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.