The sponsors of a proposal that would require suppression of records in name-change petitions for minors removed a provision that would have mandated the courts to factor in the issue of “identity” when allocating parenting time.

In its original form, Senate Bill 018, included a requirement that family courts consider whether parents recognize their child’s identity “as it relates to a protected class” when determining parenting time decision-making responsibility.

The protected classes in Colorado include gender identity and gender expression.

A similar provision was amended out of last year’s House Bill 1312, which was ultimately signed into law. In that bill, the courts would have been required to consider “deadnaming” or “misgendering” as a form of “coercive control” in child custody cases. The final bill ultimately removed any mention of family courts following criticism from parents, as well as from several prominent LGBTQ organizations.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, one of the sponsors said it “pained” her and others to delete the provision dealing with child custody cases.

“It also pains us because an issue first uplifted by trans community members and activists giving voice to a serious flaw in our family court system also shed light on the way these issues impact countless other children, including children with disabilities, children with various religious backgrounds, and mixed race children,” Sen. Katie Wallace, D-Longmont, said. “And now none of those children will see relief.”

Critics, meanwhile, raised worries about parents losing custody of their child for refusing to acknowledge the child’s gender identity. It’s problematic, they said, when the courts’ consideration about parenting time allocation centers on disagreements over personal beliefs, rather than over the kid’s safety.

As introduced, the bill focuses on both name-change petitions and parenting time allocation.

Currently, civil court documents involving minors, such as delinquency cases and adoptions, are required to suppress the children’s names. However, because name-change petitions for minors must be filed by an adult, they don’t have the same requirements.

The bill would bring requirements for name change petitions in line with other civil court matters concerning children, said Erika Unger, an attorney with Bread and Roses Legal Center.

The bill in, its amended form, is “not much more than a technical fix,” Unger said, adding that minors may request name changes for a number of reasons besides gender transition, including birth certificate errors, the marriage or divorce of a parent, or wanting to add a religious or baptismal name.

“Gender affirming name changes are certainly reasons that minors may seek name changes, although they are the minority of changes that we saw in a review of records,” she said.

Both parents must be on board in order to file a petition to change a child’s name, Unger added. If parents with joint custody of a child disagree on whether to allow the name change, the matter is brought to custody court and a judge decides whether then name change is in the best interest of the child.

“There’s no way for a sort of stealth name-change to occur,” Unger said.

Elsie Fierro of One Colorado talked about a Colorado family with a transgender child whose name was legally changed. When the parents searched the name online, they saw their child’s “dead name,” birth date, and address, as well as their names, posted online as a public record.

A “dead name” means a transgender person’s birth name.

“That family spent months trying to remove it and protect their minor child in an increasingly hostile political climate,” Fierro said. “This is the reality some families are navigating. At One Colorado, we believe families deserve privacy, stability, and the freedom to support their child without fear.”

While the panel asked witnesses to only speak about the bill in its amended form, opponents expressed concerns about parents losing custody for refusing to acknowledge their child’s gender identity.

“This bill will cut a vulnerable child off from the parent or the parents they need most — those who do not unquestionably accept a child’s new identity,” said Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family.

Lori Gimelshteyn of the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network said she warned lawmakers that amending the language of a bill does not always change its intent.

“Today, that warning has proven accurate,” she said.

The amendment to the bill neither erases its intent nor restore opponents’ trust, Gimelshteyn said.

“Nor does it negate the fact that this governing body attempted another bait-and-switch,” she said.

“This is a massive violation of First Amendment constitutional precedent, protecting parental rights from state overreach,” added Brittany Vessely, executive director of the Colorado Catholic Conference. “We should be concerned whenever state policy is to remove children from their family — not for abuse or neglect — but because parents and children disagree about personally-held beliefs.”

The bill, also sponsored by Sen. Chris Kolker, D-Centennial, and Reps. Lorena Garcia, D-Adams County, and Rebekah Stewart, D-Lakewood, passed on a 5-2 party-line vote. Its next stop the Senate floor for a debate.