Colorado has some of the strongest state-level protections for immigrants in the country. It also has a federal enforcement environment that has intensified significantly since early 2025. For mixed-status families in El Paso County, those two realities exist simultaneously, and the tension between them has direct consequences for divorce, custody, and parenting rights.
This article addresses the legal questions that come up most often when immigration status intersects with family law proceedings in Colorado. Immigration status questions that require affirmative immigration remedies — visa petitions, adjustment of status, deportation defense — require an immigration attorney. However, issues of family law, such as divorce, parenting rights, and custody arrangements can be affected when ICE enforcement enters the picture.
What Is Happening Locally
The enforcement climate in El Paso County is not the same as in Denver or in other parts of the state. Colorado law under HB23-1100 and SB25-276, signed by Governor Polis in May 2025, explicitly prohibits Colorado governmental entities from entering into or renewing 287(g) agreements with ICE. No Colorado sheriff can legally sign one. What is happening instead is a narrower but still significant practice: the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office regularly transfers individuals from county jail custody to ICE, notifying ICE of release times and facilitating transfers within the constraints state law allows. Between September 2025 and February 2026, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office reported transferring 47 people to ICE custody through this mechanism.
Teller County, directly adjacent to El Paso County to the west, was home to the only 287(g) agreement in Colorado until January 2025, when a final judgment in Nash v. Mikesell effectively ended those operations. The ruling established that the Teller County Sheriff’s Office has no authority to deny or delay the release of any individual based on an ICE detainer form. That settlement functionally gutted 287(g) operations in Teller County, leaving no active 287(g) agreements anywhere in Colorado.
These are not abstract policy developments. They mean that for mixed-status families in the Colorado Springs area, the intersection of local jail operations and federal immigration enforcement is a genuine and present reality, even within the limits Colorado state law imposes.
What Colorado Law Does and Does Not Protect
Colorado has enacted several laws limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Under HB19-1124, the Protecting Colorado Residents from Federal Government Overreach Act, Colorado law enforcement officers are prohibited from arresting or detaining an individual solely on the basis of a civil immigration detainer. The law also prohibits sharing personal information with immigration authorities from probation contacts, and requires officers to advise individuals before an immigration interview.
These protections have limits. They apply to state and local law enforcement. They do not apply to ICE itself, which is a federal agency that can operate independently of local cooperation. A civil immigration detainer from ICE does not give local police authority to hold someone, but ICE agents can and do make arrests independently. The protections in HB19-1124 narrow the circumstances under which a person can be delivered to ICE by local law enforcement. They do not prevent ICE from operating in Colorado.
The DOJ filed a federal lawsuit challenging several of Colorado’s immigrant protection laws, including HB19-1124 and HB23-1100. On March 31, 2026, a federal district court judge dismissed that lawsuit in its entirety, ruling that the Tenth Amendment protects Colorado’s right to decline to expend its own state resources to enforce federal civil immigration schemes. Colorado’s core immigrant protection statutes are currently enforceable and have survived federal constitutional challenge.
State law continues to evolve to protect these boundaries. In June 2026, Colorado enacted HB26-1276, which increases state oversight of civil immigration detention facilities and formalizes strict data privacy guardrails across local jurisdictions.
Immigration Status and Your Right to Participate in Family Court
One of the most important legal principles for undocumented or mixed-status families to understand: immigration status does not determine your right to participate in Colorado family court proceedings.
Courts have consistently held that immigration status does not preclude an individual from establishing domicile or residency for purposes of maintaining an action in family court. Colorado’s divorce statute at C.R.S. § 14-10-107 requires that one party have been domiciled in Colorado for at least 91 days before filing. Domicile is determined by physical presence and intent, not immigration status.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long established that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to all persons within the United States, regardless of immigration status, guaranteeing them access to the state court system. An undocumented parent cannot be denied access to the court system or denied a hearing on custody simply because of their immigration status.
Colorado family courts also cannot report a party’s immigration status to ICE or refer undocumented litigants to federal immigration authorities. The courthouse itself is not an enforcement location under Colorado’s protective framework, and ICE has historically treated courthouses as sensitive locations where enforcement is limited.
Immigration Status and Child Custody
Under C.R.S. § 14-10-124, all custody decisions in Colorado are governed by the best interests of the child standard. The statute lists specific factors the court must consider. Immigration status is not among them, and it cannot be the sole basis for denying custody to a parent.
Courts have repeatedly held that denying custody based solely on a parent’s undocumented status would violate due process and equal protection. Immigration status may, however, be raised by the other parent as a factor in the best interests analysis, particularly when it creates practical concerns about the child’s stability and continuity. A pending deportation proceeding or a history of prior removal orders, for example, creates a legitimate question about whether the parent can maintain consistent parenting time. Courts weigh that question against the child’s interest in maintaining a relationship with both parents.
What this means practically: a parent with uncertain immigration status is not disqualified from custody, but that uncertainty may affect how parenting time is structured and what contingency provisions are built into the parenting plan. A well-drafted parenting plan for a mixed-status family addresses what happens to parenting time if one parent is detained, what happens if one parent is removed to another country, who has decision-making authority in the interim, and how contact between the child and the removed parent is maintained.
