BILL ANALYSIS

H.B. 3181

By: Dutton

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Unamended)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Under current law, a child's best interest is prioritized when determining access to and possession of a child, and the bill author has informed the committee that it is in the best interest of the child to have frequent and ongoing contact with both parents. The bill author has also informed the committee that a motion to enforce visitation typically occurs when one of the parents does any of the following:

· does not adhere or refuses to adhere to a court-ordered visitation schedule;

· fails to pick up or return the child as agreed, is consistently late, cancels visits without proper notice, or refuses to return the child on time;

· interferes with visitation by making negative comments about the other parent to the child, pressuring the child to refuse visitation, or creating a hostile environment during visits; or

· unjustly withholds visitation, even when there is no legitimate reason to do so.

H.B. 3181 seeks to address this issue by setting out provisions relating to the enforcement of a court order regarding the possession of or access to a child on finding that a conservator has on more than one occasion been in contempt for denying court-ordered possession.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

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.

ANALYSIS

H.B. 3181 amends the Family Code to establish that a finding by a court in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that a conservator is in contempt of court for the denial of court-ordered possession of or access to a child and has previously been found in contempt of court for failure to comply with the terms of such an order constitutes a material and substantial change of circumstances sufficient to justify a temporary order and modification of an existing order or portion of a decree that provides for the appointment of a conservator or that sets the terms and conditions of conservatorship or for the possession of or access to the child. This bill provision applies to a suit for modification that is pending in a trial court on the bill's effective date or that is filed on or after that date.

H.B. 3181 prohibits a court from placing a respondent in a motion for enforcement of an order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship on community supervision and suspending commitment if the court finds that the respondent is in contempt of court for failure or refusal to obey an order for possession of or access to a child and has previously been found in contempt of court for such an action. These bill provisions apply to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that is pending in a trial court on the bill's effective date or that is filed on or after that date.

H.B. 3181 prohibits a court from waiving the statutory requirement that a respondent in such an enforcement motion pay attorney's fees and costs under certain conditions if the court finds that the respondent has previously been found in contempt of court for the denial of court-ordered possession of or access to the child who is the subject of the proceeding. These bill provisions apply only to an enforcement order rendered on or after the bill's effective date. An enforcement order rendered before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the order was rendered, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

H.B. 3181 replaces the authorization for a court in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to order additional periods of possession of or access to a child to compensate for a denial of court-ordered possession or access with a requirement for the court to do so, unless a party shows good cause why the order should not be rendered. The bill repeals a provision that requires a court in such a suit to order additional periods of possession of or access to a child to compensate for a denial of court-ordered possession or access that resulted from an investigation by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) that did not result in a finding of abuse or neglect, unless a party shows good cause why the order should not be rendered, and provisions establishing that the repealed provision does not create a cause of action against DFPS or waive sovereign immunity to suit or liability. The bill requires additional periods of possession of or access to the child ordered by the court to be, in total, twice the duration of the periods of possession and access that were denied if the court finds that the person denying possession or access has previously been found in contempt of court for such an action with respect to the child who is the subject of the proceeding. These bill provisions apply to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that is pending in a trial court on the bill's effective date or that is filed on or after that date.

H.B. 3181 repeals Sections 157.168(a-1) and (c), Family Code.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.