Colorado HB26-1309 and Domestic Violence Allegations | Defense Attorney Perspective

What HB26-1309 Does

HB26-1309 focuses heavily on domestic violence findings in family law and custody proceedings. The bill expands the role domestic violence allegations may play when courts determine parental responsibilities and parenting time.

Among other things, the bill:

• Requires courts to make findings regarding domestic violence allegations;
• Allows courts to consider a broad range of evidence;
• Applies a “preponderance of the evidence” standard rather than the criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard;
• Expands concepts tied to “coercive control” and related conduct;
• Creates potentially severe consequences for parenting time and custody determinations.

Importantly, this is not happening in criminal court.

These determinations often occur in family court — a setting where the rules of evidence, burdens of proof, and practical realities are very different from a criminal jury trial.

That distinction matters.

The Problem Few People Want to Discuss: False Allegations Do Happen

In domestic violence discussions, there is often understandable concern about minimizing genuine abuse. No reasonable person disputes that domestic violence exists or that some victims desperately need protection.

But the legal system becomes dangerous when it treats every allegation as inherently true.

As criminal defense attorneys, we routinely encounter cases involving:

• Highly emotional breakups;
• Custody disputes;
• Divorce litigation;
• Financial pressure;
• Jealousy;
• Anger after infidelity;
• Attempts to gain leverage in parenting disputes.

During jury selection in domestic violence cases, one common question asked to jurors is:

“Why would someone falsely accuse another person of domestic violence?”

One of the most common answers from jurors themselves is:
“Custody disputes.”

That answer does not come from defense attorneys. It comes from ordinary citizens serving as potential jurors.

People understand intuitively that family litigation can create incentives for exaggeration or fabrication.

HB26-1309 increases concern because allegations made in these environments may now carry even more weight and broader consequences.

Domestic Violence in Colorado Is Broader Than Many People Realize

One major misunderstanding is that “domestic violence” in Colorado only means physical violence.

That is not true.

Under Colorado law, domestic violence is not a separate criminal charge. Instead, it is a sentence enhancer attached to other offenses when the conduct allegedly involves an intimate relationship and an act used to “coerce, control, punish, intimidate, or seek revenge.”

That means domestic violence allegations can arise from conduct far beyond physical assault.

Examples can include allegations involving:

• Harassment;
• Property damage;
• Repeated communications;
• Monitoring behavior;
• Financial disputes;
• Arguments involving phones or social media;
• Nonviolent conduct interpreted as coercive control.

Colorado also has mandatory arrest policies in many domestic violence investigations. In practice, this often means officers arriving at a chaotic scene may feel pressure to arrest someone even when the facts are unclear.

Many domestic violence cases begin with:

• conflicting stories,
• no neutral witnesses,
• emotional parties,
• alcohol involvement,
• and little or no physical evidence.

Yet once the arrest occurs, the consequences begin immediately.

Allegations Alone Can Change Someone’s Life

A domestic violence allegation in Colorado can trigger:

• Immediate mandatory protection orders;
• Removal from the home;
• Restrictions involving children;
• Firearm prohibitions;
• Employment consequences;
• Immigration consequences;
• Damage to professional licensing;
• Long-term stigma.

In family court, the stakes can become even larger.

Under legislation like HB26-1309, allegations may significantly affect:

• parenting time,
• custody arrangements,
• decision-making authority,
• and judicial perceptions long before a criminal case is resolved.

That creates enormous leverage.

And whenever legal leverage increases, the risk of misuse increases as well.

The Imbalance of Risk in Domestic Violence Allegations

One difficult aspect of domestic violence allegations that is rarely discussed publicly is how powerful allegations can become in family court and custody disputes.

In many cases, accusations alone may influence:

• temporary parenting arrangements,
• decision-making authority,
• protection orders,
• negotiations between parties,
• and overall leverage during divorce or custody litigation.

This creates a difficult reality for courts. While many allegations are legitimate and deserve serious attention, the legal system must also recognize that emotionally charged disputes can create incentives for exaggeration, selective reporting, or false accusations.

This is not merely a hypothetical concern. During jury selection in domestic violence trials, one common question asked of jurors is whether they believe someone might falsely accuse another person of domestic violence and, if so, why.

Compounding this issue is the fact that there are often limited practical consequences when allegations cannot ultimately be substantiated. Although knowingly false reports may theoretically expose someone to criminal or civil penalties, those cases are relatively uncommon in practice.

That imbalance matters because systems influence behavior. When allegations can create immediate legal advantages while carrying comparatively little practical downside risk if unproven, the potential for misuse naturally increases.

Acknowledging this concern does not minimize real domestic violence. Genuine victims deserve protection under the law. But fairness also requires recognizing that allegations should still be carefully examined rather than automatically presumed true.

The Reality of Plea Agreements in Domestic Violence Cases

Another issue often ignored in public debate is how domestic violence cases actually resolve in the real world.

Many people assume:
“If someone accepted a plea deal, they must be guilty.”

That is simply not how the system works.

In reality, criminal defendants frequently make practical decisions based on risk management.

For example, it is common in Colorado domestic violence cases for a defendant to receive an offer involving a deferred judgment.

A deferred judgment can allow a person to:

• avoid a conviction,
• keep their record clean,
• and place the outcome largely within their own control if they successfully complete treatment and conditions.

For many people, the calculation becomes straightforward:

“Do I risk trial and potentially lose everything, or do I accept a deferred judgment that guarantees protection from a permanent conviction if I comply?”

That decision does not necessarily mean the allegation was true.

It often means the uncertainty of trial is terrifying.

This becomes especially important when family courts, employers, licensing boards, or other institutions later treat the existence of a plea agreement as proof that abuse occurred.

Lower Standards of Proof Create Serious Concerns

In criminal court, the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Family court is different.

HB26-1309 relies heavily on findings made under the much lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

That standard essentially asks:
“Is it more likely than not?”

Those are very different burdens of proof.

The concern is not merely academic.

When allegations alone can alter custody rights, parenting time, or family dynamics under a lower evidentiary standard, the potential harm from inaccurate findings becomes substantial.

Especially when:

• many litigants lack attorneys,
• family court moves quickly,
• emotions run high,
• and judges are forced to make difficult credibility determinations with incomplete information.

Protecting Real Victims and Protecting Due Process Are Not Opposites

This debate is often framed incorrectly.

Protecting due process does not mean ignoring victims.

Demanding evidence does not minimize abuse.

Recognizing false allegations occur does not deny that real domestic violence exists.

The legal system must be capable of handling both realities simultaneously.

If we acknowledge that abusive people exist, we must also acknowledge human beings sometimes:

• lie,
• exaggerate,
• manipulate systems,
• or weaponize allegations during emotionally charged litigation.

Pretending otherwise does not improve justice.

It weakens confidence in the system itself.

Why Experienced Representation Matters

Domestic violence allegations — particularly when tied to custody disputes — can spiral quickly.

A criminal case may overlap with:

• divorce proceedings,
• parenting disputes,
• protection orders,
• professional licensing issues,
• and long-term reputational harm.

These cases are rarely as simple as police reports initially suggest.

At The Lawrence Law Firm, we understand both sides of these cases. We understand that genuine victims deserve protection. But we also understand the danger of assumptions, incomplete investigations, emotionally driven allegations, and systems that can sometimes prioritize speed over accuracy.

Every allegation deserves careful examination.
Every defendant deserves due process.
And every case deserves to be evaluated based on evidence — not assumptions.

For individuals facing domestic violence allegations in Colorado, early legal intervention can be critical, especially when criminal court and family court issues begin intersecting simultaneously.