic violence died while their parents were fighting over custody in court. The findings also note that danger "often escalates following separation." Any parent who has seen a custody fight turn frightening knows this is true.

Now read the next finding. Abusive parents "may misuse the legal system" by filing "groundless motions" and "even false reports of child abuse." In the same law, the Legislature wrote down that abuse accusations themselves can be used as a weapon.

Keep both of those facts in mind. The law has to protect the parent who is truly in danger without handing a new weapon to the parent who is lying.

1. It defines "coercive control." Coercive control is "a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions" used to harm, punish, or frighten someone. It "includes, but is not limited to," eleven kinds of behavior. Among them: cutting someone off from friends and family, tracking their money or movements "including through technology," frequent name-calling, threatening to harm a person, child, relative, or pet, threatening self-harm to control someone, threatening to share private information or "make reports to the police or authorities," damaging property, threatening someone over immigration status, and forcing someone into crime or child abuse.
2. It defines domestic violence without requiring a crime. For custody cases, domestic violence means any of eight kinds of acts or threats "whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offense." Coercive control and financial abuse are on the list. Actions a parent takes to protect themselves, a child, or property from the other parent do not count.
3. It presumes against shared decision-making. In custody cases, parents often share "decision-making," the right to make major choices about a child's school, health care, and religion. Under this law, if a judge finds that a parent committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or a sexual assault that led to the child's conception, "it is not in the best interests of the child" for the parents to share decision-making if the other parent objects. The judge can make an exception only by making specific findings that shared decisions can happen safely.
4. It puts safety first in parenting time. On that same finding, the judge must give "paramount consideration" to the safety of the child and the abused parent and choose from a list of conditions, such as supervised visits, safe handoffs, and no overnight stays.
5. It shifts the cost of treatment. The judge may order the parent found to have committed domestic violence to get an evaluation and treatment "at the sole expense of the party." The law says an anger management class does not count.

To make that abuse finding, the judge uses a standard called a "preponderance of the evidence." It means "more likely than not," or just over 50 percent. It is the lowest standard of proof used in court. Colorado family courts already used it for domestic violence findings. HB26-1309 keeps that low standard and makes the finding count for much more. It widens what the finding can be based on, and it attaches a presumption against shared decision-making to the result.

Now set that beside the Legislature's own admission. If some abusive parents file false abuse reports to gain control, then every expansion of what counts as abuse, and every increase in what an abuse finding does, also makes that weapon stronger. The law's findings name the problem. The rest of the law contains no specific protection against it: no higher standard of proof before a fit parent loses decision-making, and no penalty for making a claim the person knows is false.

The same findings add one more fact: 73 percent of people in Colorado family court cases do not have a lawyer. Picture a father without a lawyer facing an open-ended list of behaviors, a "more likely than not" standard, and a presumption he has to overcome on his own.

The law has real safeguards. The definition of coercive control starts with a requirement: "a pattern" of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating behavior used to harm, punish, or frighten. One argument or one angry text message does not make a pattern. A parent protecting a child is not labeled the abuser. The presumption against shared decision-making can be overcome. The judge keeps real control over parenting time. Nothing in the law ends a parent's rights. Every state already considers domestic violence in custody cases, and many give it extra weight. And Colorado children have died during these very cases.

Those safeguards are real, which is why IPS rates this bill "monitor" instead of "oppose."

Even with those safeguards, a basic problem remains. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Troxel v. Granville in 2000 that a parent's right to raise his or her children is one of the oldest freedoms the Constitution protects. Troxel involved grandparents, and custody fights between two parents are still decided by what is best for the child. But when the law raises what an abuse finding can take away from a parent, the evidence behind that finding matters more. Broad definitions, a low standard of proof, and bigger consequences all push in the same direction.

IPS recommends amending the law. The changes are specific.

1. Raise the standard of proof. Require "clear and convincing evidence," a higher bar than "more likely than not," before the presumption against shared decision-making applies to a parent who is otherwise fit.
2. Tighten the list. Remove the "includes, but is not limited to" language, and narrow items such as "make reports to the police or authorities," which on its face could apply to a parent threatening to report real danger.
3. Discourage false claims. Make a parent who knowingly files a false abuse claim to win a custody advantage pay the other side's legal fees, and have the court make a finding on the record. That is the exact tactic the law's own findings describe.

HB26-1309 passed the House 47-17 and the Senate 23-12. The House accepted the Senate's changes 44-21 and passed the final version 43-22. Its lead sponsors were Representatives Meg Froelich and Tammy Story and Senator Katie Wallace, all Democrats. Governor Jared Polis signed it May 27, 2026. It carried a "safety clause," so it took effect right away and citizens could not put it on the ballot.

A law that admits abuse claims can be used as a weapon should not make every abuse finding a sharper weapon without protecting the parent who is falsely accused.

This is our read of the law. We encourage you to read it yourself and reach your own conclusions.