Building those provisions into the order proactively is far better than litigating them in an emergency after a detention or removal occurs.
If a Parent Is Detained or Deported
When a parent is detained by ICE, the parenting plan does not automatically suspend. The other parent does not automatically receive sole decision-making authority or expanded parenting time simply because detention occurred. The existing order remains in effect until a court modifies it.
A parent who is detained and unable to exercise parenting time may need to designate a trusted family member or other adult to exercise that time on their behalf in the short term, depending on how the parenting plan is written. If the parenting plan does not address this contingency, a motion to the court may be necessary.
Deportation creates more complex issues. A removed parent does not automatically lose parental rights under Colorado law. Parental rights can only be terminated through a formal legal process under C.R.S. § 19-3-604, which requires specific findings including abandonment, abuse, neglect, or other statutory grounds. Deportation alone is not grounds for termination of parental rights. Courts have been explicit on this point.
However, removal does create a practical reality that the court must address: a parent who is physically outside the United States cannot exercise in-person parenting time, and the court must determine how to maintain the parent-child relationship under those circumstances, what role the removed parent will play in major decisions, and whether and how the child might travel internationally for visits.
The I-864 Affidavit of Support
When a U.S. citizen sponsors an immigrant spouse for a green card, they are typically required to sign Form I-864, the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA. This form is not just immigration paperwork. It is a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor and the federal government that can be enforced by the sponsored immigrant in state or federal court.
Under the I-864, the sponsor agrees to maintain the immigrant spouse at 125% of the federal poverty level. This obligation continues regardless of divorce. A citizen spouse who believes that divorce or deportation eliminates their financial obligations to an immigrant spouse may be in for a significant surprise. Federal courts have held that the I-864 obligation survives divorce and can be enforced as a contract claim separate from any maintenance or alimony awarded under state law.
Under C.R.S. § 14-10-114, Colorado’s maintenance statute, the court considers each party’s financial resources and earning capacity in determining maintenance. The I-864 obligation may be relevant to that analysis and to the overall financial picture the court weighs when dividing assets and awarding support.
VAWA Protections for Immigrant Domestic Violence Survivors
The Violence Against Women Act provides specific immigration protections for immigrants who are survivors of domestic violence. Under VAWA, an immigrant who has been abused by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or adult child can file a self-petition for immigration status without the abuser’s knowledge, consent, or cooperation. VAWA applies regardless of the survivor’s gender and applies to undocumented survivors as well as those with lawful status.
A citizen or LPR spouse who threatens an immigrant partner with deportation as a means of coercion or control is engaging in a form of abuse that VAWA specifically recognizes. Under VAWA’s definition, abuse does not require physical violence. It includes mental cruelty, threats, controlling behaviors, and threats to use immigration status against the victim.
For a mixed-status family in El Paso County where domestic violence is present, the intersection of the criminal case, the civil protection order proceeding, and the immigration consequences requires careful coordination. A citizen spouse who threatens or carries out a report to ICE in retaliation for a domestic violence allegation or during contested divorce and custody proceedings may face legal consequences of their own.
The VAWA self-petition process is handled through USCIS and requires an immigration attorney. The family court aspects, the divorce, the protection order, and the custody, are where Boal Law Firm can assist.
Using Immigration Status as a Weapon in Custody Litigation
Colorado family courts are alert to the tactic of using a partner’s immigration status as leverage in custody and divorce proceedings. Threatening to report an immigrant spouse or co-parent to ICE, or actually doing so, in the context of contested custody litigation is a form of coercive conduct that courts and prosecutors take seriously.
At the family court level, a parent who engages in this conduct is signaling to the court that they are willing to use the threat of separating the child from their other parent as a strategic tool. That is precisely the kind of conduct C.R.S. § 14-10-124 weighs against a parent in the best interests analysis, specifically the factor addressing each party’s willingness to encourage a relationship between the child and the other parent.
At the criminal level, depending on the circumstances and the manner in which the threat is made, this conduct could implicate witness intimidation, extortion, or other criminal statutes. Anyone who has been threatened in this way during a custody or divorce proceeding should document the threat and discuss the options with their attorney.
Practical Steps for Mixed-Status Families
The current enforcement environment in El Paso County makes advance planning more important than reactive crisis management. For mixed-status families navigating divorce and custody, the most useful steps are:
Getting a comprehensive parenting plan in place that addresses detention, removal, and international contact contingencies before they become emergencies. Documenting all parenting time, communications, and involvement with the child consistently, since that record is the foundation of any custody argument. Understanding what the I-864 obligation means for both parties before any divorce settlement is signed. Consulting an immigration attorney in parallel with family law proceedings — the two sets of issues are related, and decisions made in the family court case can have immigration consequences that are not obvious to a family law attorney alone.
Colorado family courts have broad authority to protect parenting rights regardless of immigration status. Whether that authority is used effectively depends on how the case is prepared and presented.
At Boal Law Firm, PC, we represent clients in divorce and custody proceedings in El Paso County, including cases involving mixed-status families and the intersection of immigration enforcement and parenting rights. Call (719) 203-6339 to schedule a consultation.