By Michael Phillips | California Bay News
A newly introduced bill in Colorado is reigniting a familiar but increasingly heated national debate: where to draw the line between protecting children’s privacy and expanding state influence over family decisions.
Senate Bill 26-018, introduced during the Second Regular Session of Colorado’s 75th General Assembly, is titled “Legal Protections for the Dignity of a Minor.” Sponsored by Democratic lawmakers Senators Katie Wallace and Chris Kolker, along with Representatives Meg Froelich and Lorena Garcia, the proposal touches on two distinct but politically sensitive areas of family law.
While supporters frame the bill as a narrow privacy and anti-discrimination measure, critics argue it subtly shifts the balance of power away from parents and toward courts—especially in cases involving gender identity.
What the Bill Actually Does
SB26-018 focuses on minors under 18 and contains two core provisions.
First, it requires courts to suppress (seal) records related to a minor’s legal name change, unless the petitioner has a prior felony conviction. The records may still be used internally by the court but cannot be published online or easily accessed by the public. Limited access is permitted only with verbal consent from a party involved and an accompanying affidavit.
Supporters say this is about privacy—preventing minors from being exposed to harassment, stigma, or online targeting later in life. Critics counter that sealing name-change records makes it harder for parents, schools, and institutions to track legal identity changes, particularly in contentious family disputes.
Second, and far more controversial, the bill adds a new factor to family court decisions involving custody and parenting time. Judges would be required to consider whether parents “recognize the child’s identity as it relates to a protected class” when determining parenting time or decision-making authority.
In Colorado, protected classes include gender identity and gender expression under state anti-discrimination law.
Why the Custody Provision Is Drawing Fire
The bill does not explicitly require parents to affirm a child’s gender identity, mandate social transition, or automatically penalize parents who disagree. Nor does it allow children to unilaterally change their names without court involvement or parental notice.
However, opponents argue that the language effectively gives courts a new lever to weigh against parents who decline to affirm a child’s asserted gender identity—by treating that refusal as a negative factor in “best interests of the child” determinations.
Family court already operates with broad judicial discretion. Critics worry this provision nudges judges toward favoring the “affirming” parent in disputes, even when both parents are otherwise fit and loving.
“This is how rights erode—not through outright bans, but through ‘factors’ that quietly become decisive,” one parental rights advocate said in response to the bill’s introduction.
Viral Claims vs. Legal Reality
The bill has spread rapidly online, particularly through conservative social media channels, often accompanied by claims that it allows the state to “strip parental rights” or “hide name changes from parents.”
Those claims go further than the bill’s actual text. SB26-018 does not eliminate parental consent requirements for name changes, nor does it authorize removal of children from non-affirming homes.
But critics argue that the concern isn’t what the bill says outright—it’s how it could be applied. Family court outcomes often hinge on subjective assessments, and even a “non-decisive” factor can become powerful when judges are required to consider it.
A Broader Trend in Colorado Policy
SB26-018 does not exist in isolation. It follows Colorado’s 2025 “Kelly Loving Act,” which expanded protections for transgender individuals and introduced the concept of “coercive control” in family law contexts, including behaviors such as misgendering or deadnaming. While some of the more aggressive custody language in that bill was amended before passage, it signaled a clear policy direction.
To critics, SB26-018 looks like another incremental step—embedding ideological questions about identity into legal frameworks traditionally focused on safety, stability, and parental fitness.
Supporters, meanwhile, argue the bill simply modernizes family law to reflect existing civil rights protections and to safeguard vulnerable children from harm or discrimination within family systems.
Where the Bill Stands Now
As of mid-January 2026, SB26-018 has been introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. No hearings or amendments have yet been scheduled. Like many bills early in session, it could be significantly revised—or fail altogether—before lawmakers adjourn.
Still, the proposal has already succeeded in one respect: it has reopened a national conversation about parental authority, state power, and whether “best interests” standards are quietly being redefined.
For families watching these debates unfold from California and beyond, Colorado’s bill offers a clear preview of where future custody and family-law battles may be headed.
Support Independent Journalism
California Bay News is part of the Bay News Media Network — a growing group of independent, reader-supported newsrooms covering government accountability, courts, public safety, and institutional failures across the country.
Support independent journalism that isn’t funded by political parties, corporations, or government agencies
Submit tips or documents securely — if you see something wrong, we want to know
Independent reporting only works when readers stay engaged. Your attention, tips, and support help keep these stories alive.
California Bay News 
Leave a comment