BILL ANALYSIS H.B. 418 By: Goodman 03-24-95 Committee Report (Amended) BACKGROUND This legislation is a result of issues raised during the hearings of the Joint Interim Committee on the Family Code regarding needed revisions to Title 4 of the Family Code. Title 4 was enacted in 1979 to remedy the problem of family violence. Although generally the provisions in Title 4 are well written some problems exist in the application of Title 4 by the courts and in the enforcement of protective orders. PURPOSE This legislation clarifies: 1) the meaning of "consanguinity" or "affinity" as used in the definition of family; 2) which prosecuting attorney is responsible for filing applications for protective orders; under what circumstances a court may dismiss an application for protective orders; and the required notice which must be contained in a protective order. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency or institution. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends 71.01(b)(3), Family Code to clarify the definition of "family" by providing that the terms "consanguinity" and "affinity" have the meanings specified in Sections 573.022, Government Code, which provides that consanguinity means one of two persons is a descendant of the other or the two persons share a common ancestor and 573.024, Government Code, which provides that affinity means two individuals are married to each other or the spouse of one of the individuals is related by consanguinity to the other. SECTION 2. Section 71.04(c), Family Code, is amended to provide that the prosecuting attorney shall file an application for protective order under Chapter 71 and that the county shall designate whether the county attorney or district attorney is the prosecuting attorney for that purpose. This change further provides that if the county fails to designate a prosecuting attorney the district attorney is responsible for filing these applications and that all law enforcement entities must be notified that the district attorney has assumed this responsibility. SECTION 3. Amends Section 71.06, Family Code, to provide that a court may not dismiss an application for protective order solely because a suit for dissolution (divorce) has been filed. A court may dismiss the application if the court has rendered a temporary protective order as a result of an application for protective order filed with that court or the court has denied the application on its merits. SECTION 4. Section 71.16, Family Code, is amended to provide that the required notice which must be included in each protective order in bold-faced type or in capital letters must contain a statement that violation of the order is punishable by $4,000 fine or by confinement in jail for up to one year. These changes are required as a result of the Penal Code revisions enacted by the 73rd Legislature. SECTION 5. Repealer: Chapter 72, Family Code. This chapter is no longer needed as the violations listed in that chapter are either covered by the Penal Code or other statutes or the provisions are archaic and should be repealed. SECTION 6. Provides that the changes contained in the Act apply to a pending application for protective order regardless to whether the application is filed before, on, or after the effective date. SECTION 7. Effective date: September 1, 1995. SECTION 8. Emergency Clause. EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS Committee amendment #1 clarifies the meaning of a "temporary order". SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B. 418 was considered by the Committee in a public hearing on 22 March 1995. Representative Van de Putte offered Committee Amendment # 1 which was adopted without objection. The following persons testified in favor of the bill: Robert L. Green, Primary Nurturing Fathers of Texas and Texas Alliance of Fathers; Bree Buchanan, Legal Aid Society of Central Texas on behalf of individual clients. The bill was reported favorably as amended, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv and 3 nays.