Proponents present 'Ubuntu Act' initiative to expand protections for survivors of post-separation abuse

Proponents of proposed initiative measure 2025-26 No. 42 — calling it the “Ubuntu Act” — told staff of the Colorado Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services on March 20, 2025, that the measure would expand protections and services for survivors of domestic and post-separation abuse, strengthen training for judges, law enforcement and child welfare professionals, and create more permanent or “tailored” protection orders for survivors and children.

The hearing was a review-and-comment session required under Colorado law. Julianne Jensen, a staff member of the Colorado Legislative Council, opened the meeting by describing the purpose of the review and identifying the subject of the hearing: “we are here for proposed initiative measure 20 25 26 number 42 concerning protections regarding domestic abuse in tribal courts,” and then read the statutory preface for the proceeding.

The Office of Legislative Legal Services asked the proponents to supply the actual statutory text that would be added to the Colorado Revised Statutes, rather than a description of the proposal’s intent, and flagged constitutional single-subject requirements under Article V. Chelsea Princell, of the Office of Legislative Legal Services, told proponents that the initiative must include actionable statutory language and that the enacting clause and effective date provisions should follow constitutional requirements. Proponents indicated the default effective date tied to the governor’s proclamation satisfied their intent.

Proponents described the proposal’s scope and several substantive components but acknowledged many details remain to be drafted. They said the initiative would:

- Define and address “post separation abuse” (a term they said is used by many nonprofits to cover abusive conduct that occurs after separation even if a couple is not divorced), and consider whether conduct such as emotional abuse, coercive control and certain post-separation acts should be treated as “serious criminal offenses” in statute.

- Expand access to survivor services, citing a SABES grant program and possible administration or partnership with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, nurse-family partnership programs, school-based education, and nonprofit providers. Alicia Cooper, identified as working for the Veterans Affairs Administration, described parenting supports and early-childhood interventions she said proponents want the initiative to promote.

- Broaden prohibitions on corporal punishment to include parents and caregivers in addition to school and licensed child-care employees, and promote alternatives to violent discipline.

- Require training so judges, child-family investigators (CFIs), law enforcement, child-welfare professionals, educators and school counselors can identify gaslighting, narcissistic behavior and coercive control; proponents noted CFIs already must complete 20 hours of training to work on domestic violence cases and said similar training expectations could be extended to other professionals.

- Create “tailored protection orders” intended to be more durable and specific than short-term temporary orders, potentially including indefinite protective terms, custody limitations, supervised visitation conditions and financial safeguards.

- Expand culturally competent legal aid and advocacy for Indigenous survivors and LGBTQ+ people; proponents said a state-funded tribal liaison program could help coordinate services with tribal governments and that the initiative would aim to ensure same-sex couples receive equitable treatment in asset distribution and domestic-violence responses.

Proponents repeatedly acknowledged the draft before the hearing was an outline of intent rather than final statutory text. Office of Legislative Legal Services staff advised the proponents to identify (1) where new criminal offenses would be placed in the Colorado Revised Statutes if that was the intent; (2) precise definitions for terms such as “serious criminal offense” and “post separation abuse”; and (3) the specific language to amend existing statutes (for example, the proponents were asked to consider amending the corporal-punishment provisions and other existing code sections to achieve their goals).

Staff also explained process options. Chelsea Princell said an updated submission treated as a new submission would require another hearing and that proponents could either revise the draft and go directly to the title board if changes are responsive to the memo or resubmit for a follow-up review hearing. Proponents acknowledged the 2026 ballot timeline allows time to revise language and complete the review steps.

The hearing record included personal testimony from proponents on the initiative’s intent and hoped-for effects. Shamal Chitoki, who identified herself as a state employee in OIT and a parent, described the initiative’s aims to prevent cycles of trauma and promote positive parenting and early intervention. Alicia Cooper described programs she used and recommended, noting early parenting supports and nurse-family partnerships as examples.

No formal vote or board action occurred at the hearing. The review-and-comment hearing concluded at 11:02 a.m., with proponents indicating they would prepare revised statutory language and may either resubmit to the Legislative Council/OLLS for another hearing or move to the title board.

What remains unresolved and what proponents were asked to supply in writing are the precise statutory drafts, placement of any new criminal offenses in the Colorado Revised Statutes, the exact duration and mechanics of proposed “tailored” protection orders, and details of funding or administrative responsibility for new programs and training.

The topic will return to staff review if proponents resubmit changes; otherwise the next procedural step is consideration by the title board if the proponents proceed without resubmission.