BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.S.B. 1559

By: Zaffirini

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The bill sponsor has informed the committee that the Family Code does not currently require a court that renders a protective order to transfer the order to a court exercising jurisdiction in a subsequent suit involving the parties who are the subject of the existing protective order proceeding. The bill sponsor has informed the committee that this can create the possibility of conflict between the terms of a protective order and the terms of an order rendered in connection with a subsequent suit while also potentially tying the hands of the judge in the latter case because the judge has no authority to modify a protective order that was rendered in another court. C.S.S.B. 1559 seeks to resolve this conflict by requiring the mandatory transfer of a previous existing protective order to the court exercising jurisdiction over a divorce or suit affecting the parent-child relationship that is filed after the rendition of the protective order if the court finds that the transfer will not negatively impact the safety of any person protected by the order. The bill also includes provisions that provide for a protective order to prevail over certain other orders when there is a conflict, sets out a statement that must be included in a protective order regarding the prevailing nature of the order, and revises provisions relating to the process for the transfer of a protective order.

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

C.S.S.B. 1559 amends the Family Code to set out provisions relating to conflicts between a family violence protective order and certain other orders and to the transfer of such a protective order.

Conflict With Other Orders

C.S.S.B. 1559 establishes that, during the time in which a protective order, including a temporary ex parte order, is valid and subject to transfer, the order prevails over any other order rendered in a suit for dissolution of a marriage or a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to the extent of any conflict between the orders. The bill accordingly repeals an existing statutory provision providing for a temporary ex parte order to prevail over any other court order made under statutory provisions relating to the parent-child relationship to the extent of any conflict between the orders.

C.S.S.B. 1559 requires a protective order to contain a prominently displayed statement relating to the prevailing nature of the order in boldfaced type, capital letters, or underlined, with language prescribed by the bill. These provisions apply only to a protective order issued on or after the bill's effective date.

Transfers

C.S.S.B. 1559 replaces authorizations for a court that renders a protective order to transfer the order to another court as follows on the motion of a party or on the court's own motion with requirements for the court to do so:

· if the order was rendered before the filing of a suit for dissolution of marriage or suit affecting the parent-child relationship or while the suit is pending, to the court having jurisdiction of the suit; or

· if the order affects a party's right to possession of or access to a child and is rendered after the date a final order was rendered in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, to the court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

Additionally, the bill removes and repeals provisions making such a transfer contingent on the court finding that the transfer is in the interest of justice or for the safety or convenience of a party or a witness and instead makes the transfer contingent on the court finding that the transfer will not negatively impact the safety of any person protected by the order.

C.S.S.B. 1559 requires a motion to transfer a protective order to be filed with a signed certificate of service on all parties and requires a party desiring to contest the motion to file a response not later than the first Monday after the 20th day after the date the motion is served on the party. The bill requires the response to include a controverting affidavit stating that the transfer would negatively impact the safety of a person protected by the order. If a response to a motion to transfer a protective order is filed, notice of the hearing on the motion to transfer the protective order must be served on all parties not later than the 10th day before the date of the hearing.

C.S.S.B. 1559 requires the court, before rendering an order transferring a protective order, to provide each person protected by the protective order the opportunity to submit a statement to the court regarding the impact of a potential transfer on the person's safety. The bill requires the court to consider the statement when determining whether to order a transfer. The statement may be a separate document or combined with the motion to transfer or a response to the motion to transfer. The bill requires the statement to be filed as follows:

· concurrently with or before the filing of the motion to transfer, if the person protected by the protective order is the person filing the motion to transfer; or

· concurrently with or before the filing of a response to the motion to transfer, if the person protected by the protective order is not the person filing the motion to transfer.

The bill requires an order transferring a protective order to include a finding that the transfer will not negatively affect the safety of any person protected by the order.

The provisions of C.S.S.B. 1559 relating to transferring a protective order apply only to a motion to transfer a protective order that is made on or after the bill's effective date. A motion made before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the motion was filed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.

Repealed Provisions

C.S.S.B. 1559 repeals Section 83.005 and Section 85.064(c), Family Code.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF SENATE ENGROSSED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.S.B. 1559 may differ from the engrossed in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the engrossed and committee substitute versions of the bill.

The substitute includes provisions absent from the engrossed that do the following:

· establish that, during the time in which a protective order, including a temporary ex parte order, is valid and subject to transfer, the order prevails over any other order rendered in a suit for dissolution of a marriage or a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to the extent of any conflict between the orders;

· repeal a statutory provision providing for a temporary ex parte order to prevail over any other court order made under statutory provisions relating to the parent-child relationship to the extent of any conflict between the orders;

· require a protective order to contain a specified statement regarding the prevailing nature of the order; and

· provide for the prospective applicability of these provisions.

Both the engrossed and the substitute remove and repeal provisions making the transfer of a protective order to another court under certain circumstances contingent on the court finding that the transfer is in the interest of justice or for the safety or convenience of a party or a witness. However, the substitute makes the transfer contingent on the court finding that the transfer will not negatively impact the safety of any person protected by the order, whereas the engrossed did not.

The substitute includes provisions absent from the engrossed relating to transfers that do the following:

· require a motion to transfer a protective order to be filed with a signed certificate of service on all parties;

· set out a deadline for the filing of a response by a party desiring to contest the motion and a requirement for the response to include a controverting affidavit stating that the transfer would negatively impact the safety of a person protected by the order;

· require notice of the hearing on the motion to transfer to be served on all parties by a specified deadline if a response to the motion is filed;

· require the court, before rendering an order transferring the protective order, to provide each person protected by the protective order the opportunity to submit a statement to the court regarding the impact of a potential transfer on the person's safety;

· require the court to consider such a statement when determining whether to order a transfer;

· prescribe the time at which such a statement must be filed; and

· require an order transferring a protective order to include a finding that the transfer will not negatively affect the safety of any person protected by the order.

Both the engrossed and the substitute establish that the bill's provisions relating to the transfer of a protective order apply only to a motion to transfer the order that is made on or after the bill's effective date and provide for the corresponding continuation of former law. However, the engrossed specified that a motion made before the bill's effective date is governed by the law in effect on the date the motion was made, whereas the substitute specifies that such a motion is governed by the law in effect on the date the motion was filed.