Is Coercive Control Recognized in Colorado? HB26-1309, Explained
Yes — and Colorado went further than most states that have added coercive control to their domestic violence statutes. House Bill 26-1309, “Concerning Measures Related to Forms of Abuse in Cases Regarding a Separation of a Relationship,” was signed by Governor Jared Polis on May 27, 2026 and, because it carries a legislative safety clause, took effect immediately that same day. It's codified at C.R.S. §§ 14-10-103 and 14-10-124 — the definitions and best-interests-of-the-child sections of Colorado's Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act. This is a very new law. Here's what it actually says, and what makes its custody provision unusual.
A note on timing: this law had been in effect for roughly four months as of this writing. Some secondary sources describe an August 2026 effective date — that appears to be the generic 90-days-after adjournment rule that applies to Colorado bills without a safety clause. HB26-1309's enrolled text includes one (Session Laws 2026, Chapter 163, Section 9), which under Colorado practice makes it effective on the date the Governor signed it. Given how recently this took effect either way, confirm current status and any amendments directly with a Colorado family law attorney before relying on anything below.
What C.R.S. § 14-10-103 actually says
HB26-1309 rewrote the definitions that apply throughout Title 14, Article 10. § 14-10-103(1.5)(a) now defines “coercive control” directly (rather than by cross-reference, which is how the definition previously worked) as a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions — including assaults or other abuse — used to harm, punish, or frighten a person; a pattern of behavior that takes away a person's liberty or freedom and strips away their sense of self, including bodily integrity and human rights; and, more specifically, isolating a person from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence, or regulating their everyday behavior. The statute then lists eleven non-exclusive examples, including isolating someone from friends and family; monitoring or controlling someone's finances or access to services; monitoring or controlling someone's activities, communications, or movements — including through technology; frequent name-calling, degrading, or demeaning; threats to harm or kill, including intimidating use of a weapon; threatening self-harm as a method of coercion; threats against a pet; threatening to publish sensitive personal information or report someone to authorities; damaging property; threats tied to immigration status; and forcing someone into criminal activity or child abuse.
Coercive control is now an enumerated form of domestic violence
§ 14-10-103(1.5)(b) defines “domestic violence” as any of eight specific things: physical assault or a threat of it; property damage or a threat of it; harm or threatened harm to an animal; stalking; sexual assault; coercive control; economic abuse; or human trafficking. Coercive control had already existed as a defined term used in Colorado's best-interests analysis before this bill — the legislature's own findings describe “a series of bills” that built protections for it over recent years. What HB26-1309 changed is naming coercive control as one of the express, enumerated categories of “domestic violence” itself, which is what triggers the custody provisions below. The statute also carves out an exception: behavior a parent uses to protect themselves, a family or household member, or an animal from harm doesn't count as domestic violence under this definition.
The custody connection — a presumption, not just a factor
This is the part that makes HB26-1309 unusual, and it's worth being precise about what it does and doesn't do. Under § 14-10-124(1.5)(a), if a claim of domestic violence is raised, the court must make findings on the record about whether a party committed it, using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — not the higher standards used in criminal proceedings. If the court finds domestic violence (including coercive control) by that standard, § 14-10-124(1.5)(c)(I) creates a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the child's best interests to give that parent mutual (joint) decision-making responsibility over the other party's objection — unless the court makes specific findings that joint decision-making can happen without coercion, intimidation, retaliation, or risk of harm. That's a real presumption against joint legal custody, not merely one more factor weighed in a best-interests analysis, and it puts the burden on the parent found to have committed the abuse to show the court it could work safely.
Separately, § 14-10-124(1.6) requires that once such a finding is made, the court must treat the child's and the abused parent's safety as the primary concern and impose protective conditions on parenting time — options include limiting contact, requiring exchanges in a protected setting, supervised parenting time, restricting overnights, barring alcohol or controlled substances around parenting time, and keeping an address confidential. That provision is a mandatory menu of safeguards the court must draw from, not an automatic denial of parenting time itself — the sharper, presumption-level consequence sits specifically at joint decision-making authority.
Why this makes text messages relevant evidence
Two things line up here that are worth noticing. First, coercive control is defined as a pattern — a single message rarely proves a pattern of threatening or controlling behavior the way a full thread across weeks or months can, and the preponderance standard means the court is weighing the overall record, not one incident in isolation. Second, the statute's own examples name the exact territory a text thread lives in: monitoring or controlling someone's communications and movements “including through technology” is written directly into the definition. A lot of coercive control now happens, and gets documented, in writing — which is exactly why an organized, timestamped export of a conversation can matter more than any single screenshot when the stakes include a presumption about who gets a say in a child's life.
This is general information about Colorado law as currently written, not legal advice — and it deserves extra caution given how new this law is. HB26-1309 has been in effect only a matter of months, courts are still developing how they apply it in practice, and it could be amended or clarified further. Verity is not a law firm. Talk to a Colorado family law attorney about how this applies to your situation before relying on anything here.
See the pattern across the whole thread
Upload your export and get a free health score in minutes — the analysis runs in your browser, nothing is uploaded.
Get your free health score →