Four Colorado Democrats introduced legislation on January 14 requiring family courts to consider whether parents “recognize the child’s identity as it relates to a protected class” when determining custody and parenting time. Senate Bill 26-018 resurrects custody provisions Democrats stripped from another bill last May after 670 Coloradans lined up to testify against it.
The sponsors are state senators Katie Wallace and Chris Kolker, and state representatives Meg Froelich and Lorena Garcia. Wallace was appointed to her seat in March 2025 and faces a special election primary June 30, 2026. Kolker chairs the Senate Education Committee. Froelich, term-limited, previously ran NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. Garcia, appointed January 2023, is described by multiple outlets as “among the most progressive legislators” in the General Assembly.
The bill never defines what “recognize” means. Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act lists gender identity and gender expression as protected classes. Does recognition require using preferred pronouns? Accepting name changes? Supporting medical transition? The bill provides zero guidance, giving family court judges unlimited discretion.
Last year’s House Bill 25-1312, the Kelly Loving Act, explicitly required courts to consider “deadnaming and misgendering” as “coercive control” in custody decisions. That language sparked massive opposition. The April 2025 committee hearing drew 670 opponents versus 70 supporters and lasted past 1 a.m. Even LGBTQ groups urged removal. Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights called it “not necessary” and warned it would “create a target” for conservative courts. Democrats stripped the custody language.
Nine months later, the same concept returns with vaguer wording. The sponsors haven’t explained what changed. They introduced it opening day alongside Democrats’ priority bills, but the Colorado Sun, Colorado Newsline, Denver Post, and Colorado Politics never mentioned it. The silence suggests Democrats hoped nobody would notice.
The bill also requires courts to suppress all minor name change records unless the child was previously convicted of a felony. Courts cannot publish the petitioner’s name or new name online. Non-custodial parents could be kept in the dark about their children’s identity changes.
Colorado law already requires custody determinations based on “best interests of the child.” Statute C.R.S. § 14-10-124 lists nine factors courts must consider. The same statute’s subsection (1.5)(a.5) instructs courts to “strive not to consider as a relevant factor information or recommendations that are biased, including bias regarding…gender identity, gender expression.”
SB26-018 contradicts this by requiring courts to consider gender identity issues. It transforms what current law treats as impermissible bias into a mandatory factor. The sponsors haven’t identified any cases where Colorado courts failed to protect transgender-identifying children under existing law. Judges already have broad discretion. This isn’t about protecting children—it’s about punishing parents who disagree with gender ideology.
The political calculations aren’t subtle. Wallace needs progressive credentials for her June primary. The others are securing endorsements for future races. They’re gambling most Coloradans won’t notice until it’s too late.
Opposition is mobilizing. The “We The Parents” coalition includes the Colorado Parental Advocacy Network and Republican legislators Brandi Bradley, Stephanie Luck, and Ken DeGraaf. House Minority Leader Jarvis Caldwell and Senate Minority Leader Cleave Simpson both made parental rights opening-day priorities.
Last year’s battle showed what happens when Democrats overreach. Douglas County commissioners passed a resolution opposing HB25-1312. The Colorado Catholic Conference mobilized bishops statewide. Erin Lee of Larimer County testified her 12-year-old daughter was socially transitioned at school without parental knowledge, “taught that she could pursue puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones to fix herself.” Her daughter attempted suicide. “Calling my child by her birth name was not malicious harassment,” Lee testified. “It was honest, loving and it saved her from being a lifelong medical patient.”
Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer warned after Democrats stripped HB25-1312’s custody provisions that constituents still believed the language remained. Modern Family Law, advertising LGBTQ-friendly services, later confirmed that while HB25-1312 “does not define misgendering or deadnaming as a form of legal abuse,” schools documenting parents’ refusal to use chosen names “could be brought into court as evidence” of “emotional abuse.”
That reveals what SB26-018 accomplishes. The vague “recognizes the child’s identity” language lets courts treat any parental disagreement with gender transition as evidence of harm. A parent seeking a second medical opinion before puberty blockers could lose custody. A parent insisting on family counseling before social transition could lose decision-making authority.
The sponsors owe Coloradans answers. What problem does this solve that existing law doesn’t address? Why suppress name change records? How do courts determine whether a parent “recognizes” identity? What happens when recognition conflicts with religious beliefs or medical judgment?
Wallace, Kolker, Froelich, and Garcia have provided no explanations. The question is whether Democrats will defend SB26-018 when backlash comes, or strip the provisions again and pretend they never intended them.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 