Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated debate over SB73: committee splits and ultimately postpones bill requiring makeup parenting time after unsubstantiated investigations
Summary
SB73 proposed mandatory makeup parenting time when investigations close without substantiated abuse. The bill drew sharply divided testimony from survivor‑advocacy groups and parents; after extended testimony and debate the committee ultimately postponed SB73 indefinitely by reverse roll call.
Senate Bill 73 would require courts to order additional parenting time equal in type and duration to time wrongfully denied when a law‑enforcement or child‑welfare investigation closes without findings of abuse or neglect. Sponsors and many parents and grandparents urged the bill as a narrow remedy to restore irreplaceable parenting time lost during investigations. Supporters pointed to long delays and accounts of children estranged for months or years despite investigations returning no substantiation.
Domestic‑violence and victim‑advocacy groups opposed the bill, saying an ‘‘unsubstantiated’’ finding is not the same as a determination that a child is safe and arguing the measure could create incentives that destabilize survivors, empower coercion, and chill reporting. Violence Free Colorado and the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance urged a no vote, warning that the bill could be used as a tool of coercive control and that delays in investigations often reflect evidentiary limits rather than falsity.
Parents and grandparents described personal cases in emotional testimony: lost birthdays, long separations and what they described as weaponized allegations in custody disputes; the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel testified that local practice often results in suspensions or supervised visits without a court order and that remedies are difficult under current law. Committee members pressed both sides over definitions, burden of proof and the bill’s interaction with the best‑interest standard. Several senators said they were sympathetic but concerned the bill shifted burdens in ways that could chill good‑faith reporting.
Motion and outcome: The committee voted on a motion to send SB73 to the Committee of the Whole; roll‑call results recorded a close tally (committee recorded votes during the session). Shortly afterward the Vice Chair moved to postpone the bill indefinitely using a reverse roll call and the motion to PI (postpone indefinitely) was entered as carried.
What it means: SB73 generated broad testimony and clear division among advocates, practitioners and family members. The committee elected not to advance the measure during this session after lengthy debate.
