House Judiciary [Mar 31, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Representatives Bacon. Excused. Clifford. Excused. Espinosa. Here. Linnell. Here. Garcia. Here. Kelty. Here. Slaw. Here. Soper. Here. Zocay. Excused. Carter. Present.

Rep. Story. Rep. Story. Wow. Good morning, just barely, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in deep support of this bill today. It's been a privilege working alongside Representative Froelich over the past few years on several pieces of incredibly important common sense legislation meant to keep children safe when going through family court. This bill is the logical next step in this process. A few years ago, a trauma-informed care social worker shared with me a horrifying ProPublica investigation detailing the story of a Colorado father with a self-confessed history of sexual assault and a documented domestic violence conviction who was nonetheless granted primary custody of his young son. Despite 36 separate reports of potential abuse from over a dozen professionals, including doctors, therapists, and school principals, our legal system chose to believe a narrative of parental alienation rather than the physical evidence and the consistent outcries of a child. We are seeing a documented trend where survivors are pathologized, accused of hysteria, and even jailed while custody is awarded to the abuser. As Rep. Froelich shared, or will share, there was even an instance in Colorado where a single judge ruled on two separate cases that resulted in the abuser murdering the child. Yet there were no consequences for those judicial decisions. We must recognize that these cases are not isolated incidents. It is a symptom of systemic failure. Over the past few years, this body has passed a series of bills designed to keep children safe through family court. In 2021, we passed Rep. Froelich's bill, Julie's Law, to address the essential training of court-appointed evaluators. In 2023, we furthered that work with Rep. Froelich's Bill Cadence Law to allow for federal funding for additional domestic violence training and resources. That same year, the Victim and Survivor Training for Judicial Personnel Task Force was created, and I teamed up with Rep. Froelich in 2024 and passing HB 24-1350 to stress the best interests of the child when deciding the outcomes of a custody. case However our work remains unfinished Right now Colorado is leaving an estimated 1 million dollars in federal funding on the table because we have not yet mandated the specific judicial training on domestic violence and child abuse required to be eligible for dollars under the Federal Violence Against Women Act reauthorization This bill is essential, the essential next step to bridge that gap and ensure our judges have the tools they need to keep children safe in family court. House Bill 26-1309 works to ensure that judges consider domestic violence and child abuse as they allocate parenting time and decisions. Specifically, it requires that if the court has reason to believe domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual assault has occurred, the judge must determine the truth by a preponderance of the evidence and make specific findings on the record. We are bringing an amendment that strikes the requirement that the evidence be written. Instead, it must become part of the official record. The goal is to provide a framework and a roadmap to ensure judges can competently identify warning signs of violence earlier in a case without bias. As it exists, there are various definitions and standards scattered throughout the statute concerning the dissolution of marriage in different forms. This legislation does not change any existing definitions. Rather, it unpacks and consolidates the different types of harm into one place into our existing statutes, including stalking, sexual assault, health-related abuse, coercive control, technological abuse, and economic abuse. By capturing this full range of harm and putting it in one place, we are ensuring that judges are able to make rulings consistent with the law that do not endanger children. We cannot continue to allow a child's safety to be secondary to the perceived fairness to an abuser. Child safety must be paramount to the best interest of the child. I urge you to support this vital legislation to protect our kids and ensure that no more Colorado children are placed back into homes where they are being harmed. Thank you, and I'm happy to address your questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Judiciary Committee, for allowing us to present 1309, a continued work to keep children safe in family court. We are here again because a group of activists, survivors, and whose experience in family court has been so painful and so dangerous that they have joined a movement to reform family court. When survivors of domestic violence and parents of survivors of child abuse come to family court, they hope that the judge will see what is happening in their home and award custody accordingly. Their allegations and their evidence is more often than not dismissed, or worse, it is able to be used against them. An allegation of sex assault by a parent in a custody agreement has an 80% chance of the accuser losing custody of the child because they mentioned or tried to prove sex assault. It's about 50% if it's an allegation of domestic violence. And time after time we have tried to basically get to a point where judges are considering this evidence when they are making custodial decisions And instead, in Douglas County, not only did the judge give custody to the abuser, but he said on Friday, when we come back on Monday, I do believe that there has been domestic violence. I do believe that there has been abuse. On Monday, I'm going to award mom full custody. That weekend, the father killed the two children in Douglas County and himself. In Larimer County, custody was awarded to an abuser who killed one of our advocates' two daughters. In Boulder, as was mentioned previously, there's a magistrate who now on two separate cases has awarded custody to the abuser. and those children have been killed by the abuser. In Colorado last year, it was five children who post-custody were killed by their parent post-family court allocation of custody. And that's the folks who have had the ultimately horrible outcome. Our movement is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of folks whose children have been spending every other weekend with who the children have expressed are our parents who are assaulting them. and we just have not been able to figure out how to, and this committee is very, very aware of this, how to allow for judicial discretion but also insert this imperative that domestic violence be properly understood and the best interest of the child to, decisions concerning the best interest of the child to factor in domestic violence and child abuse. And so in our first effort, we said, oh, they must be getting not really great reports. And so the reports must not be fully outlining what's really happening. And so we put in domestic violence training for the PREs and CFIs. In subsequent bills, we said, oh, they're relying on these experts that are saying some pretty crazy things. Let's put some parameters on what constitutes an expert. a young man came to me and said they didn't listen to me when I was in family court. I told them what my dad had done, and they wouldn't listen to me. And so we put voice of the child into the statute. If the judge hears the child, he hears these experts that are trained, he is understanding what is being presented as junk science, then these determinations will be different. And yet we have these continued outcomes that are leading to ruined lives. So we said, well, how can we get judges trained? So a bipartisan effort put together a commission, the 1108 commission, that said, let's train judges. How will we go about getting judges to be more aware of what the realities? because there's so much more knowledge and expertise on what constitutes domestic violence now and how so much of it is undetectable by traditional means. So the 1108 Commission came back with a list of 20-odd recommendations. We have not been able to act on a single one of those. So today we came before you originally with a bill that said okay how about there a pause point And if the judge wants to award custody to someone with this when there has been some preponderance of evidence of domestic violence and abuse, then they need to just write it out. They need to say, I still believe this is in the best interest of the child. According to the fiscal note, that would take five minutes. then judicial department multiplied that by the number of times that that would occur and it resulted in an $800,000 fiscal note. It's interesting to the advocates to say that's what the cost of five minutes to determine the best interest of the child when there is domestic violence and domestic abuse that that five minutes, when we went back to them and said we can't do this because of the fiscal note and because it won't get through. They said, wow, the determination on the safety of a child is not worth five minutes of a judge writing out their reasoning. So we came back with something that we hope addresses the fiscal note. It is not changing as my fabulous co-sponsor, CoPrime, said. It does not change a single definition. It does put them all in one place in statute, because that was something that we heard from family court attorneys, that the judges were saying, it's all over the place. I don't know where I'm looking to see. So we have in one place all of the work that we've been doing to define domestic violence. And we ask the court to go through what is outlined in the bill, a series of determinations, sort of a flow chart, partially to remove these, to place some extra eyeballs, extra judiciary discretion onto these cases where abuse has just been so thoroughly outlined. and for custodial decisions that do not involve domestic violence, for them to go through the process that they go through now, but to highlight that in these cases the stakes are so incredibly high and to make sure that we don't have yet another terrible domestic violence fatality review report next year where this just keeps happening. So that's the bill you see before you. heavily amended to take out the written findings, proposing this alternate sense of this is a series of what we think the judge should be sort of going through, which we understand to be sort of the way the court flows anyway. But that's what we're proposing for you today. And we just ask you to give consideration to this. I mentioned to some members on the minority, this work is being done in 50 states. Sometimes it's just combating alternative plans that give things like default 50-50 custody. But often it's this exact bills that we've run and they're being run by people across the political spectrum because this is not only a national problem but an international problem. that even has a UN Commission on Human Rights report about it. So that's a lot. It's been a long, long set of years and a lot of work, and I just really want to thank the people who brought this to my attention, and I hope I can do right by you one more time before peacing out of here. So we ask for an aye vote.

We have the fiscal analyst who agreed to be here. We still have to go to a probes. We're down to .4 I believe. But so if we go to a probes and live another day, we'll keep working on what we need to amend to get that down.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question. I'm sorry, I didn't say thank you for the question, Rep. Thank you for the question. So we see this across the board in domestic violence cases, whether criminal. This is, of course, civil. And we see it in sex assault. And so really, this is where judicial discretion is imperative and where you'll see in the bill language from best practices in terms of domestic violence and sex assault litigation, where you'll see in the bill things like patterns of behavior, series of – it isn't just one allegation. The list is, for your consideration, a preponderance of evidence based on either a series of reports, a series of actions. It rarely are you going to see – we don't see, and we'll have experts that talk about this, but we don't see an allegation causing a change in determination. but rather we see lots of patterns displayed and we even have folks who have extensive medical reports and police reports and still don't get what they believe to be a satisfactory outcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Espinosa, for the question. Yes, they are responsible for a lot of this work. I thought that they were on the witness list, but they will be chiming. We We do have folks from Family Bar. I don believe Family Bar has made an official declaration but we do have Family Bar folks coming to talk and who helped craft the bill Amy I be in

Thank you. And I should just say one of the reasons that so many advocates in family court, although not official family court, but family court attorneys, practicing family court attorneys, were so keen on the written findings is because these cases go on for decades or longer. And they say if we could point to a written finding, we would save so much time in future litigation. But what we're proposing is that that be a triage point at the very start. So let's determine if this is a case in which these allegations are going to be and counter allegations. And if this is going to be that kind of case. and then let's go here where we're assigning PREs and CFIs and we're conducting investigations and we really want to collect evidence and make a fair finding. Then we go down that road. If in the allocation of parental responsibilities we don't see there aren't these allegations, then we go through that process that is the preponderance of cases in family court. And let's give what we believe to be the proper time and examination of these situations, because they are so thorny, and there are allegations of false allegations and counterclaims, and so much of it relies on really the PRE and the CFI who have gone through domestic violence training, filing their reports and having their findings be really examined.

Thank you, Rep. Bacon. And thank you for the ongoing discussion. We've been a couple of years at this. I think under this concept as it was described to me, and again, I'm always at a disadvantage in this committee because I am not a lawyer, but there will be a series of determinations, sometimes classified as findings, but I'm not sure on the vocabulary. But what we're sort of saying in this flow is that let's see if this is even a thing. And then if it is, then we're really going to go into this caution zone for these 400 subset of cases in which there seems to be this going on. And it may be determined that actually in that nothing is happening and that that's also under judicial discretion. But so you'll see, I believe the flow goes, let's make a determination if it's that kind of case. Then way down the line after X, Y, and Z, and the evidence has been presented and the judge has talked to all parties and the PRE has been engaged and submitted their report or it may be a CFI, then we get into parenting time. And in those findings on parenting time then the judge is to make a finding that says okay I don really believe the PRE report I don believe the parent making the allegation I decide this. And that's that finding where we're saying, please, in that finding, acknowledge the evidence that has come before you related to domestic violence, which is that long laundry list that it may not look like it's not we don't we're not looking for bruises right we're looking for financial coercion all kinds of things that is that laundry list of how it might present but that's in that findings we we gave up on having it be written but there's still a finding associated with allocating parenting time in which the judge is saying I believe that this is the right thing to do in the best interest of the child.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Garcia. Correct.

Rep. Frullick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you repeat the question, Rep. Slough?

When we first embarked upon this, there were lots of concerns around what I call normal parenting conflicts. And so people said, yeah, they're just going to say they want to go to the parent that lets them play video games all the time and they're going to make this, you know, you're going to screw up this. So that's why we've been very careful in the language that we crafted that we are talking about a series of things. It isn't one incident. It isn't that one time when you said the one mean thing. It is documented. It is evidentiary. and of course, I mean, sometimes much to our chagrin, we maintain judicial discretion. But we spell out very much in the bill that it is abuse and what abuse looks like. And part of the PRE and CFI changes training is to make those distinctions. They have been trained in domestic violence and child abuse and what it looks like. So you see this also in criminal child abuse cases. This is very different from I sent you to bed without dinner or I wouldn't let you watch The Sopranos. This is what has already been established in law as what is considered child abuse or is considered domestic violence. But it would be a factor. So I'm not going to, I mean, I will go on record as saying which parent lets you go to church on Sunday and which parent won't is a factor in when the judge is making custodial decisions. If that's combined with other aspects of coercive control or something else, then that's also for the judge to determine.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Slah, thanks for those questions. As Rep. Froelich was saying, you know, it's a series of circumstances. It's not going to be a single incident that is going to be a determining factor. But in these cases that have come before the court, the example that I gave in my opening remarks, there were 36 reports by various professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, nurses, teachers, that are mandatory reporters. that reported incidents where they had seen on the child's body signs that potentially there was sexual abuse. Was there a witness to that other than the child? No. How many people invite a witness into a room when they're going to abuse a child sexually? Probably not many. But there were these findings again and again and again of signs that this child had been abused, comments to a teacher that, you know, my father is doing this act, that act. To me, I don't want to go spend the weekend with him. You know, those are documented things where the teacher reported like they're supposed to. so it's teachers are not going to report that your daughter said she didn't like the decision that you made about whatever you know she wanted to watch some movie and you said no that's not going to be in a finding right that's going to be part of it

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oops, did the opposite. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep Slaw. I absolutely understand that concern, and it's not something that we have not heard before, but we want to emphasize that it is a factor. I mean, the judge can decide whether name-calling and degrading is a piece of this, And I think we hope that in this course of events that there is no scenario in which name-calling, degrading, or demeaning the individual is the sole reason why the custodial decision has occurred. but in context that your dad always calls you whatever it is or your mom always calls you a demeaning name and restricts your mobility and doesn't allow you to go to your sports and also laid hands on you and also did X, Y, and Z, then I think maybe that parent shouldn't get full custody. Or I don't know how the determinations work, but it is a factor, and you're going to hear folks who say the mere presence of name-calling, degrading, or demeaning is enough to sway the judge's decision, and there's a concern around that. And we just don't believe that having name-calling, degrading, and demeaning as an example, in addition to having surveilling, monitoring, regulating, or threatening to harm or kill, that they all are in the mix and that they all can be parsed out judiciously because we are still down to judicial discretion, is enough to not include those things But we will certainly hear testimony that aligns with your concern Rep Sokai Thank you Mr Chair I just wanted to get some details on what exactly changed in the fiscal note

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep Sokai. So it's always fun to talk to judicial and have them, and our fiscal analyst is here. Initially, they made a calculation that written findings of what was in the best interest of the child in the presence of domestic violence and child abuse would take five minutes. They extrapolated that times 16,000 cases, I think it says, and then assigned a certain number of hours of magistrate hours. For every magistrate hour, there are three support hours, according to judiciary. And so I guess we should feel lucky that that only came out to $800K. So we removed the written findings, and we're still asking that there be consideration to domestic violence and child abuse allegations that is going to result, according to judicial, in around .4 FTE of a magistrate, which they'll multiply by three. So we're still too much to make it through, appropes, but we will try to amend, continue to amend, and see if there's a way to get it down.

