New Custody Law – ABUSIVE Parents?!

Colorado parents could soon lose custody of their children for refusing to use preferred pronouns, as a controversial bill links “misgendering” to abusive behavior in family courts.

At a Glance

  • Colorado’s “Kelly Loving Act” would classify misgendering and deadnaming as forms of “coercive control” in child custody cases
  • The bill has passed the Colorado House and awaits Senate review
  • Critics argue the legislation violates First Amendment rights by punishing parents who don’t affirm their child’s gender identity
  • Courts would be required to consider refusal to use preferred pronouns when determining parental custody
  • Legislation works alongside H.B. 25, which mandates insurance coverage for gender-affirming care

The Kelly Loving Act: New Standards for Family Courts

Colorado lawmakers have introduced legislation that would fundamentally alter how family courts determine child custody when gender identity becomes a point of contention. The bill, known as the Kelly Loving Act, proposes that judges consider “misgendering” – using pronouns that don’t match a person’s gender identity – as a form of “coercive control” in custody disputes. Having already passed the Colorado House on April 6, the bill now awaits Senate consideration amid growing controversy over its implications for parental rights and religious freedom. 

The legislation defines “coercive control” as actions that threaten, humiliate, or intimidate – including using a child’s birth name rather than their chosen name (known as “deadnaming”) or refusing to acknowledge their preferred gender identity. These actions could potentially be classified alongside established forms of child abuse when courts make decisions about parental custody and visitation rights. For many families who hold traditional or religious views on gender, this raises serious concerns about parental authority and religious liberty. 

Constitutional Concerns and Parental Rights

Legal experts have raised alarms about the bill’s potential violations of First Amendment protections. Aaron Terr, a First Amendment attorney and director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, has criticized the legislation for its broad implications. According to Terr, the bill threatens to punish parents simply for expressing views that don’t align with the state’s position on gender matters.

Critics argue that the legislation fails to allow judges to consider individual family circumstances, instead applying a one-size-fits-all approach that automatically favors the parent who affirms a child’s chosen gender identity. This could effectively label non-affirming parents as abusive, regardless of their motivations or concerns about their child’s well-being. The bill’s implementation could potentially create situations where parents lose custody primarily for holding traditional views on biological sex and gender. 

Part of a Broader Legislative Package

The Kelly Loving Act is just one component of a larger legislative effort in Colorado focused on gender identity and healthcare access. It accompanies H.B. 25, which mandates that all health insurance plans in Colorado cover what the bill describes as “medically necessary gender-affirming care.” This comprehensive approach represents a significant shift in how the state approaches both gender identity issues and parental authority in making healthcare decisions for their children.  

Some commentators see these measures as going beyond protection and entering the realm of enforcement. Conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” has suggested that the legislation functions as a mechanism to require taxpayer funding for gender transition procedures and abortion services. The combination of custody implications and insurance mandates has intensified concerns among those who view the legislation as government overreach into family decisions and private beliefs.

Ongoing Medical Debate

The custody legislation emerges amid continuing professional disagreement within the medical community about appropriate approaches to gender dysphoria in minors. Some clinicians have expressed concerns about the rapid increase in gender identity cases among adolescents, particularly young females, and question whether automatic affirmation is always the most responsible medical approach. The bill potentially places courts in the position of enforcing one medical perspective in custody disputes, despite the absence of scientific consensus. 

“This is a very scary part of this bill,” Stuckey says. “The courts must consider deadnaming, all these euphemisms, misgendering, threats to publish material related to gender-affirming care — so like outing someone — as coercive control when determining parenting time and child custody.”

While supporters maintain the legislation protects vulnerable transgender individuals from harmful family environments, opponents see it as effectively silencing dissenting viewpoints on complex issues of gender, biology, and child development. As the bill moves through the Colorado legislative process, it continues to highlight the deep divisions in American society over parental rights, religious liberty, and the government’s proper role in family decisions regarding gender identity.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR