Two people in suits punching each other surrounded by bags of money

Since Colorado enacted the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act more than 50 years ago, dissolution of marriage cases have been “no-fault.” (See this blog post for more details about Colorado no-fault divorces and grounds for dissolution of marriage).

One spouse’s misconduct or “fault”, including for domestic violence, was generally irrelevant to the outcome of a Colorado divorce, with a couple of limited exceptions:

  • If parenting issues are being litigated, then parental misconduct that is also relevant to the children’s best interests, such as domestic violence or drug/alcohol abuse, is relevant and admissible.
  • A spouse who engaged in economic fault, such as “dissipating” marital assets in anticipation of divorce, could find their share of the marital estate reduced to account for the loss in assets.

However, that’s about the extent to which courts could consider misconduct or “fault” grounds. And even if the family court allowed evidence of domestic violence for one purpose, such as child custody, the judge was not permitted to consider that evidence for any other purpose, such as on financial issues.

C.R.S. 14-10-114(2) even expressly provided “An award of maintenance shall be in an amount and for a term that is fair and equitable to both parties and shall be made without regard to marital misconduct.” (Emphasis added).

But no longer. On May 19, 2025, Colorado Governor Polis signed Senate Bill 25-116, which, for the first time, allows courts to consider a spouse’s domestic violence when determining spousal maintenance. (Note that while this post uses the same term “domestic violence” that is used in the Act, as explained below, that term is broadly defined in the new law to include concepts such as “coercive control” and “economic abuse” that are controlling and abusive, but go beyond traditional concepts that most people regard as domestic violence).

Impact of Domestic Violence on Colorado Alimony

Section 4 of the Act, whose short title is “Concerning Spousal Maintenance Guidelines to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence,” adds a provision to the maintenance statute requiring the family law judge to consider: “Whether a spouse has engaged in domestic violence, coercive control, economic abuse, litigation abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, or unlawful sexual behavior against the other spouse.” C.R.S. 14-10-114(XII.5) (statute not yet updated as of the time this post was written).

The Act now provides that the family law judge “shall consider” domestic violence as a relevant factor in maintenance, but does not require a criminal conviction, so presumably DV issues may now be litigated in spousal maintenance cases based upon “he-said, she-said” and other testimony, texts, etc.

Note also that the new law does not dictate, or even suggest, what impact a domestic violence finding should have on the outcome of spousal maintenance. One would presume it would never be in favor of the abuser (i.e., an abusive spouse would not somehow pay or receive more maintenance).

So this means that a court could find a financially disadvantaged spouse who was abusive has waived his/her right to spousal maintenance, or at least to the same level of maintenance that otherwise would have been awarded – after all, making the DV victim pay her abuser is effectively revictimizing her. Or an abusive, financially advantaged spouse could be, in effect, “punished” by making him/her pay more in spousal maintenance.

Alternatively, the court could find that while one spouse committed abuse, the parties’ financial circumstances are more compelling factors, so award maintenance with little regard to the domestic violence.

Domestic Violence Definition Broader than Actual Violence

While the Act’s short title is “Concerning Spousal Maintenance Guidelines to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence“, the text of the Act is much broader than traditional spousal or child abuse, and includes consideration of (1) “Domestic violence”, (2) “Coercive control”, (3) Economic abuse”, (4) “Litigation abuse”, (5) “Emotional abuse”, (6) “Physical abuse”, and (7) “Unlawful sexual behavior.”

While the terms “domestic violence”, “physical abuse,” and “unlawful sexual behavior” are mature concepts that have been defined by state and case law, and litigated in the courts, a few of the concepts are relatively new in a Colorado dissolution of marriage case.

Domestic Violence

The term “domestic violence” has long been a part of Colorado’s child custody and criminal statutes, so it is a term familiar to judges, and there is a developed body of law interpreting it. C.R.S. 14-10-124(1.3)(b) defines domestic violence as:

“‘Domestic violence’ means an act of violence or a threatened act of violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship, and may include any act or threatened act against a person or against property, including an animal, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship.”

As we discuss in the Domestic Violence & Colorado Child Custody article in the Colorado Family Law Guide, judges have ample experience assessing whether conduct rises to the level of domestic violence in a family law case. And C.R.S. 14-10-103(1.5)(b) of the new act incorporates this definition by reference.

Physical Abuse

While the act lists “physical abuse” as a separate component of domestic violence, it does not expressly define it. But as physical abuse is an integral part of the traditional domestic violence that courts have long addressed, this lack of definition should not affect a court’s ability to determine whether a physical act constitutes abuse.

Unlawful Sexual Behavior

The new C.R.S. 14-10-103(1.5)(d) incorporates by reference the definition of “unlawful sexual behavior” found in C.R.S. 16-22-102(9), which has a comprehensive list of well-defined criminal acts, including sexual assault, sexual assault on a child, human trafficking, indecent exposure, and many more.

So, as with actual violence, the issue may be determining whether conduct occurred, but once a court finds that sexual abuse has occurred, deciding that it meets the definition of domestic violence or unlawful sexual behavior should not be difficult.

The remaining factors are a bit more nebulous, however, because even if there is no doubt as to what conduct occurred, there remains the issue of whether that conduct rises to the level of “domestic violence” as contemplated by the new law.

Coercive Control

“Coercive control” is a concept recently introduced to Colorado divorce law. C.R.S. 14-10-124(1.3)(a) defines it as:

“A pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions, including assaults or other abuse, that is used to harm, punish, or frighten an individual. ‘Coercive control’ includes a pattern of behavior that takes away the individual’s liberty or freedom and strips away the individual’s sense of self, including the individual’s bodily integrity and human rights. ‘Coercive control’ includes isolating the individual from support, exploiting the individual, depriving the individual of independence, and regulating the individual’s everyday behavior.”

That statute then provides a non-exclusive list of examples:

“‘Coercive control’ includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(I) Isolating the individual from friends and family;
(II) Monitoring, surveilling, regulating, or controlling the individual’s, or the individual’s child’s or relative’s, finances, economic resources, or access to services;
(III) Monitoring, surveilling, regulating, or controlling the individual’s, or the individual’s child’s or relative’s, activities, communications, or movements, including through technology;
(IV) Name-calling, degrading, or demeaning the individual, or the individual’s child or relative, on a frequent basis;
(V) Threatening to harm or kill the individual or the individual’s child or relative, including wearing, accessing, displaying, using, or cleaning a weapon in an intimidating or threatening manner;
(VI) Threatening to commit suicide or otherwise harm one’s own person, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or retaliation against the person;
(VII) Threatening to harm or kill an animal with which the individual or the individual’s child or relative has an emotional bond;
(VIII) Threatening to publish the individual’s, or the individual’s child’s or relative’s, sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit material, or make reports to the police or authorities;
(IX) Damaging the individual’s, or the individual’s child’s or relative’s, property or household goods;
(X) Threatening the individual, or the individual’s child or relative, with deportation or contacting authorities based on perceived or actual immigration status, withholding essential documents required for immigration, or threatening to withdraw or interfere with an active immigration application or process; or
(XI) Forcing the individual, or the individual’s child or relative, to take part in criminal activities or child abuse.”

Senate Bill 25-116 incorporates that C.R.S. 14-10-124(1.3) definition by reference in a new C.R.S. 14-10-103(1.5)(a); however, as that definition itself is new, there is case law that applies it to a modern Colorado divorce. Presumably the conduct would need to be more on the egregious side, and not, for example, merely setting a household budget, or isolated incidents of just one or two of the factors, without more (e.g. telling one’s spouse that you don’t like their family so they are not welcome to visit, or calling a spouse “fat” or “mean.”)

However, more extreme variations of these, or multiple examples of what, on their own, may be somewhat minor, may well rise to the level of coercive control that matters to a court.

Economic Abuse

Rich man in suit holding a bag of money and puppet strings over poor woman

This is a new concept introduced in this Act, so it will take some time and experience litigating it to determine exactly where judges draw the lines, for example, between prudent spending restraints and abusive ones. The Act adds a new definition to C.R.S. 14-10-103(1.5)(c):

“(c) ‘Economic abuse’ means a behavior that is coercive, deceptive, or manipulative, or that restrains, sabotages, or unreasonably controls a person’s ability to acquire, use, or maintain economic resources that the person is entitled to, including using coercion, threat of harm, force, fraud, or manipulation to:
(i) restrict a person’s access to money, assets, credit, or financial information;
(ii) steal or unfairly use a person’s economic resources, including money, assets, or credit;
(iii) use a person’s credit or property without authorization;
(iv) prevent a person from leaving the person’s residence to attend school or employment;
(v) exploit the person’s resources for personal gain;
(vi) withhold individual resources from a person, such as food, clothing, necessary medications, or shelter;
(vii) cause or attempt to cause a person to be financially dependent by maintaining control over the person’s financial resources; or
(viii) exert undue influence over a person’s financial behavior or decisions, including forcing default on joint or other financial obligations; exploiting powers of attorney, guardianship, or conservatorship; or threatening to expose a person’s suspected citizenship or immigration status or the suspected citizenship or immigration status of a person’s family member to a federal, state, or local agency.”

“Economic abuse” overlaps somewhat with “coercive control” in both its definition and the types of conduct that constitute it. But the essence of the statute is that one party uses money not as an end in itself, but as a means of imposing their will on the other spouse.

Litigation Abuse

Curiously, this term is not defined in the statute, leaving it to judges to exercise discretion whether a spouse has engaged in abusive litigation practices. Presumably, this is more than simply filing a motion and losing, but would include a combination of litigation practices that are intended to harass, such as:

  • Filing repeated or unnecessary pleadings.
  • Asserting frivolous positions or defenses.
  • Needlessly playing hardball on procedural or discovery issues.
  • Turning everything into a pitched battle, even on matters that are settled law or should be non-controversial.

Emotional Abuse

It would be helpful to have a definition of the level of “emotional abuse” that would constitute domestic violence, but the statute provides no clarity. C.R.S. 19-1-103(1)(a)(4) defines “emotional abuse” in the context of child abuse as: “an identifiable and substantial impairment of the child’s intellectual or psychological functioning or development or a substantial risk of impairment of the child’s intellectual or psychological functioning or development.”

However, this definition does not really seem applicable to an allegation of emotional abuse against a spouse in a domestic violence case, as it would seem to require pretty extreme conduct and impact on the victim. Moreover, since the new maintenance bill does not incorporate that definition, it’s probably not helpful to consider.

This means that parties would not only have to prove up the conduct itself, but then argue that the conduct meets the level of abuse required to be “emotional abuse”, and thereby affect spousal maintenance. So again, infrequent putdowns or criticism would probably not rise to the level of emotional abuse contemplated by the act. Still, a pattern of constant insults, swearing, harassment, etc, may well meet the standard, particularly if it has a psychological or emotional impact on the spouse on the receiving end.

Conclusion

We are entering the wild, wild west of domestic relations litigation. Abusive behavior that was once only relevant in narrow circumstances will now affect a broader base of cases, with the real possibility of a large influx of spousal maintenance cases where one spouse is claiming abusive behavior by the other with the intention of impacting the court’s alimony award. So a case that previously focused solely on the parties’ financial circumstances will now require more time, energy, and emotion to prove, as misconduct comes into play.

And even if abuse is proven, there’s no guarantee a court would actually increase or reduce the maintenance award, so the parties may well spend thousands on an issue of no consequence to the outcome. But the possibility that an abuse claim will benefit a party financially means the parties have a greater incentive to raise false abuse claims, or even to assert actual abuse where previously they would have remained silent and moved on.

And this could be just the beginning – the version of the bill that was first introduced in February 2025 would also have required courts to consider domestic violence when dividing the marital estate. But those property provisions were deleted as the bill progressed through the Colorado Assembly, leaving only maintenance impacted by domestic violence.

However, Colorado has cracked down on domestic violence/coercive control in divorces over the past few years, first by expanding the types of conduct that would impact parenting beyond traditional physical abuse, and now by having it affect spousal maintenance. It would not be surprising to see future attempts to chip away at our “no-fault” dissolution of marriage system by making a spouse’s “bad conduct” relevant to property or other aspects of a divorce.

domestic violence

U.S. News & World Report calls Graham.Law one of the Best Law Firms in America, and our managing partner is a Colorado Super Lawyer. Our family law attorneys have years of experience helping clients navigate the Colorado legal system. We know Colorado divorce & family law inside and out, from complex multi-million dollar property or child custody cases to simple child support modifications.

For more information about our top-rated El Paso County family law firm, contact us by filling out our contact form, calling us at (719) 630-1123 to set up a reduced-rate consult, or click on:

Colorado Family Law. Period.