I don't think that's a multi-page amendment. Oh, yeah, that's right. But it's okay.

Thank you, Rep. That's all existing statute. I understand that may give you heartburn, but those are the existing definitions in statute. and we just actually had a murder two days ago. A person cleaning their gun just killed their domestic partner. So I think that there's a reason why those things were put in statute in the first place and I can understand again that there may be objections to folks but we going to go with what on the books Okay I have AML Bacon Caltee and Carty AML Bacon

What I'm curious about, or I'm sorry, can you correct that? Thank you, Rep. Bacon. Not quite to write down why they are making this custodial arrangement, even though they have heard testimony about domestic violence. Why they still think it's in the best interest of the child. Okay. So to just legitimate their, the, the find their, their, um, the custodial decision. Okay. Legitimate it, um, when this evidence has been presented.

Rep. Froelich. I apologize.

For the record, Aaron Carpenter, Legislative Council staff. ML Bacon, excellent questions as always. To start on what I received from judicial and how I was approaching the fiscal note for this bill, specifically it's the language on page 12 of the introduced bill where there's new language being added that says, in every case the court shall make specific written findings in an order concerning whether or not blah blah blah blah blah blah so that is what they were pointing to for the additional five minutes to write a finding per the bill and they used judicial judicial officer feedback to kind of determine okay how long does it take for you to make a finding so that was the five minute piece and then on the larger of when finding whether or not there was domestic violence according to a hearing that's a different assumption with a lot smaller amount of case numbers so it's not the 16,000, it's more like 400, but very specifically to the 16,000 for five minutes of written findings, that had to do with that language on page 12.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Bacon. And you know frankly having tussled with judicial now for seven years on this I figure they don want to do what they don want to do And they going to find a way to make sure in a tough budget year that there a fiscal note and they're going to make it as big as they can. What Mr. Carpenter just said, though, was about all cases. And I heard you talking about flowchart. Is it your intent that there should be a finding in all cases?

Sorry, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Bacon. I would look forward to that discussion. Certainly the advocates came back and said, can't we fight the fiscal note? We said I think the best way to fight the fiscal note is to take out the written part because that seems to be what features heavily. Maybe we are miscued there. We would love to live another day and work on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rep. Follick. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Espinosa. Correct. In the multi-page amendment, we are still asking there be a finding of whether the party has committed domestic violence. And I know that that was a matter of concern. We still feel that that is the whole point of our movement, is to please do not ignore domestic violence and abuse when making child custody determinations.

Rep. Frelick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Espinosa. are correct, and that has led to a 0.4 at the moment. So whether we tweak that language, go this other route of saying it only applies to this incredibly small subset of folks, or whether we give up altogether because 0.4 to FTE is still going to not happen this year. But what the advocates, what the folks are still trying to get at what we've always been trying to get at is please recognize the significant events of domestic violence and abuse and what that should mean we one would hope to

Rob Froelich? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Espinosa. I believe it is placing the – that it all has to do with 1.4, this Section 3, these first four lines on the amendment. That was our effort to put all aspects, all previously stated, at all aspects of what has been defined as domestic violence in one place. Now maybe I am inaccurate and I will phone a friend while we listen to witnesses or the witnesses who helped us craft the bill will also – who said please do that will also be here.

Rep. Prolick.

Rep. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Froelich. I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, but the judges already have the ability to impose these conditions. what you're saying is you believe that based on their judicial discretion, they just aren't willing to or they're not willing to look at what you think they should be looking at?

Vice Chair Carter Thank you Mr Chair Thank you again Representative Story Representative Froelich my last question is more of if we are going to task the judges with now not just making a finding but also adhering specifically related to those three DV sex assault, how does that hearing not affect that additional hearing? How does that not affect the amount of time the judicial officer is going to spend on that case? Thank you.

Rep. Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so here's my question. I'm going through, like, who may have been stakeholder and who may have been contacted and talked to. And I'm going through the Secretary of State site. Like, there's so many people against this, from the counties to Colorado. Well, the Colorado Organization of Victim Assistance, they're monitoring. I mean, there's no one in support. They're all monitoring. They're not even saying that they support this spell. And then I look at the witnesses that are coming today, and the groups that I would think would be in support of something that, you know, dealing with domestic abuse and that kind of stuff, they're all against it. So why do you believe that all the, I mean, there's like Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, Christian Home Educators Colorado, Colorado Catholic Conference. I mean, there's just so many. So why is it that these groups that I would think would be in support, have you a stakeholder with them? Have you talked to them? Why are they against your bill so badly?

Other questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll head to the witness testimony phase.

And Rep Froelich you wanted to do all against the bill and then all in support Okay Amend and then support Okay All right Carl Roberts, Christy Neely, Nathan Fisher, Colleen Enos. All of these witnesses are signed up in person. And online, Lori Gimmelstein. Julie Grayson and Derek Scalchuk. Okay, is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in opposition to this bill? Nathan said he'll be out and be back. He's here in the building. Okay. I think I saw two hands of people who wanted to testify in opposition to the bill. if you all could come forward just so that we could fill our panel. Yep, you in the back. Okay, come forward. Anyone else in opposition to the bill here in person? Okay. Rosemary Van Gorder online. Sven Sharpen online. Okay. Let's start with the witness on my right. State your name, any organization you represent. You will have three minutes, and you may begin. Yep. The button is right by where the mic plugs in. It's like a little gray button under that tiny red light. There you go.

Thank you, Ms. Atwood. Good. Okay, moving over. Our next witness, state your name. Any organization you represent, you will have three minutes.

Thank you. Okay, next witness over. You will have three minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin.

Thank you, ma'am. Maybe go to Derek Skellshock. You can state your name who you represent You have three minutes sir Thank you Chair and members of the committee My name is Derek Skelchok I a Colorado parent and a 13 combat veteran

Right now, this bill does not strike that balance. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that you vote no to HB 261309. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there a Julie Grayson? Yes, can you hear me? State your name, who you represent. You have three minutes. Yes, my name is Julie Grayson. I'm the Executive Director of the Family Preservation Alliance. I am also a public defender representing the falsely accused, many of which who have stemmed from the family court, and I'm a court-appointed special advocate for children. I respectfully and strongly oppose Bill HB 26 and I thank this committee for their time in order to get this right for all citizens of the state of Colorado who unfortunately are going through the family court system The fallout of this bill does not protect children and I truly believe that everybody here testifying is concerned about the interests of children. In my years in family court, I have seen parents and their attorneys use false allegations at the onset of family court cases to weaponize children as well as the other parent as a leg up in a custody battle. One of the nuances I want to bring up to this committee is a violation of a protective order falsely obtained in the family court lands in criminal court in proceedings with lifetime ramifications for children and parents. I defend the wrongfully accused time and time again in family court, and the low burden of proof in this bill can result in a child losing half of themselves and their identity with complete blocked access to a fit, loving parent. Another nuance that I would like this committee to consider is that in the family court in many other states, you could get a protective order against the other parent wrongfully accused. And in the order, there is a separate section where you can put that the child still has access to the child because the domestic violence allegation was lodged at the other parent. In crafting bills in the future, I would like this seriously considered overall. This bill does nothing but harm children, harm parents who are desperately seeking justice in the family court, in the family courts. Lastly, I would like this committee to consider there are completely different standards of proof in family court and in criminal court. It is my suggestion going forward even though I staunchly oppose this bill, that once an allegation of domestic violence is lodged in the family court, just an allegation, that there is a stay in the family court proceedings and by beyond a reasonable doubt standard, this case is bumped to the prosecutor's office for their proper investigation and training to see what is true abuse allegations. I thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone in person who would like to testify against this bill? Did you want to come forward, ma'am? If you can state your name, who you represent, you'll have three minutes. There we go. My name is Patty McKernan. I live in Centennial. I'm a parent. I'm a board member of Protect Kids Colorado, but I'm here representing my own views. We are here again. Here we are again. We're trying to place the government as the parent. The government can't love our children. Only parents can love their children. Now some parents stop loving each other and give and out of emotion use children as weapons I sat through and testified at many parental rights hearings here in this chamber and have seen firsthand that children should not be used as property or as weapons in these parental rights cases or these custody cases. most recently I was here listening to how we shouldn't punish child rapists because they're often falsely accused so I want to just state once again that there are many conditions under which people are accusing each other of violating lots of I'm sorry my testimony is I It just came from the chrism mass. I don't have it written out. And I'm just talking off the top of my head. So my point is when you're talking about custody situations with parents, there are often problems coming into those hearings. And the children are the victims. And I am only here to represent that the parents that love their children need to be respected, and it's not the government's role to become the parent of the children and make decisions. Yes, there are custody battles. Yes, there are legal hearings that are going to hear the evidence. But I don't think it's the role of this government, this hearing, this legislative committee to make these decisions. And I just respectfully ask you to vote no on HB 26 1309. Thank you. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Representative Flannell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for, I believe it's Miss Julie Grayson, I believe, who's the DA? I think she said she was a public defender. Oh, okay. So a public defender. So I'm just curious. So what protections are in place? I know you kind of hit, you touched upon this, but what protections are in place if a child is, you know, being, like if they are in a domestic violence situation? I think you mentioned that there are some kind of orders that they could put into place to get the child out of that situation. Can you just expand on that, please? Julie Grayson. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. So that's a very good question. There are many things that they can do to protect the child. Typically, there are investigations opened up by CPS, and if they feel that it has risen to the level of an abuse situation, the judge does call in in the family court the specialist in that area. There is a closed-door session, and they make a determination as to what they're going to do with regard to the safety of the child. That comes in many forms. Sometimes, let's say, depending on the age of the child, and of course they do interview them, they have a supervised visitation with a parent. Other times they make sure that there is some kind of temporary order in place in the family court to get more of an analysis through mental health professionals to look at the family dynamics to protect the child, and then sometimes incredibly serious. It does rise to the level of extending to the prosecutor's office where they do, there are charges filed and there could be an arraignment or other things going on on the criminal end. Representative Flannell. No. Thank you. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Ms. Chair. And I think this question may go to Ms. Atwood. In your testimony, you mentioned that this bill would actually lessen the standard, I guess you could say, in determination for domestic violence. in the best could you expound on that for me please I know you only get two minutes so if you can explain that a little bit further for me I'd appreciate it Ms. Edwood thank you sorry in the domestic so the family court the judicial officers are trained in the best interest of of the analysis of a child. So what this... If you could just speak into the microphone, please. I'm so sorry. I'm so new at this. One month on my job. So in family court, the best interest analysis is guiding our judicial officers. Here, what we're asking the judicial officers to do before they even do that analysis is to make a determination if domestic violence has occurred. And one of the things that has not come up is that a normal parent, like a parent, when they're asking for the preponderance of evidence, and that includes CPS reports, if I'm a parent and I get my CPS reports, they're redacted. So they're basing this determination of domestic violence on paper and on redacted statements. To me, that's a huge problem. Rep. Kelty. Thank you. Thank you for that. And I do know, like, I think Ms. Grayson and Ms. Enos also kind of touched on that as well, as far as, like, people being falsely accused in domestic violence already, and you feel that this would actually give them more of a tool to be able to falsely accuse them more. can you go into that a little bit more please i apologize who's that for cnose yeah mcinos mcinos or miss grayson thank you for the question rep kelty the colorado court system now is already um taking away children in custody decisions based on some of these items gender affirming care, gender identity, and saying if you don't affirm, then you are not a safe parent. So that's already happening in the current system. And the vague language that's included in this bill with coercive control is just going to expand that. And I believe Rep. Slaw brought up the whole idea that this could be weaponized, you know, parents against each other, especially in really difficult divorces. I mean, recognizing that there are a lot of emotions happening and false accusations could be flying Putting in place this kind of a vague bill with these types of definitions is only going to exacerbate that It not going to make it better So we want to protect kids. We want kids to be safe, but we also want parents to be able to parent. We want them to continue to have a relationship with their child after a divorce happens and we've already had that happen in this state. Kids are being taken away or non-custodial parents are being denied parenting rights because of just that thing and this is worse. It'll make it worse. Rep Kelty. Any other questions for this panel? I see none. Thank you panel. Is there a Christopher Prophet? Christina Rocco. Francisco Diaz. Brittany Vesely. What is this? Donald Murphy. You got to give me an up or down. Yeah, I'm here. William Head. Carl Roberts. Kristi Neely. Sorry. Aaron Gazelka. Is there anyone here to testify in an amend position that is in person? Is there anyone here to testify in an amend position that is in person? Can you come forward? Do you want to amend the bill or are you against it or for it? Are you on the list? Come forward. No. State your name and who you represent. You have three minutes. It's to your right, right, where the red button is, right there. Thank you. Sorry. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me time to share my thoughts on amending House Bill 26-1309. My name is Erin Gazelka. I'm representing myself. I'm here as a listed DVUMB-approved provider at the domestic violence clinical supervisor level. I'm a mental health professional, a licensed professional counselor, a licensed addiction counselor. I hold degrees as a Juris Doctorate and a Master of Arts in Forensic Clinical Psych. I've been serving criminal justice-involved clients through assessment and therapy for 19 years in Colorado, the past nine years devoted to domestic violence offenders. As drafted 26 appears to propose a new abuse intervention for a 52 individual therapeutic treatment within civil parental responsibility cases As described it diverges from established evidence practices for rehabilitation and victim safety This 52-week designation is confusing language that appears connected to psychoeducation models of intervention in other states. Research indicates interventions in power and control behavior are best treated in group settings with successful completion measured by actual clinical progress. not time counted on a calendar. This bill inadvertently creates an unregulated abuse intervention system in the civil space incongruent to the DVMB system of treatment for criminal domestic violence cases. This sets the stage for criminal and civil cases to have fundamentally incompatible statutory mandates and two parallel systems of abuse intervention and direct conflict with one another. And aligned with the Department of Public Safety's proposals addressing the clinical and jurisdictional gaps posed by this bill, the amendments do not seek to expand the DVMB's purview into civil court, rather to ensure that civil mandates are congruent with established evidence-based practices, I strongly recommend the proposed amendments to ensure the use of an evaluation to determine risk and matching the dose of treatment to that evaluation. I'm also aligned with clarifications that anger management, self-paced virtual courses, and couples therapy are not suitable alternatives to domestic violence therapy. Knowing those amendments are already proposed, I'll take my moment to explain two things. specifically first domestic violence clients are a specialized population there's a continuum of relationship behavior that ranges from normal power dynamics to eventually crossing a line into domestic violence dynamics that includes coercive control abuse and use of violence people trained in typical relationship and family interventions frequently have a complete lack of awareness of domestic violence dynamics and how dramatically they differ it takes significant training and supervision to understand and recognize these dynamics and assessment and treatment intervention requires process therapy and it far exceeds what's seen in basic psychoeducation like what we observe in other states domestic violence interventions. As a supervisor this is the most complicated clinical supervision I've provided in my entire career. Second I don't want DVUMB providers to be restricted from engaging in this important civil work and I don't want to see domestic violence providers be the only people who can and thus be required to provide the services under the civil statute with a little clarity on how to verify the determination of those services. There are DVUMB providers who want to work in this space and they do it well. There are many of us that don't. I have two sentences. Clients in the civil system actually often pose increased risks and more concerning behavior than criminal clients without the same levels of guardrails afforded by the criminal justice system. In closing, domestic violence dynamics are different than normed relationship dynamics and require specialized training and supervision for those intervening to protect victims. So thanks again for your time. Thank you. If you can state your name, who you represent, you will have three minutes. Hi, my name is Andrea Bradbury, and I'm here representing myself today. I'm testifying in my individual capacity on House Bill 261309, and I am in an amend position. I have been in victim services for 30 years, and there's nothing that I want more than for this body to protect victims, especially children. My heart breaks hearing some of the stories that are the reason that the sponsors have brought this bill forward. But I do have a couple of concerns the way that this bill is written. My first concern is that mandating treatment prior to a formal assessment and recommendation is made regarding an individual risk or criminogenic needs is doing a disservice The process of a forensic evaluation is what drives the accountability and individual treatment This bill omits this very step By legislating clinical processes, the statute forces mental health providers to apply interventions blindly, which in turn ignores specific behavioral indicators and lethality factors that would normally be detected by a forensic evaluation. And do we know that those said mental health providers have the experience and the knowledge necessary to provide DV-specific treatment and not just anger management or other general types of treatment? Who would be overseeing those providers to make sure that they do have the knowledge and experience that they need in order to give the treatment? Part two of this, in my eyes, is basically that we're whitewashing everything together. This is a one-size-fits-all, 52-week mandate that is not allowing for the abusers to get the help that they potentially actually need. There are varied risk levels for all domestic violence offenders. For example, with this bill, a low-risk offender is given the same treatment as a high-risk offender. This type of overprogramming could actually do more harm than good and may increase recidivism. When requiring the 52-week mandate time frame, the bill fails to provide the court with the needed data necessary for decision making. The bill only offers a time-served metric, which may leave the court without a mechanism to determine if an individual's risk has been mitigated or if abuse patterns persist. So I urge you to not pass this bill as is, but to help to make sure that it has the guardrails and parameters that we need in order to make it work effectively and protect those very victims and children that we're trying to. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bradbury. Ma'am, if you can state your name, who you represent, you have three minutes. I'm going to need you to press the red button. The gray button underneath the red light. Underneath the red light, sorry. Thank you, you got it. Did I do it? Okay. Hi, sorry. My name is Jesslyn Houck, and I'm self-representing. And I usually do come in here a lot more prepared, better decorum. But I just found out about this bill last night at about 1130, and then I had to go to my job this morning. And I read over it, and I can't speak on the specifics. The reason I didn't participate this much is because of a very recent death in my family. And so I'm just going to tell you my experience and let you apply that to concerns that other people have expressed. I was falsely accused and arrested for domestic violence and child abuse about five years ago. I proved that there was police help in that setup. They were formally reprimanded. The elect DA dismissed my charges not because there was a lack of witnesses, a lack of procedural failure, anything. They went on the record, I have the transcripts, that it's dismissed because I was set up and he's actually the abuser, the one that accused me. And, you know, I have all of the, anything I see I have documented. I paid 10K adjusting transcripts. When I went over the bill, and I had to do it briefly, I was reading it, and I was like, yes, some of these things are very good for survivors on the other end. But in someone in my situation, when I'm unfairly accused of that, and by the way, I have my kids over 300 days out of the year by now, when initially I was stripped from them for false allegations. And this bill, and this is not, like, this is a common situation, and if this bill passes the way it is, I would be treated even worse for something I didn't do. And that's the quick feeling I got from the synopsis. And I'm sorry for being so unprepared. Like, I'm a victim to advocate. I worked for the DA. I apologize for how I'm dressed even. but like I just didn't I didn't have the time to prepare I learned about this last night because I was checked out dealing with funeral and probate law um but if you can get if you can get the gist of my story um I think it says something that I was initially accused got my kids taken away for over a year and a half and then they figured out that it was literally a setup corroborated or helped by the police. And if this bill passes, it's going to make innocent people like me be treated even worse by the system. And that's not as eloquent as I like, but that's what it is, end time. Thank you, ma'am. And Mr. Fisher, state your name, who you represent, and you'll also have three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your grace for allowing me to join late. My name is Nathan Fisher, and I work as the Associate Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, and I am testifying in opposition to 1309 today. 1309 is intended to address domestic violence in family court proceedings, particularly in cases involving children, child custody, and parental responsibilities. Yet two sections present grave violations of sanctity of life and parental rights. Under Section 2, health-related abuses, 1309 states, interference with or controlling and preventing access to reproductive health care, including contraceptive use of reproductive health care information or controlling or attempting to control reproductive outcomes is considered health-related abuse. This can make a male partner attempting to save the life of his preborn child or even grandparents attempting to save the life of their preborn grandchild. If a man was accused of health-related abuse for attempting to save his preborn child's life from abortion, he would be required to participate in individual therapeutic treatment with a mental health professional who holds a master's or doctoral degree and a certain mental health license type. has a specialized training and expertise in treating survivors at domestic violence and its effects, and has completed a 52-week domestic violence abuser intervention program. 1309 also considers it to be coercive control for a parent to monitor their child's access to services. It defines coercive control as a pattern of behavior that takes away the individual's liberty or freedom and strips away the individual's sense of self, including the individual's bodily integrity and human rights. A parent who does not affirm their child's trans identity under this section could have parental custody removed. We have already dealt with this in HB 26, 13, 12, and 25, 13, 12, and 26018. Both bills have had the same parental custody question stripped from the text because of hundreds of Coloradans' public outcry. This bill is another example in an attempt to remove parental rights if the parent disagrees with their minor child on gender ideology except it is more deceptive because it does not directly address the concerns parents have with their children gender ideology We should be concerned whenever government policy is to remove children from their family, not for abuse or neglect, but because parents and children disagree about deeply personal beliefs. Removing Section 2 of this bill would be good policy, consistent with the will of all Coloradans who already opposed two similar bills. On behalf of the Colorado bishops, we respectfully ask the committee to vote no today. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there a Donald Murphy? Yes. Thank you. State your name, who you represent. You have three minutes. Dr. Don Murphy. I represent myself. I'm a geriatrician, hospice physician who's been serving Colorado for over 40 years. based on one false allegation. I had my career and $2 million stolen from me by Attorney General Phil Weiser. All of the victims of Phil Weiser, he's responsible for the corrupt judiciary. In that, we victims are not granted our constitutional rights, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights, due process. So one false allegation leads to us being in this corrupt judiciary, particularly family courts, where there's no due process. You're only hearing one side of the story. What Phil Weiser is doing is tearing apart families who are already in distress. Divorce, right? He is destroying careers. Mine is just one example. I'll get back to practicing medicine after we have a new administration in 2027. But my goal right now is to explain that the man in control of our judicial system is a white-collar criminal. Many in Colorado know this, and I'm going to get on with explaining that to everyone in Colorado. So that in 2027, when we are caught in the courts, controlled by Phil Weiser and embraced by Governor Jared Polis, I mean, really, he knows about this craziness. It's called gaslighting. We will have a government that honors our constitutional rights. So I'm excited about the future, but I'm really worried about all these victims of Phil Weiser. We're working on a number of things like class action suits and many other ways back to justice in this state. And I would say that what's happened to our Colorado Democratic Party is that you present the worst case scenario. All right. Bad stuff happens in life. What you're ignoring is the thousands of lives and careers and businesses that are being torn apart by Bill Weiser. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is that a Miss Vesely? Can you state your name, who you represent? And you have three minutes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brittany Vesely. I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, and I'm testifying in opposition to HB 1309. Last year, over 700 Coloradans came to this committee in opposition of HB 1312 over the exact same language that we now see in HB 1309 concerning so-called coercive control and parental custody decisions. Last month, Senate Bill 18 was again stripped of the same language following a public outcry. HB 1309 targets parents for normal parenting decisions, including but not limited to affirming their child trans identity if the state determines that the parents well beliefs on human sexuality discriminates against transgender ideology This is a massive violation of First Amendment and constitutional precedent protecting parental rights from state overreach including Troxel v. Granville, which held that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. An additional precedent in Parham, Meyer and Pierce decisions. And in today's Chilice v. Salazar precedent, which rejects Colorado's ban on genuine care for minors by their parents and counselors who offer compassionate care for gender dysphoria, backed by longstanding research that showed that children experiencing gender dysphoria naturally grow out of their distress and do not need life-altering medical intervention. Preventing this option to parents and practitioners by calling it course of control, as in HB 1309, puts ideology before health care of children. HB 1309 goes as far as to prohibit parents from stopping their children from hanging out with bad influences, monitoring their child's bank account to ensure good financial habits, using Find a Phone to ensure they know where their child is located to ensure safety, and using Screen Time app to protect their child from negative Internet exposure, and even throwing away their child's unused toys could be considered abuse underneath this bill. In short, the broad definitions in Section 2 present massive state overreach for normal parental behaviors to protect their children in everyday life, including oversight in their children's health care. For instance, HB 1309 prohibits parents from being able to make important medical decisions for their children regarding the treatment of ADHD and other medication diagnoses or their child's use of life-altering medication surgeries. Parental rights can even be stripped from a parent before their child is born. Under Section 2, if a male partner is accused of interfering or controlling pregnancy outcomes of his child, he could lose custody of their child if they are born and be subject to state-sanctioned penalties. We should be concerned whenever government policy is to remove children from their family, not for abuse or neglect, but because parents and children disagree about deeply personal beliefs and everyday life decisions. By and large, the Catholic Church supports policy that addresses domestic violence. HB 1309 goes far beyond that scope into normal parenting decisions. Current amendments do not address those concerns. Removing the two sections in Section 2 of this bill would be good policy, consistent with the will of Coloradans who already opposed two very similar bills. On behalf of the Colorado bishops, we ask the committee to vote no on HB 26-1309. Thank you. Is there a Miss Rocco? State your name and who you represent. You have three minutes. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Christina Rocco, and I live in Douglas County, and I'm here as a parent with direct experience in family court. I urge you to oppose HB 26-1309 or at minimum to amend it substantially. I know what it is like to live through family court case where it labels, assumptions, and one-sided narratives can shape everything. That is why this bill concerns me. HB 26-1309 would require the court to make a domestic violence finding before ordinary best interest analysis begins. begins. And if that finding is made by preponderance of the evidence, it triggers a presumption against allocating parental responsibilities to parents. That is not a minor change. It front loads one low threshold high consequence finding and then puts the rest of the case on rails Family court is not a family court is not criminal court Yet this bill asks family court to make criminal adjacent judgments with life consequences using a civil standard I'm also concerned because this bill expands domestic violence beyond criminal acts in broad and highly interpretive categories such as coercive control, economic abuse, health-related abuse, and technological abuse. Serious abuse must be addressed, but broad non-criminal labels should not drive custody outcomes without stronger evidentiary safeguards. Many of us have already seen how difficult family court can be for ordinary families. This bill does not build trust. It increases the risk that families will be pushed deeper into conflict, deeper into litigation, and deeper into a system that can already be very overwhelming. Please vote no on HB 261309 or amend it to restore due process protections, narrow the definitions, and prevent one preponderance-based finding from driving the entire case. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a Carl Roberts? Mr. Roberts? Yes, Jared. Thank you. State your name and who you represent. You'll have three minutes. Oh, very good. My name is Carl Roberts and I represent Colorado Resilience and I urge you to vote no on HB 1309. Colorado already has a well-deserved reputation for being one of the most anti-family, anti-father and least child safe states in the nation. Why? Because over the last 10 years, Colorado has passed several bills with the intention of diminishing parental rights, legitimizing false allegations, and denying the primary form of child abuse in contested custody, parental alienation. Rep. Froelich has been the main driving force behind the relentless attack on fathers and families. Most every bill Rep. Froelich has sponsored regarding children has been based on falsehoods, fabricated data, gender-biased surveys, and ideology. Yet her bills have passed because the majority party is hostile to parental rights and equality, indifferent to fathers, and protecting children from harm if that means holding mothers accountable. This bill has zero to do with protecting children or the best interest of the child. It's drafted not to protect children, but to help protect the primary weapon in contested custody, the false allegation. HP 1309 was based on a gender-biased survey from Project Justice Colorado that Rep. Froelich wants you to believe is legitimate. It's far from it. The danger of unscientific surveys swaying public policy is a peer-reviewed and published paper debunking the survey on five critical flaws and their associated policy risk. The survey is junk and so is this bill. But as we've seen many times before in this committee, you'll turn a blind eye to the truth when protecting children conflicts with your agenda of diminishing parental rights and stripping children from loving, protected parents. I'll just leave you with these questions. Why is transgender ideology a mental illness your priority over protecting children? Why are you in favor of weaponizing false allegations over protecting children? Why are you so against fathers who protect children the most? I can understand why from Froelich's perspective, but Chair Mabry and Brett Carter, I guess holding the party line is your priority. Please vote no on HP 1309. Thank you, sir. Is there Francisco Diaz? Mr. Diaz? I'm here. State your name. You'll have three minutes and who you represent. My name is Francisco Diaz, and I am representing myself. I am a good and devoted parent of the state of Colorado who is being pushed out of my children's lives, and I am here because this bill puts children at the same risk. HB 26-1309 makes it easier for the state to separate children from fit, loving parents. It legitimizes false allegations and denies the children the right to be with a fit, willing parent based on zero required evidence. That is unacceptable. In the real world, high-conflict custody cases are messy and facts are often disputed. Currently, judges frequently rely on who seems more believable in a single moment. This bill locks that systemic flaw into law. It forces courts to make life-changing domestic violence findings at the very start of a case based on preponderance of evidence. That is essentially a 51% guess, a coin flip on who sounds slightly more credible that then triggers a legal presumption to separate a child from a parent. The bill says that no criminal charges, no convictions, and even an unfounded child protection investigation are not enough to conclude that abuse did not occur. That meant a parent can be cleared of everywhere else and still be treated as an abuser in family court. When you add broad, vague labels like coercive control to this, you hand the court unlimited power to cut a good parent out of a child's life based on an allegation and a feeling, not unclear and convincing evidence. Children have already paid the price and have been harmed by this very notion. A judge can find domestic violence by preponderance of evidence based on false allegations without a single criminal charge, protection, or any order at all. Children and families' lives have been broken and destroyed because of this kind of proposed bill. I have had over 15 allegations made against me. Every single one has been dismissed or found unsubstantiated. This is not safety. It is a form of abuse and a weaponization of the law, which this bill does not address. Children who grow up without both parents are statistically more likely to struggle in school, face mental health challenges, and experience higher rates of suicide and incarceration. We know this, yet this bill enforces the narrative and calls it safety. That is not safety. It is harm. HB 26-1309 will hurt children like mine. Please reject it with a no vote and choose a path that keeps children safe without sacrificing the rights to both fit, loving parents. Raise the standard declaring convincing evidence before any presumption. Protect real victims? Yes, absolutely. But stop giving the system more power to destroy families on a hunch. Thank you. Thank you. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Representative Finnell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for the – I'm sorry, I don't remember your name. Ms. Hawk. When you mentioned that your children weren't with you for, I believe it was a year and a half or possibly a year, do you mind if I ask were your children, were they with your husband who set you up to lose custody during that time? Yes. Ms. Hawk. Sorry, what? Oh, okay. Sorry. Yes, and I might add that one of them was not biologically his. He just walked into court and says, she knows me as dad, which wasn't true. And apparently that's enough to have family court deem them psychological parent. So he stole a daughter also, and my son. But he stole a daughter that wasn't even his, and she never knew him as dad. Represent O, sorry. I was immediately they filed an emergency motion to restrict and they found the order was that they have no evidence to they can like file like they couldn find me guilty Like, they couldn't find – I can't remember the wording, but a reason to take my kids away. But then they found a workaround the next day with temporary orders and took my kids away. Because you can be innocent in criminal court and guilty in family court, and all of my orders reflect that. Representative Flannell. do you mind if i ask do you feel like your children were safe in his hands with him being the person who set you up to have no not at all just because it's being recorded just permission to dialogue i'm sorry you may dialogue you guys can talk back and forth okay go ahead sorry um it's so emotional for me um sorry can you restate the question was he safe yeah do you i mean if you don't mind me asking. I know I don't want to make you relive it, but would you? No. And the reason it started, which I have recorded, is because he found my stash of money in my closet that I was saving to try to get out of the relationship. And I admitted that it was to leave him. And then 45 minutes later, in a small town, him and his cop friends arrested me. Thank you. Representative Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for either of the representatives from the Catholic Conference. You both referenced Section 2, but I didn't know if there were specific subsections within Section 2 you were pointing to. Much of Section 2 is a recodification of existing law, so I just want to clarify that most of that is something that already exists in the statute. So if you could direct me to any specific subsection of Section 2. there was the individual online and I believe Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, and Brittany had to drop off for a second. But, yeah, no, that whole Section 2 and even the current statute is something that we have a problem with in general. So, I mean, that just is what it is. Representative Espinosa. Representative Kelty. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Fisher, you had mentioned in your testimony about the, your concern about the faith and having children go to church. And can you expound on the importance, you know, of parents' duty as far as, you know, I remember when I was a kid, my parents had to drag me to church. Like, oh, I just want to watch cartoons and, you know, be able to play outside. But, you know, I'm grateful that they had done that. But can you expound on the importance of faith in a child's life and its relationship to the family dynamic and that? Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Kelty, for the question. You know, I think that is a decision for parents who make for their own families. And so, you know, if a family chooses to raise their child in the faith or not in the faith, that is between the parents and the child. It's also been longstanding precedent for the court that parents are always back in the business of the child unless there is documented cases. This is overriding that precedent. Right off the top, you're assuming the parents are not back in the business of the child. I think we even heard from the sponsor. The sponsor is helping the parent. Clearly this is a topic of focus on it. So you know what we have the biggest problem with is that changing the present We're not saying that the parent has just just put up a problem. We're questioning that. We're looking at the previous . The parent knows his best child. They know that their child better than his child. Have your child involved in a better sleepover. Representative Kelty. Representative is okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a question for Ms. Hawk. First, I want to say thank you so much for being here and sharing your story. I know that that is difficult, and we all appreciate it. I am under the impression that this bill is intended to address the exact situation that you are talking about, that we know abusers many times actually accuse their victims of abuse. And the system works against those that it should be helping, right? And it sounds like that's exactly what you went through. It's my impression that the intent of this bill is to have custody courts look at the entire situation and not just charges and be able to make a determination of where abuse is actually happening. And so I know you said you were not prepared through all the details of the bill. I wanted to ask if you had a specific section or something that you felt was not addressing that intent because I believe the sponsors are trying to address your exact situation. Ms. Hawk. I felt like I did see that. I felt like it was too vague, and it still left too much judicial discretion in family courts, at least the way it was worded. And it would, it has good intent, but I feel like it wouldn't change enough or much at all. And I don't. Sorry. Yeah, I just felt like there wasn't enough language in there to really solidify that the whole story gets heard. And because even in my situation, it did. I literally subpoenaed the elect DA who dismissed my charges and said she was set up. It was proven he's the abuser. And the family court judge, who was only a judge for like two months when she took on my case, worked alongside my ex's attorney for the last 30 years in our small town and just ignored all of the evidence. I mean, I had everything to prove me innocent. And I feel like if the language is not specific enough, things like that will still happen. Does that make sense? Represents okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It does. And I want to say that I do completely believe you because this isn't the first time I'm hearing this story. And it is unfortunate that this seems to be a problem in our family courts. I do just once again think that this is what we're trying to address here. We're not trying to make that a worse situation. We're trying to ensure there is enough discretion to be able to stand with victims and make sure that they are able to hold their abuser accountable. and so happy to look at language more specifically I know the sponsors as well to see if we can tighten that up but just wanted to say thank you. Can I raise? Miss Hawk. I think it would have to be very like clear cut and dry language that family courts have to follow before just taking charges and ripping kids away And if there is enough evidence to prove that it not he said she said you don't get to rip the kids away like in my situation. Members, do we have any other questions for this panel? Nope. I'm seeing none. Thank you, panel. Is there anyone in person with an amend or against position on this bill? Ma'am, if you can come forward. Do we have a Christopher West? Marcella Schiffen. Yes, I'm here. Catherine Wheeler. Joshua Marston. Is there anyone online with an against or amend position? That has not already been pulled and called forward. ma'am ma'am if you can state your name who you represent and you have three minutes it's the gray button right above the right below the red button right there you go is it on okay um my name is Alyssa Marsh I represent myself um and also other people like myself that couldn't be here um initially I was very much for this because I myself am a victim or a survivor on the other side, whichever way you want to call it, especially with domestic violence. And I do have children. Currently, I am in a very nasty custody battle with my ex-husband in a similar situation like Miss Hawk, I think her name was. I do think something like this needs to happen because my understanding and my research that I've done on my own for Colorado law when it comes to best interests of children do not protect children at all. I myself am one thing, but when it comes to my children, it's something completely different. I am more than willing to put myself aside, put my personal feelings aside, especially with my counterpart and my ex-husband or my co-parent, no matter how much of a nasty person he was to me. When it comes to the best interests of my children, he's still their dad. And I still think it's important for them to have that person in their life. But I do think that there needs to be changes that need to be made. I do favor this bill, but I do think that there are some changes that do need to be made to it. As far as there is a lot of vagueness, the coercion can make my situation a lot worse than what it is right now. When it comes to best interests of children, I think that we need to take into consideration all of the things. Currently, my children, I do have temporary restricted time that got approved, but the same similar situation to her with a loophole on something. Nothing has been substantiated or founded in my case. I know there was a couple of gentlemen that spoke out in similar situations as well, but by having this going forth the way that it is right now opens up the door and floodgates for a lot of this to be not temporary to things to be taken away. Already my children both are both in therapy because of the situation that's going on right now. And a lot of these things could have been prevented if there are safeguards in place. I do think that there need to be safeguards in place with a lot of these things. My initial separation was over a year long, and it was very nasty because of the custody battle. the children. Both my children right now are going to therapy. Both my children right now don't get to see me consistently. Both of my children right now don't understand what's going on, and I'm not allowed to explain things to them about what is happening. I've never been one to lie to my children. My children are younger. They're nine and six, but I explain things to them in a way that they can understand that doesn't place blame on one parent or the other. So I do think that this has good intentions, I do think that there just needs to be modifications with a lot of it coming with in section two and the coercion part of it. Because if this were to pass and my situation right now goes through, this is going to negatively impact my children traumatically. They're going to have more trauma, more PTSD, more needs for therapy, more mental health issues than what they already have. And that is the only thing that I have to say. I don't know how much time I have left. Thank you. Just to be clear for everyone online, you are in an amend or opposed position. We can start with Mr. West. State your name, who you represent. You have three minutes. Sure. My name is Christopher West and I represent myself, chair and members of the committee. Good afternoon. My name is Christopher. I'm a father in Larimer County, a public school educator of over 20 years, and I was a stay-at-home dad for nearly a decade. I am in here in opposition to House Bill 26-1309, not because I do not support child safety, but because I've experienced what happens when decisions are made without significant evidence and without meaningful due process. process. I currently have unsupervised parenting time with my 10-year-old daughter, which reflects that there are no safety concerns, and yet I have not had meaningful contact with my 12-year-old son for two years. Multiple professionals, including a licensed family therapist with over 30 years of education and service and a parental responsibility evaluator, have both confirm that there are no safety concerns and that unification should move forward. But due to delays and lack of early structured evaluation, that the relationship has remained stalled. In high-conflict custody cases, there's a real risk of false positives or misuse where normal conflict or untested allegations can be interpreted in ways that restrict a child's access to a saved parent. When combined with a predominance of evidence standard, serious decisions about a child's relationship can be made without clear and convincing proof of harm. And because Colorado does not require a timely, neutral evaluation, such as early neutral assessment, when allegations to impact parenting time. These situations can remain unresolved for months or even years without clear findings. Even when formal evaluations complete, delays in acting on them can prolong separation and leave children and parents in extended uncertainty. The longer the separation continues, the harder it becomes to repair the parent-child relationship, regardless of the truth. The result is that is what I living a child losing a relationship with a safe parent during critical development years That time cannot be recovered I am not here to argue against protecting children That is essential. I do it every day as an educator. But child safety and due process should not compete. They must coexist. If this bill moves forward, I respectfully ask you to include clear safeguards requiring corroborative evidence before restricting parenting time. Ensure timely review of temporary orders. Require timely, neutral evaluation when serious allegations arise and create a defined path to reunification when no safety concerns exist. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Thank you, sir. Is there a Mr. Lloyd Barnes? Can you state your name and who you represent? Do you mean Lloyd Bennis? Oh, I'm sorry. I take that as yes. Hello, my name is Lloyd Bennis, and I urge a no vote on HB 26-1309. In the First Amendment of the Constitution, it says Congress will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech. This bill attacks both of those clauses. Thus, it is doomed to judicial reversal, just as two other laws by the Colorado legislature were reversed. Those two include SB 23190, as well as the 2019 Colorado law banning conversion therapy for LGBT minors. This latter law was struck down today by the Supreme Court since the court said the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. This bill attacks parents who do not affirm their children's trans identity. And as for SB 23190, on August 1st, 2025, federal judge Domenico issued a permanent injunction to prevent Colorado Bill SB 23190 from outlawing abortion pill reversal care by Bella Health and Wellness, saying there is no question whether Section 3 of SB 23190 burdens Bella Health's free exercise of religion. On January 6, 2026, the state of Colorado was ordered to pay Bella Health and Wellness $5.4 million in attorney's fees. $5.4 million. So how does this Bill 1309 burden the free exercise of religion? This is how. If a father attempts to save the life of his pre-born child because of sincerely held religious convictions, he can be accused of health-related abuse. Thus, this Bill 1309 attacks both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the First Amendment. The state of Colorado will be paying millions to other plaintiffs' lawyers over this bill if it passes. You know Colorado faces over a billion-dollar shortfall again this year, and 1309 will ensure millions in litigation costs being piled on top of that. This bill falls under the old maxim that says insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results to avoid this insanity. I urge you to vote no on 1309. So Colorado taxpayers don't keep having to pay lawyers fees when such laws attack the free exercise of religion and abridge free speech. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Bennis. Very Dr. Wheeler. Which one was Sorry my unmute was controlled for a moment I apologize. Thank you. State your name and who you represent. You have three minutes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Catherine Wheeler. I'm an OB-GYN physician, mother of four, and grandmother to three. I represent myself and was prepared to ask for an amendment on this bill, starting Section 2. But after hearing the extensive testimony of so many, especially the attorney, Julie Grayson, I ask for a no vote. My first marriage was abusive, requiring legal protection for my children and myself and eventually divorce. I was part to some of the judicial proceedings that we've heard about from other parents and the frightening judicial discretion and power of the family court. For me and my children, it had ended up well, but I would have done anything, anything to protect my children, no matter the cost. And I did. Parents generally protect their children better than the government. From my experience, I agree that actual domestic violence and abuse must be considered in judicial decisions regarding child custody and visitation. But I thoroughly disagree with the false notions in Section 2 that place government agendas and ideologies above parental authority, duty and rights. I have known abuse. The items in Section 2 are not abuse or coercion, but they're normal parenting behavior. Health care abuse is a made up term which hides very real danger for children. Colorado law and the Supreme Court affirmed parents' rights to make decisions regarding their children. the government may only override parental authority if the court finds them to be unfit. In Section 2, the government would redefine normal parenting behavior as domestic violence and coercive control, such as protecting their children from people with bad influence and harmful intent, monitoring their activities, leaving them vulnerable to bad actors, traffickers, and abusers on social media and online, choosing their child's best therapist and their child's best medical decisions, Reproductive health care decisions, which would place girls at more risk of abuse and coercion with cover up for the abuser, as well as the very real risk of poor mental health outcomes and suicidality documented in recent peer reviewed scientific literature and also in overseeing their finances. As I tell my grandkids, your parents and grandparents are here to keep you alive and well until your brain works. Section two is dangerous for children. Additionally, due to this bill's presumptive guilt, broadening of definitions, low standards for proof and potential serious lifelong harms for children, as well as parents, I ask for a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a Sven Sharpen? State your name and who you represent. You have three minutes, sir. yeah thank you chair and committee members my name is sven sharpen and i'm the founder and executive director of the autistic freedom network whom i represent alongside the supposed to be autistic community which doesn't exist yet i'm here in complete and total opposition to hb 26 1309 not to be confused confused with last year's bill 25 1309 which is atrocious and i don't have time to get into that. So we're here testifying yet again against the rigged redefinition of coercive control that I actually read through this time that you're trying to take the rights of that you using to take the rights of parents away I mean this kind of thing already happens in practice Like with me I was diagnosed with autism before I turned two years old and was immediately put on early intervention And then three years after that I was put on Zoloft and Risperidol and I only got off of that stuff last year And then another few years after that, I was given preschool-level assignments in fifth grade. And then finally, another few years after that, I was forced to move schools away from years-long relationships. all of this made me believe my life didn't matter and that I had no future to make matters worse my parents often didn't know about this stuff until I told them and when they were there they were threatened with my failure if they didn't agree to all the stuff that they that the schools and hospitals were doing to me I mean does that sound familiar to those of you who are proponents of this because it's almost like the doctors and school officials are doing coercive control, things that you described to be coercive control. If parents themselves can't do this, then why is it okay for a government, school, or medical officials to do the same things to parents over things like a diagnosis? Parents have every right to determine the upbringing of their own children, and we should never use the excuse of disability to change that, and especially in regard to the trans stuff considering over half of the kids going through those procedures are on the autism spectrum. If this bill passes to the Cal, then why don't we amend it so that government, school, and medical officials also cannot coercively control families? Also, Kaylee Childs won her SCOTUS case, which basically wipes out HB 1911-29 and 19 other states' equivalents, which means Therapists can now affirm the truth, and nobody can force them otherwise. So good luck with all these unconstitutional bills that have been passed over these last few years because they're all heading to SCOTUS. But for now, I highly urge a no vote. Thank you guys very much. Thank you. Ma'am, I'm going to have you say your last name, first name, Marcella. I'm going to have you say your last name. If you could state your last name and who you represent, you'll have three minutes. Yeah. Hi. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Marcella Shefflin, and I'm a graduate Lenn Fellow at CU's Anschutz and JFK Partners UCEDD, a co-primary support decision-making support person for my adult daughter with a disability, and I do have personal experience regarding this issue. I support this bill with amendments, and I'm asking the committee to extend it further because, as written, two populations are left behind. First, children with disabilities. They face heightened vulnerability to coercive control, yet the bill does not require disability competent investigators, communication access, accommodations, or disability-specific findings. The proposed amendments that I have submitted to the bill sponsors close those gaps. Second, adults with IDD who are in paid caregiving placements, such as host homes, Colorado law contains no presumptive framework, no independent advocate requirement, and no investigation protocol for coercive control by a sole paid caregiver. The structural vulnerability is identical to what this bill addresses in custody. The amendments extend that protection. And I also want to place on the record that when courts encounter these cases, particularly during times of separation and family transition, the standard framework often does not fit. Courts sometimes default to a 50-50 arrangement that do not account for a person with a the disability's individual needs, or they turn to legal guardianship as a shortcut when the path forward is unclear. Guardianship is not a neutral solution, it's a civil deprivation of legal rights, and it should never be a default outcome, especially during a period of transition when a person with a disability may already be navigating disruption and uncertainty. This bill creates an opportunity to say that clearly in statute. I've witnessed cases of this kind firsthand as a support parent through parent-to-parent of Colorado. Families in crisis deserve options to protect the rights and the voice of the person with a disability, not arrangements that permanently strip those rights away because the court lacked another tool. Rights without enforcement are just promises, and I'm asking the committee to make sure enforcement reaches everyone. Thank you so much. Thank you, ma'am. before we have questions. Is there anyone online that is in an amend or an opposed position, or if there's anyone in person in an amend or an opposed position? Members, do we have questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you, panel. Do we have a Christine McGinley? Dr. Jennifer Johnson? Stephanie Montgomery? David Carnes? Stephanie Montgomery Okay, she's online Yes, I'm online Thank you And David Carnes I'm here From my right, your left State your name, who you represent and you'll have three minutes. My name is Christine McGinley, and I represent myself. Eleven years ago, after multiple instances of domestic violence, I filed for divorce. I sought to protect myself and my child. At first, we were both placed under a criminal protection order against the father. However, we were not safe. Instead, we were at the beginning of a decade in the nation. Can I do a do-over? Okay. Eleven years ago, after multiple instances of domestic violence, I filed for divorce. I sought to protect myself and my child. At first, we were both placed under a criminal protection order against the father. However, we were not safe. Instead, we were at the beginning of a decade of litigation in family court that continues today. The court recognized the harm the father inflicted on my child. But because no requirement existed to carry those findings forward my child was ordered into unsupervised unsafe contact My final orders from 2016 stated the following The court found that the child's physical health is endangered from parenting time with father. Father has neglected the child. The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that father has committed domestic violence against mother. While the court is concerned with father's admission to sexually abusing a four-year-old child in the past, that admission is not evidence that father sexually abused his child. There was never a focus on whether the father had become a safer parent, only on increasing his time. When there is no accountability, the abuser is emboldened. The family court becomes the mechanism for post-separation abuse under the guise of constitutional rights. Constitutional rights have become judicial shorthand for the path of least resistance, but Troxel guarantees a right to some contact, not unsafe contact. The child with no constitutional standing pays the difference. In 11 years, my case has consumed hundreds of motions, nearly 20 full hearing days, and four court-appointed evaluators requested by father, three of whom recommended my child be in my primary care. The most recent evaluator found that the current arrangement with father places my child at risk of emotional medical neglect, and that will likely lead to negative long-term physical and mental health consequences. Eleven years, and the harm found by the court in 2016 has not changed today, and my child suffers the consequences. My child remains in that environment found to be harmful as we wait and continue to wait on an order from a judge, most likely overwhelmed by a crowded docket. The bill gives judges the tools and the mandate to protect children from the beginning, and this is how you protect children's health, and this is how you clear dockets. This is how you save lives. Please support 1309. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Jennifer Johnson, state your name, who you represent. You will have three minutes. Hi there. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Jennifer Johnson, and I'm here representing myself as a domestic violence survivor in a perpetual family law case now exceeding $1.6 million in fees. I'm here in support of HB 26-1309. Despite a case replete with domestic violence, including audio and video abuse and a permanent protection order upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. That is in re marriage of wigs 2025. A judicial officer said my abusive ex would have primary custody if I relocated to the state of Michigan. The judge also allocated sole decision making to our abuser stating, and I quote, A plain reading of the statutory provisions of sole decision-making does not support the idea of petitioner. Nothing suggests that a finding of domestic violence requires an award of sole decision-making to the victim of domestic violence. Nothing suggests that a finding of domestic violence prohibits a grant of equal parenting time to the perpetrator of domestic violence. Rather, the statutes quoted above clearly indicate that the court must consider domestic violence. While the statute puts limits on a grant of mutual decision making it does not grant sole decision making to the victim I think I think what relevant about that is that our judicial system is not able to properly effectuate that a domestic violence perpetrator should not have decision I can speak from personal experience that giving more power to an abuser through decision-making is about as dangerous as it gets. In one year, our abuser has revoked consent for mental health treatment for one of our children. Our children have been terminated from therapy. He's hurled medical abuse and neglect allegations against me. And our children have gone without necessary acute medical care. I'd like to show a photo of our 11-year-old daughter returning home last week with a severe burn on her leg. Not only did my abusive ex refuse to seek medical care for her, but threatened to drag me to court if I sought medical care for her. I support this bill because decision-making must be clearly placed in the hands of a protective parent. It really is life or death for so many children. Thank you for your efforts in prioritizing the lives of victims and children. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go to online, is there a Cicely Reine? If you can come forward. And Andrea Ritzel. Megan Jacuzzi. Rachel Pickerel Hawkins. and Brenna Berman so if you could state your name and who you represent and you'll have three minutes chair and members of the committee my name is Cecily Reine I'm here representing myself today I work in family law and see high conflict custody cases like mine every day. I also serve on the Voices Board at the Rose Andum Center, the Policy Action Committee of the Colorado Women's Bar Association, and work with the National Safe Parents Organization. I want to speak to you not just about policy, but about what this looks like when enforcement statutes operate without required safety analysis. I'm a survivor of strangulation and assault while pregnant with my son, two of the highest lethality indicators that exist. both occurred at the hands of my son's father. These are not ambiguous. These are findings recognized within our current orders and within a criminal context. And yet the father of my child has always had unsupervised and unregulated parenting time. At the inception of my case, my son's father also forged my signature on a parenting plan, submitted it to the court, and used it to procure jurisdiction and temporary orders. He was charged with two counts of felony forgery in a case where both myself and the state of Colorado were named victims. Since temporary and final orders were entered, there have been additional allegations of child abuse and neglect. I want to address the idea that current law already requires findings. In practice, the issue is not whether findings exist, it is what those findings actually do. More recently, there has been CPS involvement tied to new felony and misdemeanor charges that my son father is now facing As a result at an emergency hearing in February of 2026 I was able to gain a finding of endangerment and yet the outcome still allows for continued and unsupervised contact without adequate safety measures for myself or my son and I am still required to maintain ongoing contact with a person who nearly took my life that continued access has been allowed in part because despite a clear pattern of domestic violence with my son's father as the common denominator responsibility has been shifted onto his current wife rather than addressed at its source there are no clear evidence-based findings supporting the conclusion that the danger lies solely with his current wife in fact that conclusion relied on testimony deemed lacking in credibility so while findings may be made they not necessarily being used in a way that meaningfully protects the child or addresses the source of the harm. The opposition will argue that a lower burden allows false allegations to be substantiated. My case demonstrates the opposite. What happens when a pro se parent, unaware of evidentiary or procedural standards, enters a courtroom trying to protect their child against a perpetrator with the financial ability to retain counsel? What happens is they cannot effectively protect their child. That is the reality many parents are navigating. Even when evidence is admitted and substantiated, the best interest of child standard under CRS 1410-124 allows domestic violence to be weighed alongside other factors. It becomes one factor among many, which means it can be outweighed. That's how you end up with cases like mine, where serious violence is acknowledged but not dispositive, where safety concerns exist but do not control the outcome. Again, in my case, the abuse and the ongoing pattern since are not ambiguous. They are documented and recognized and this is still what the outcome looks like this bill may need amendments But the core concept placing domestic violence first removing it from being weighed against other best interest factors and requiring safety measures that align with Demonstrated danger is necessary not just for me But for the many parents and children like mine to ensure that safety is not just considered but prioritized over parental rights I would be glad to answer any questions. Thank you Thank you We have David Carnes. If you can state your name and who you represent, you have three minutes, sir. Thank you. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is David Carnes, and I'm the Public Policy and Communications Director at Violence Free Colorado, the state's anti-domestic violence coalition. I want to start by expressing our appreciation to the sponsors for their collaboration and openness throughout this process. We know that legislation addressing domestic violence in family court is complex, and we're grateful for the thoughtful engagement and willingness to work through difficult and nuanced issues. This session, we've seen a number of bills that seek to address child custody and family court processes. That reflects a broader recognition that this system is deeply flawed. These systems play a critical role in safety and well-being of survivors and their children, and as such, protections should be clearly outlined. We believe this bill is an important step forward in strengthening those protections. In my previous work in direct service with DV survivors, including parents navigating these systems, the concerns I heard were consistent. Survivors wanted the abuse to stop and they wanted their children to be safe. Those were the priorities. I did not hear survivors talk about revenge or trying to mislead courts for their own benefit. What I heard over and over again was fear, concern for children, and a desire for safety and stability. Too often, survivors enter family court and find that their experiences of abuse are minimized, reframed as conflict, or not clearly addressed in decision-making. This bill helps to shift that. It requires courts to make clear findings about domestic violence, ensures that safety is centered throughout custody, determinations and create stronger guardrails around decision-making and parenting time when abuse is present. Importantly, it also reflects a more realistic understanding of how domestic violence impacts families. Abuse does not end at separation. In many cases, it continues through systems, including custody and parenting arrangements. By prioritizing safety, limiting forced shared decision-making in cases involving abuse, and providing practical tools to reduce ongoing contact and risk, this bill moves us closer to a system that better supports and protects children. At the same time, we recognize that this is an evolving conversation. We appreciate that this version reflects meaningful progress, and we look forward to the continued discussions as this bill moves forward. We believe there are opportunities to continue refining language and to ensure consistent and effective implementation, and we remain committed to working alongside sponsors and stakeholders to get this right. We believe this bill represents a thoughtful and important step toward a more responsive and survivor-centered family court system in Colorado. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, sir. Is there a Stephanie Montgomery? I'll state your name. You have three minutes and who you represent. My name is Stephanie Montgomery, and I'm representing myself. In 2023, my now-estranged husband was arrested after assaulting me and two of our five children who were in the home at the time. He was convicted of a class five felony menacing as he brandished a handgun and ascertained I'm going to kill you. This represented one of three documented arrests for him, the only one of which domestic violence was affirmed, with a finding of child abuse founded by the Department of Human Services. Further, it was one of countless domestic violence events with him as the perpetrator. He was ordered onto probation and ordered to complete domestic violence treatment. The provider considered him to successfully complete this treatment, despite the provider violating the domestic violence offender management board standards and failing to hold him accountable to the abuse of his family, as substantiated in written findings by the DVOMB. The assumption that convictions and criminal court interventions are the answer to keeping children safe is flawed. I am here in support of House Bill 26-1309. When domestic violence and child abuse are present, children are harmed, as statistics show. This bill is a step in the right direction to increasing the best interest of children's standards, placing safeguards in place to support child and victim survivor safety, and including measurable therapeutic interventions. It is so gravely critical that judges, magistrates, and other judicial officers have specific legal guidelines to follow when allocating any parental responsibility. Children deserve to live lives free from continued harm, and the judicial system is tasked to ensure this happens to the best of their ability where parental allocation is in question. In ending, so few of those in opposition of this bill are victim survivors or shared that they were. We must consider those with lived experience as critical in providing meaningful input regarding bills that support child and victim survivor safety. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Montgomery. Is there a Brenna Berman? Yes, hi. Thank you, ma'am. State your name, who you represent. You have three minutes. Okay. Hi, actually, I'm Tangie Lancaster, and I'm reading the following testimony for my dear friend, Brenna from Louisville. She says thank you for letting me speak today I am a survivor of domestic violence and coercive control and my children are victims of child abuse The perpetrator is the biological father to our daughter For three years I have been in court countless times due to court decisions that have put her in repetitive psychological and physical harm. In May 2023, my children witnessed domestic violence and their father's arrest when he physically assaulted me in front of them. He pled guilty to domestic violence. Criminal court granted a protection order to myself and my children. At temporary orders, despite the domestic violence and child abuse charges, family court did not believe me, accused me of being vindictive, and stripped my daughter's protection order and thrust her into every other weekend visitation. The proposed overnights were frightening to my daughter, then seven years old. She fought physically and verbally for over four hours on the first visit attempt, two hours at a police station until the police called it off. When visits started, she refused overnights and other visits stating her fear of her father. In April 2024, her father shoved our daughter when she was having a panic attack, re-traumatizing her. She began having more flashbacks of the domestic violent assault she had witnessed. She became suicidal, banging her head into walls, lying in the street, and standing in front of traffic. She was partially hospitalized in the summer of 2024. This brought us to court again, resulting in emergency-restricted parenting time. My PRE report proved domestic violence, child abuse, and coercive control by their father. In permanent orders in September 2024, family court ordered a child-led step-up schedule. Our daughter still refused visitation until early 2025. Today, she still refuses to progress through the schedule, and we are forced back to court. Father won't recognize that her refusers are due to her lack of felt safety and his constant pressure. He constantly accuses me of parental alienation, although it has been proven repetitively that I have done no alienating behaviors. My daughter is severely traumatized. Had the coercive control and domestic violence been consistently respected by family court as a reason to restrict the father's parenting time, my daughter's childhood would not be dominated by mental health crises, fear and anxiety. She speaks often of feeling forced to visit him, upset that her voice does not seem to matter. The damage being done to my daughter and the resources that the family court has spent on my case are unnecessary and horrifying. What could have been one trial has been four, with many status hearings in between and no end in sight. While I worry about untrue counter allegations of parental alienation, his proven abuse and domestic violence are nearly ignored when it comes to our daughter. We need change. Thank you. Please vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me. Is there a Megan? And you're going to tell me what your last name? Jacuz? hi yes um megan jacus let me just set this up hang on just a second state your name and you have three minutes and who you represent my name is megan jacus i represent myself and my daughter i'm here in support of hb 26-1309 i'm a mother who fought in the el paso county family court system and my child was harmed by the concept of judicial convenience. Decisions that should have centered her safety instead prioritized efficiency and case flow. The judge, CFI, and reintegration therapist ignored the imminent danger to my child. She was forced into years of unregulated therapies and unsupervised visits where she was exposed to his drug addiction and abuse She was conditioned to believe that I was an unsafe person and that she wasn allowed to be open with me about her lived experience I also a survivor of domestic violence by the same man He was even found during my labor with our daughter to be using drugs in the hospital. In spite of the heinous nature of his behavior, I was advised not to bring the advice forward because the judges would look at me poorly if I did. After my daughter was born, he even went on to assault multiple other women, and these patterns were known to our judge and still disregarded. That is a failure of how our system understands and responds to domestic violence and the imminent threat to children. Because of the court's gaps in recognizing vexatious litigation, abuse by proxy, and DV standards, my daughter was repeatedly placed in unsafe environments. When I advocated for her safety, I was labeled a parental alienator, damaging my credibility with the courts and my relationship with my child. I was threatened with jail and losing her entirely. The harm is permanent. My daughter needed years of therapy, and it was entirely preventable if the judge had an ounce of understanding of domestic violence. Custody cases are a hinge point in the system in Colorado, and without clear standards, families are pulled into a revolving door of litigation. We spent seven years in and out of court, and there was zero regulation. We spent over $100,000 fighting for my child. This bill creates defined expectations, reduces conflict, increases consistency across rulings, and prioritizes child safety. There has to be accountability when other safety concerns are ignored. Requiring a written decision creates transparency and gives families a path forward to establishing safety. A kid's right to safety should be the priority over the rights of adults who make their own choices. A child's right to safety should be priority over judges being annoyed at their overloaded dockets. Kids are not a matter of convenience or a line item in a budget. They have to be the priority. When courts ignore warning signs, kids are placed in harm's way, and that is evident in the rising number of deaths of kids in Colorado as a result of conflict in custody. Domestic violence is rising in Colorado, and that demands stronger standards, not weaker ones. This bill ensures that safety is not secondary to convenience and that parents are not punished for advocating for safety for the kids. If my daughter could tell you this today, she would be in support of this bill. And so am I. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a Rachel Pickerel Hawkins? Yes. State your name and who you represent. You have three minutes, ma'am. Thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is Rachel Pickerel Hawkins. I'm here as a mother, a survivor, a protective parent, and also a parent failed miserably by Colorado's family court system. And I also speak on behalf of the National Safe Parents Organization. I'm here in support of this bill because child safety must be the standard in family court, not an afterthought. Colorado has worked hard to define coercive control, abuse, and domestic violence. But in family court, those realities are still too often minimized, ignored, or treated as secondary to forced contact or preserving parental access at all costs. HB 26 matters because it requires what should already exist in family court that judges and magistrates determine whether domestic violence occurred and consider relevant evidence of abuse and child safety before allocating parental responsibilities Too often that does not happen unless the law explicitly requires it This is not a rare issue The U Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, researched and found that in custody cases requiring judicial intervention, domestic violence allegations are raised and substantiated in about 75 percent of cases. In one National Institute of Justice funded study of 965 couples in court mandated divorce and custody mediation, mediators identified intimate partner violence in 59 percent of cases. In another NIJ study of 965 couples, just over 90% of cases involve some type of intimate partner abuse, including threats, physical violence, sexual intimidation, coercion, or assault. My own case reflects many of the forms of abuse this very bill recognizes. Coercive control, intimidation, surveillance, destruction of property, abuse involving our animals, litigation abuse, stalking, and threats to use law enforcement and the legal system against me. That's only the beginning. I fled for our safety with my children four years ago. My former spouse, a retired Aurora police officer, is now facing trial for seven felony counts of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust, along with child abuse charges. Yet during family court proceedings, instead of protecting my children from danger, the narrative was flipped. I was called a liar. My evidence was disregarded and the focus shifted to me. I brought forward police reports, therapists, mandatory reporters, advocates, experts, eyewitnesses, and findings from the Department of Human Services and Child Protective Services. And despite that, my children were ignored. I was marginalized, punished for raising safety concerns, and even jailed. My children were placed in further harm's way. We are often told there are avenues for judges and magistrates to hear children and consider the voices of protective parents. But that is not what is happening in practice. Children are too often not heard and protective parents are too often dismissed. And when that happens, the result is not merely procedural failure. It is preventable harm. Had these standards in this bill been applied in my case, my children would not have been subjected to further harm, and we would not be spending years still in litigation today while serious danger was overlooked. No child should have to wait for criminal charges to be brought in family court. They should take it seriously. This is not radical. It's necessary to measure and ensure that the family courts identify abuse, assess risk, hear children, and act. Miss Pickerel, can you wrap it up? I'm giving you a simile wave. Can you wrap up, please? Yes, I'm sorry. Please, I urge you, pass this bill and make Colorado child safety not an option. thank you ma'am miss wolf you have three minutes state your name and who you represent thank you mr chair and members of the committee my name is katie wolf but i'm just here to read testimony on not able to be here. My name is Erica Bethel. I'm a survivor of domestic violence. My daughters, Cameron and Audrey, are not. They are forever six and eight. I am in support of House Bill 1309 because it prioritizes what matters most, protecting children. I began fighting for my daughter's safety in court when they were one and three. Like many survivors, the abuse did not begin with physical violence. It followed a well-documented pattern, control, isolation, coercion, surveillance, and escalating threats. The moment I knew we were no longer safe was when he chased us more than 600 miles down the highway while making threats. He was enraged. He had guns. I presented that incident along with many others to the court. I submitted recordings, photographs of destroyed property, witness statements, and documented coercive control, including harming our dog, stalking, and homicidal and suicidal threats. It was not a he said, she said situation I presented. evidence. My daughter's pediatrician and therapist reported his behavior to CPS and the court multiple times. Still, it was not enough to prove abuse, nor that the danger was real. This is a systematic failure. I was not asking the court to punish my abuser. I was pleading with the court to protect my children. My abuser fought for custody, not to be a healthy parent, but to maintain power and control. My daughters became pawns. The courtroom became the arena for continued abuse. There is an evidence-based lethality risk tool called the danger assessment. At the time I separated, my score would have been 29, well above the threshold of 18 for extreme risk of lethality. Yet the court still found there was not enough evidence to establish domestic violence. Despite everything presented, the judge determined my daughters would be safe in the care of their father. The court ordered me to send my daughters to their father. During his court order of unsupervised parenting time, he brutally murdered them. Unfortunately, my case is not a one-off. It is a real example of escalating abuse patterns being missed and minimized, where a parent's rights to parenting time is prioritized over a child's right to be safe. Children's lives are at stake. I followed the process of the court to a I hired three PREs, was represented by attorneys every step of the way, presented evidence of abusive events, unrefuted, and still the court failed my daughters. It's not only my children I'm speaking for, the other children who have also lost their lives in the last few years after their parents fought for them in our Colorado courts. Sisters Summer and Jesse, ages 3 and 7. Siblings Aiden and Ellie, ages 7 and 9. Meadow, age 18. Liam, age 5. Sophia, age 5. These are children right now who have been ordered to spend time with their abusers. They are terrified at high risk of harm. Their safe parent is terrified, like I was, that they may never return. Please protect children. The system is broken and must be fixed. If not through this bill, then please do something. Anything that will be better than protect our children in the courts. I fought for years with Colorado's current system to protect my daughters, and I lost in the most devastating way. Please do not let another parent live this nightmare. Thank you, Ms. Wolfe. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Sorry, Representative Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I sorry remind me your name ma on the end Christine McGinley Thank you Can you tell me what you think this will do with judges I was waiting for him to give me. I'm sorry. I was trying to. Ms. McGinley. Thank you. So what I believe this bill does is it gives judges a flow chart. Currently, when a judge is analyzing whether it's domestic violence in a case, they're going from one statute to over to another. They're trying to find where coercive control is. They're trying to find what domestic violence definition is. and what happens because we've heard from the judiciary themselves is they're time limited and so what we see consistently in cases is that they just don't make the findings at all so what this bill is aiming to do is to basically have a pause to look through the evidence analyze the evidence and make their discretionary determination whether there is currently domestic violence. Then, whether they determine there is or there is not, they move on to the best interest analysis. That's simply what the bill is aimed to do, and basically just restructuring what's currently in statute. Representative Clifford. To just ask a real blunt question about it, Does this help or hinder judges? Ms. McGinley. I believe currently it's one of the most helpful things for judges because the goal was to basically restructure the current statute. So that way it's one step by another step by another step by another step versus having to take the time to find various statutes in various places. And it also follows, sorry, the NCJ-FCJ model code, which is Chapter 4, which elaborates on all of this. Thank you very much. Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the same witness, I'd just like to discuss a little bit about the expansion of definitions in this bill compared to what was previously existing, especially in domestic relations. I mean domestic violence definition generally we're replacing that and I think also in section I'm looking at the amended the amendment and the health related I think those were the two that a lot of the people are talking about that looks like there are new definitions within the provisions. Can you speak to that briefly how those were added, how they're consistent or not consistent with the standards you just mentioned? Was that for Ms. McGinley? Yes, Ms. McGinley. Thank you. So the NCJ, FCJ, I'm not sure if everyone is aware, is a national, I can actually give the, I can never remember it, offhand of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, which consists of social researchers, I think over 100 judges. And so they develop a model code to give direction to various state judiciaries. So these definitions the goal of the model code is they actually use the term domestic abuse as an umbrella And the concept of domestic abuse then has various definitions that would fall under So all of the definitions that coercive control obviously already existed in statute. Domestic violence already exists in statute. So we're trying to just pull it all together to make it simple in one place for things to be a little bit easier for judges. Particular definitions that are different were all from the exact language from the model code. Rep. Esvinoza. And how many states have adopted that model code? Ms. McGinley. I don't think that there's statistics or data on exact. I think various ones have adapted parts of it. For example, there are approximately 31 states that have adopted the rebuttal presumption, which has been in existence in some states like Alabama for at least 15 years. So some states have adopted the rebuttal presumption that the model code also reflects in detail on how to use the rebuttal presumption. but this bill was basically baby steps in the sense of definitions. Representative Espinosa. Thank you. And I guess I'd also just like to discuss the presumption and the concerns that were raised by some of the oppositions, people who are opposing the bill, in terms of whether this does set the precedent on its head and it's in a relationship between, obviously, I think Representative Bacon earlier was talking about wanting some clarifications in terms of the criminal intersection to determinations of domestic violence or charges of other convictions in the criminal standards and whether this presumption might have an adverse effect on individuals' rights in criminal proceedings in terms of this presumption being made in the civil court and what protections might exist to those individuals who might be mischarged or misidentified through the domestic proceedings, how that intersects to any rights they might have in representations in the criminal proceedings, if you understand what I'm talking about. Ms. McGinley? I think I understand, but I actually think the reverse happens. So, for example, in my particular case, my son and I, who was an infant, as a victim of domestic violence, we were both placed under a criminal protection order. And as soon as I filed for dissolution, the temporary orders hearing eliminated my child from the protection order. And that is what's commonplace. So despite what happens in criminal court and civil court, it is often modified in order to force contact, even if it's unsafe contact. Representative Espinoza? And from your understanding or experience in the system, is that because of the priority that's given to parental rights as a preeminent kind of a structure? Is that what's pushing that side of the equation for the judges? Ms. McGinley? I don't believe that. I think that there's confusion on, again, and one thing I wanted to make clear in my testimony is no one is saying that a parent shouldn't have parenting time. What I think this bill is trying to do is say that parenting time should be safe. And there's multiple, multiple ways. And Trussell v. Granville basically is saying there should be some contact. But that some contact seems to be opened up to unsafe contact. And I think that this bill is literally a baby step for judges to start acknowledging the dangers of domestic violence and having unsafe contact There are multiple multiple options available Representative Espinosa. I think that's all. Thank you. Any further questions for this panel? Representative Flanell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for anyone who fell victim to domestic violence or had domestic violence within their case. Do you think that that 52-week domestic violence abuser intervention program would have helped your case. Ms. Reiney? Thank you. I think specifically for myself, I do not believe so. For myself, the reason being that in my case, the person who abused me multiple times has gone through already multiple criminal proceedings that mandated the same things. So when he when he was criminally convicted for strangulation, when he was criminally convicted for felony DUI, he was on the mops program in Douglas County. This was all preceding our our our case that exists right now before the inception. He was required to do all of those things beforehand. And now we have that pattern reoccurring almost mirrored with his current wife and the same thing. He's going back again. However, that is not to say that I don't think that any party that commits domestic violence is not able to become a safe party for parenting. I think that that's why in this case being able to put them into situations with educated professionals that can analyze those things. That way, pending the end of their term of that, they can be evaluated again and, hey, are we safe yet or do we have to continue going? Because there are some people that may be able to be, but a lot of the time it is not. Representative Flannell. Do you think that this kind of one size fits all sort of verbiage, I think, is suitable for every case? Can you raise your hand? Mr. Reine. Sorry. So would you say that this one size fits all, so everybody who is guilty, who, you know, who is found to be, you know, if there is domestic violence found within the home, they are required to take this 52 week abuser course. Do you think that that is something that is suitable? That is kind of, would you say that that's sort of like a one size fits all mandate? Or would that, do you think that maybe it should be maybe, you know, catered depending on the scenario? Ms. Riney, Ms. Riney. Thank you. I think that, and I'm assuming that you are, we're leading to when findings occur that, when false findings might happen, right? Currently, similar things already happen, right? When we've heard stories already today where parents who are the victims end up being treated like the perpetrator, and they end up losing contact. And so I think that this at least puts in a safeguard where, hey, we can be evaluated by someone who knows what they're talking about. And that way, so yes, we can one size fits all. So that way, if false allegations do turn into findings, they can be evaluated by somebody that is accredited to decide whether, hey, are you a perpetrator? Do you fit the bill, if you will? And then if they don't, they can bring that evidence back to the table and have a better opportunity to regain access to their child than they do as of current. Ms. Flanell, Representative Flanell, sorry. Any further questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you, panel. Do we have the Honorable Edie Hudak? Kat Klimiko. Dr. Shannon Tyson-Poletti. Mallory Armstrong. Michelle Webster. Maggie Vandenberg. Jacqueline Joy. And it's Tricia Krabish. Are you in person? Please. Please. One more bell.

Ms. Krupp, go ahead and get situated. State your name, who you represent, and you will have three minutes. Is it not working? No, you just turned it off. There you go. It's still not working? Start over, Ms. Krobb. You have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. So if you can state your name and who you represent, you also have three minutes.

How can we represent? You also have three minutes, ma'am.

Thank you, ma'am. State your name, who you represent. You will also have three minutes.

Thank you, ma'am. If you can state your name, who you represent, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Doctor. Online, is there, yes, Ms. Noriano, Ms. Evie Hudak, you have three minutes.

There we go. Michelle Webster. Online. Thank you, ma'am. You have three minutes. State your name and who you represent.

Thank you, Ms. Webster. Members, do we have questions for this panel? Representative Kelty.

Ms. Webster. Thank you, and I appreciate the question. I do believe that this bill can be helpful, and I agree with what others who have testified in support of the bill have said, that this is one step that's needed in our state to ensure that children's safety is of primary concern. In my view, this bill directs judges to take... the totality of the context in mind when domestic violence, abuse and coercive control allegations have been raised. And I hear that it has been used. Those allegations have been used against the protective parent. That is unfortunate. And I absolutely believe that that happens every day in our courts. The hope here is that if I would say that judges are directed to take domestic violence into consideration and making custody decisions, that they would then do so and take it seriously. I also believe that judges should be trained on these issues. I know that's not at issue in this bill, but these are really complicated issues. And if judges are to make decisions taking into account these dynamics, they should understand how they show up in these cases.

Thanks, Chair. I guess where I was trying to go with my questioning was if the broad context of this bill and the terms that they use could be used to question your parenting, how would you feel, though, if this bill was used against you particularly?

Representative Clifford.

Yes. Thank you.

Ms. Krob, we don't often ask a lot of questions of victims. One of the reasons I don't is because I'll end up crying with you. We are up here hearing the same testimony. And in your case, since I know you, I assert that it's okay to ask you some questions about your situation that have been something over the last few years, knowing your situation, your family, having seen kind of all of it unfold, the absolutely unbelievable, like shock to the system type engagement that kind of has made me aware and understand more and more and more of what other women such as yourself have come and testified really over and over and over, so many things that sound so the same. Can you share a little bit about your engagement with Family Court

You can't make this stuff up. We're in dialogue, so I'm just going to go back and forth with you a little bit. So this bill is really focused around the domestic violence piece and that being and where and how it's considered in family court. And I've heard some people say today that they have concerns that that too could become weaponized. I'm confronting that a little bit, quite honestly, to make sure that we don't create a situation where that can go again. I know, having heard your testimony, you've read this bill. Can you talk to me what your view is on

I'm just going to ask you, and not that you have to be the legal mind here, because we do have a lot of them on this committee, is there anything that you think that we should be doing differently about it as far as how we're front-loading DV, any way that you might see that might keep someone from weaponizing it. I do think, like I believe Ms. Warner said that, you know, having judges and other court professionals more informed and trained about these things, whereas historically, we have judges who have come forward saying, hey, I was trained to be suspicious of allegations of abuse and the timing of things. And, you know, I still have this view of you're a hysterical woman and you're a gold digger. And that is, you know, your motive in my courtroom to show just how

Thank you so much for coming and thank you all. Thank you. Members, any further questions for this panel? Representative Kelty.

Ms. Hudak? I would have to think about that.

That's beyond, you know, beyond what we typically consider when we're talking about domestic violence and child abuse. We do a PTA does have a position about control, parental control, and it should not be harmful to the child. I think maybe it's being taken too far to say that a parent is requiring a child to go to church.

Representative Kelty.

Ms. Hudak. Again, I can't define coercive control, but I would say that PTA's position is that parents should should consider their child's preference and allow their children to to be what they want to be.

So then are you saying that falls in line with an abuse? Is that the stance?

I apologize. Representative Kelty and Ms. Hudak, do you guys want to dialogue?

Senator Hudak, Representative Kelty, would you like to dialogue? Any further questions for this panel? Thank you, Pam. So next we will call. Do I have. Alyssa Marsh. Veronica David. Ashley Durham, Lindsay Cutter, Stephanie Atkinson, Is there anyone in the room that wants to testify and has not testified? Can you come forward? Is there anyone online that has not testified? And testifying in a four position? Once again, anyone in the room that has not testified that would like to testify in a four position? Anyone online that has not testified that would like to testify in a four position? Yes. All right. Thank you. Starting from my right, if you can state your name, who you represent, you have three minutes, and if you can press the gray button. There you go. You have three minutes, sir.

Thank you, sir. Ma'am, if you can state your name. We represent you have three minutes. Yes. Oh, the gray button. There you go. Okay.

Thank you. To be clear, we have Ms. Grimmelstein from earlier, and you're in a post position, correct?

One second, ma'am. Ms. Grimmelstein, you have two minutes or three minutes. I apologize. State your name and who you represent.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there Stephanie Atkinson? Ms. Atkinson, can you state your name and who you represent? You'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Members, do we have questions for this panel? seeing none thank you for your testimony no one else is online to testify yes yes oh i apologize um miss rinsall yes state your name thank you who you represent you have

Ma'am, your audio went off.

Thank you, ma'am. I apologize again. Any questions for this panel? and seeing none, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. At this time, that wraps up the testimony. Sponsors, did you guys want to go through your amendments? Vice Chair Carter. Thank you very much Mr Chair I was going to ask Vice Chair Carter to move Oh okay Yeah move your amendment first We just been talking about Amendment 1 Okay Vice Chair Carter Okay.

Rep. Froehlich. Thank you very much. Sorry. My hearing is terrible. Thank you so much. Thanks for moving the amendment. We've been talking about this amendment, and hopefully everyone had an opportunity to review it fully. and we also sent around a pre-amend version of the bill that essentially integrated the amendment into the bill, and so we asked for a yes vote.

I move another amendment, Chair. L003. Oh, it's an amendment to the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L003 to amendment L0101.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment just makes it so that if a parent is acting in good faith due to a sincerely held belief, and as long as it is not causing any other of the types of abuse that were, or the actual abuses that were listed otherwise in the amendment, that that is, that it does not, yeah, that it doesn't limit their parenting time or decision-making responsibility. Okay.

Rev. Frelick. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Slaw, for this. I actually think that we have no problems with religious exemption and moral philosophical belief. I do not – I would not feel comfortable about B on this because I would have to go back to our folks. But I will say, as we proceed, we have been in communication about the concept of striking the health portion of the bill. That part actually came from the NFCJ whatever. and we would just then collapse it down to the coercive control portions of the bill. So I'm going to ask for a no on L3 while keeping a yes on L1. Hopefully it's not amended and make a commitment to the committee to continue to work on the health portion of the bill that was causing some consternation during testimony.

Ms. Shipley, please call the roll. Representatives Bacon. No. Clifford. No. Espinosa. No. No. Yes. Garcia. No. Kelty. Yes. Yes.

Yes. It's okay. I'm excused. Carter. No.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did, I did, we did draft an amendment trying to get at accountability for judges. We drafted it because the advocates really wanted to press on this point of where is the accountability when these decisions lead to the abuser murdering the child. I understand there are huge constitutional implications, and basically the separation of legislative and judicial branch means that we really can't pursue any kind of dismissal of judges based on the decisions that they make, or there isn't even really a mechanism to review when judges' decisions lead to terrible outcomes. So we're not going to run that amendment. So no more amendments for me, I guess is what I'm saying.

Rep Story?

Rep Story.

Vice Chair Carter, proper motion is to the Appropriations Committee. I move 1309 to the Appropriations Committee as amended with a favorable recommendation. Okay, that's proper motion, secondary reps. Okay, members, the Health Committee has 90 witnesses. They are currently on recess waiting for us to finish before they can start their next bill. so just keep that in mind if you want to make closing comments any closing comments okay Rep Slaw did you raise your hand okay Rep Kelty thanks Chair I do want to make my comment I kind of have my reservations about this bill and I kind of made it clear I think through the questioning that I did about it being possibly weaponized to allow an abuser to have more tools in their toolbox, such broad tools, if it was more narrowed down possibly. But that is one of my fears. I believe that the bill lowers the standard of proof. I believe that the bill uses preponderance of evidence but not clear and convincing or beyond reasonable doubt an issue. I believe it may constrain judges, especially in complex family situations, from being able to tailor their decisions adequately. I believe it could override the nuance in best interest of the child analysis. I believe that the bill also mandates a one requirement which we know that every situation is different and by putting something like that I afraid that it may cause more damage than what is intended which I'm sure I know the intention is good, but I'm afraid that it may not be. And not all cases are the same. And the one size fits all is bothersome for me. and as we heard there's a concern constitutionally I believe the 4th 14th and the 5th amendment were brought up that could be in violation. Custody could be restricted based on a low evidentiary standard I believe it promotes a presumption of guilt but I understand your desire to protect children. That's one of my main focuses throughout my life is protecting not just my children but other children if I can. But I do believe we need to be careful. Courts already use preponderance of evidence, so that portion is duplicative in my opinion. I think that judges do know what they're doing. They didn't become judges just because they just happened to win a ticket in a gumball machine. I think that they earned their way there. And to assume they don't know what they're doing is kind of offensive, in my opinion. And I believe that the bill risks overcorrection that may violate an innocent parent's rights. So because of all of that, I will have to be a no today. I just can't get there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the sponsors for bringing this bill. I think we all ought to and all do fully recognize that abuse is a horrible thing. There's probably much lower limits to the justice that I think that true abusers ought to deserve. than what we would probably do to them here in Colorado. I am disappointed that the amendment that I brought wasn't accepted. I think that there is a difference between having a difference of opinion between a child and a parent and true abuse. I think not acknowledging that dilutes what this bill actually does. there are very, very, very few things that I believe in more than the importance of family. And in the roles of parents and the responsibilities of parents, and key to those responsibilities as a parent, whether you're a father or whether you're a mother, is caring for your children, absolutely not abusing them. The stories that we heard of abuse are deeply disturbing, very frustrating. To me, as an individual who believes that, undoubtedly, the absolute most important thing that I can do and be responsible for in my lifetime is taking care of and caring for my children Am I perfect No Are any parents No Are parents that we talking about who are true abusers are they worthy of continuing to be able to influence and be abusive in those lives? No. But, again, I think we have to walk a very careful line in the words that we use in the bills that we write. I think that we miss the mark if we are not allowing for parents to parent, certainly not for parents to abuse, though. I hope that we can work on a couple of things if this bill passes from committee and make sure that we both protect children from abusers and protect parents' rights to be able to parent their children. Thank you. Rep. Flannell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to thank the bill sponsors for bringing this forward and for everybody who testified today. I know it is a sensitive subject, and I do appreciate you guys being vulnerable. I will be honest, I was going to vote yes. And then the more I dug into the bill, the more I just realized there are quite a few issues. I question, you know, as the bill's written, does it help victims or does it create new harms for families already in crisis? And after a careful consideration, I do believe that it goes a little too far. I think the bill tilts the scales of justice in a way that deeply concerns me. So it allows life-altering presumptions about custody to flow from a civil finding based on a more likely than not standard, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not even clear and convincing evidence. Second, the bill assumes that our systems always correctly identify the true aggressor. Anyone who has spent time with real families in these situations know that that's not always the case. Sometimes both parties allege abuse, not to mention what this bill lists as coercive control, which I know some of it is in statute. It does make me wonder, though. I mean, a lot of it is at times good, responsible parenting. And then additionally, interference with or without preventing access to reproductive health care, contraceptives, and controlling the outcomes of pregnancy outcomes is incredibly concerning. We are moving beyond clear traditional notions of physical violence into more subjective territory, areas where honest disagreements over medical decisions, counseling, discipline, or values can be interpreted through an ideological lens. In a time when our society is deeply divided over questions of health care, gender, and family structure, we should be exceedingly careful about labeling one side of those debates as abusive simply because a professional or a court happens to disagree with the parent's judgment. And then third, the bill intertwines parental rights with mandatory lengthy intervention programs with the opinions of a narrow class of mental health professionals. It says, in essence, you may see your child again if and when you complete a 52-week program and convince a designated expert that you are sufficiently accountable and rehabilitated. That may sound good in theory, but it has real-world consequences. Low-income parents, parents in rural areas, and parents who cannot afford or access these programs will be in severe disadvantage. Okay. We are creating a two-tier system in which wealth and geography can determine whether you ever get to get a meaningful chance to restore your relationship with your child. And for those reasons, I will be a respectful no. Rep Selber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with my colleagues here, but I did just want to say thank you very much for meeting individually and with us as Republicans. I just want to say that perhaps more for the rest of the members on the committee who are coming back, not necessarily Rep Froelich for you and I who are term limited. But that's being a good legislator, to sit down and to talk with each member ahead of time and what the bill looks like. I mean, that I really appreciated, and I really did want to lay that on the record. I agree with Representative Flannell that I walked in here leaning yes. And I have to admit, there's just enough areas that I don't feel comfortable with being able to get there. And we'll probably see it on second reading. So my guess is we'll still have to have some more conversations by then as well. But certainly, if nothing else, we can address some of the areas on page 7 of the bill that we talked about earlier. Thank you. Rep. Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll make this very brief. I know you're in a hurry to get out, and I think that's important. I just wanted to put on the record that in addition to the conversations that we've had about changes in definitions, I just want to be very clear that as I read the bill and as I've read the statute, we are making a new definition of domestic violence, which will supersede the definitions that were previously in 1410.124.1.3b. So that will become the new definition for domestic violence not only for this section of the statute but for all sections of the statute And so I think it important that as we look at that definition we acknowledge that we making a change and that we are aware of that change having an impact beyond family law. And I know you're going to continue to work on that. In addition, then on page seven, you've addressed that you want to look at the C2, which is a health-related expansion on definitions. but then I also want to point to the expansion on C8, on page 8, that those are all new definitions that are being brought into the statute that we didn't really get a full discussion of, and so it wasn't clearly just the carryover of the existing definitions from all the other sections. So I wanted to just put that on the record. I see where things are going. My only other concern would be in line with what my colleagues have spoken about is the 52 weeks, but for a very different reason, And I think it is that economic question for me that comes into play in terms of whether this sets people up who are in lower economic or other areas to a situation where they cannot meet that standard. Although I understand the purpose and the goals of what you're attempting to do. And hearing when I came into this bill today, I was in the opposite in terms of really trying to figure out where I was going to be. And listening to all the testimony today and hearing the work that you've done and knowing where this all derives from, I have to say I want to congratulate you for the hard work that has been done in this bill, and I will be a yes. Thank you. Amel Bacon, I saw your hand earlier. That's okay. Thank you. Rep's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everybody who came and shared deeply personal stories. I know that that was difficult to do, and I appreciate everybody for being vulnerable with us. I do just want to say I am a strong guest on this bill today and I have learned a lot about this issue from the sponsors and how abusers weaponize our legal system to exact revenge and at times weaponize children And we end up with victims of domestic violence being wrongly accused of domestic violence. And I think that this bill really does address that problem that our family courts oftentimes result in minimizing abuse claims. I did just want to highlight the case of Rachel Pickerel Hawkins, who did testify and share her story with us today. She was jailed in my district, and she was held in contempt because she refused to have her kids attend therapy with their father, who was charged with sexually abusing them with seven counts of sexual assault of a child. And I just want to uplift this part of her story where she spoke out and said that the reunification therapy had harmed her boys. They'd been crying uncontrollably, having explosive outbursts, and expressing thoughts of self-harm after attending the sessions with their father. The program was nothing but manipulation, psychological abuse. It's been nothing but coercion and gaslighting. They can't sleep before and after. It causes major anxiety, exacerbates their PTSD symptoms, and has been absolutely devastating to them. And I do want to note that that therapy was provided by Lighthouse Christian Counseling, which would not meet the criteria that you are putting forward now in your bill. And I want to uplift Rachel's story because she is the one who told me about this issue for the first time. I don't know if you remember, Rep. Froelich, the first time I met you was when you were in my district and we met outside the jail. and Rachel told me that despite all of this trauma and pain that she's been through, that she was going to turn it into advocacy and make sure no other parent has to go through that, and you made a commitment to do that with her and I seeing that here now So I want to thank you and thank Rachel and enthusiastically vote yesterday Okay. I'll just say that I appreciate this work. As I mentioned on the last iteration of this bill, my mom and I experienced harms like the ones we heard today when I was a kid and when my parents were in disputes about custody. So I understand how important this work is. I also understand that the constitutional right to parent will always be balanced by judges against what I view as the guidelines that you're putting in this legislation. And judges know that as well when they make these determinations and expect you all to continue to do good work. appreciate the amendments that were brought so far.

Pass.

Yes. I'm sorry, did you say pass or yes? Pass.

Espinosa.

Linnell.

Garcia.

Elty.

Slaw.

Soper.

Okay.

Bacon.

Carter.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Okay, on a vote of 6 to 5, House Bill 1309 passes. You're on the way to the Appropriations Committee. Thank you.