Child Custody

Texas Implements “Three Strikes Rule” for Refusal to Follow Custody Orders

Published on: March 18, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

In Texas, court-ordered possession and access provisions are not advisory. They are binding orders, and repeated violations can carry significant legal consequences. A recent legislative change strengthens those consequences. House Bill 3181 creates a statutory “three strikes” framework that directly links repeated contempt findings for denying visitation to the potential loss of primary custody.

Enforcement of Possession and Access Orders

Texas courts possess broad authority to enforce possession and access provisions contained in divorce decrees and orders affecting the parent-child relationship. When a parent refuses to comply with an existing visitation order, the other parent should file a motion for enforcement, and the trial court may impose contempt sanctions, including fines, jail time, and attorney’s fees. Tex. Fam. Code § 157.001; Tex. Fam. Code § 157.166.

Expanded Standard Possession is Now the Default in Texas Custody Orders

Published on: March 10, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

The default schedule for standard possession in Texas has changed. Texas custody law generally uses the term “possession and access” rather than visitation. The Texas Family Code establishes standard possession schedules designed to promote frequent contact between children and both parents. Recent legislative changes have altered how those Texas visitation schedules operate in many cases.

The Standard Possession Order Framework

Texas courts frequently rely on the Standard Possession Order (SPO) when determining possession schedules in divorce and custody proceedings. Historically, the traditional SPO provided that the non-custodial parent exercised possession on the first, third, and fifth weekends of each month, along with certain holiday periods. Tex. Fam. Code §153.312

What Can You Appeal in Texas Custody Suits?

Published on: February 1, 2026 | by Francesca Blackard

In a recent Fourth Court of Appeals case, In the Interest of S.I.S.F., the court reviewed a final judgment regarding a geographic residence restriction in a conservatorship case. The trial court imposed a restriction limiting the child’s primary residence to Bexar County and contiguous counties. The mother appealed that restriction, claiming that a child’s domicile should follow that of the custodial parent. The appeals court affirmed, concluding the restriction was consistent with the Texas Family Code regarding the child’s best interests.

The case illustrates the narrow role appellate courts play in Texas family law cases. A party may appeal a final order in a Texas family law case, including conservatorship and possession orders, as in other civil cases. Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002.

Standard of Review in Texas Family Law Appeals

Texas Court Denies Relocation of Child to England

Published on: December 1, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

To modify a Texas custody order, the parent must show that the modification would be in the child’s best interest and that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances. Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101(a). The Texas Supreme Court set forth factors to be considered in relocation cases in Lenz v. Lenz. In a recent case, a mother appealed a court’s decision not to remove a geographic restriction to allow her to move with the child to live with her new husband in England.

Under the divorce decree, the mother had the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within El Paso County.

The mother started dating a goalkeeper coach for an English Premier League soccer team. She told the father she planned to move to England and he petitioned for modification to be named primary managing conservator with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. The mother filed a counter-petition seeking removal of the geographic restriction.

The mother testified she quit her job and her fiancé would support her and the child. She said she intended to move regardless of the court’s decision. She testified the child would have opportunities in Manchester, including private school, after-school programs, and exposure to other cultures. She acknowledged the child asked her father not to “sign off” on the papers for relocation because she did not want to move.

Texas Court Grants Custody Modification for Child to Spend More Time with New Stepsibling

Published on: November 17, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

A court can modify a Texas custody or visitation order if the modification would be in the child’s best interest and there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the prior order was rendered. Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101(a)(1)(A). Whether a material and substantial change in circumstances has occurred is a fact-specific question.

In a recent case, a father challenged the modification of his child’s custody.

The parties divorced when their child was seven years old. According to the appeals court, the divorce decree named both parents joint managing conservators with a “Week-On/ Week-Off” schedule. It imposed a geographic restriction limiting the child’s primary residence within a particular school district.

Texas Appeal Court Affirms Supervised Visitation and Divorce Based on Cruelty

Published on: October 1, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

A court may grant a Texas divorce based on cruel treatment of one spouse toward the other if it “renders further living together insupportable.” “Cruelty” has been defined in Texas case law as an act endangering or threatening “life, limb or health. . .including. . .any infliction of mental pain or anguish.” Daughtry v. Daughtry. A father recently challenged the decree granting a divorce on the ground of cruelty.

According to the appeals court, the parties married in Cameroon and moved to the U.S. The mother and older child moved to Washington, D.C. while the mother was pregnant with the younger child.

The father petitioned for divorce in December 2022. The mother argued D.C. should have jurisdiction as the children’s home state. The district court found Texas was the older child’s home state, but left the question of jurisdiction over the younger child to a D.C. court. The D.C. Court determined it had jurisdiction and awarded sole custody of the younger child to the mother.

Texas Supreme Court Says Courts Must Consider Child’s Expenses Along with Child Support in Spousal Support Analysis

Published on: June 30, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

The Texas Family Code sets out the circumstances under which Texas spousal maintenance may be ordered. The court may order maintenance to a spouse only if they will lack sufficient property after the divorce to provide for their minimum reasonable needs. The spouse must also meet one of three conditions, either: (A) being unable to earn sufficient income to meet their minimum reasonable needs because of an incapacitating disability; (B) having been married for at least 10 years and lacking the ability to earn sufficient income; or (C) being the custodian of a child of the marriage who has a disability and requires substantial care and supervision that prevents the spouse from earning sufficient income. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051. It is generally within the court’s discretion to determine a spouse’s “minimum reasonable needs.”

The Texas Supreme Court recently considered the nature of evidence required to support a spousal maintenance award.

The wife stopped working outside the home to become their primary caregiver to the parties’ triplets. One of them was a “medically fragile child” who needed extensive medical treatment.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Father’s Custody in International Custody Dispute

Published on: June 30, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

International marriages can lead to complex divorces, especially in regards to child custody. In a recent Texas divorce case, a mother appealed a decree that awarded the father the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence.

According to the appeals court, the parties married while the father was stationed in Germany with the U.S. Army. The child was born in Germany after the father was sent to San Antonio. A few months later, the mother and baby joined him in Texas.

The mother and child visited Germany. The father told the mother the marriage was over, and she decided to stay there. She did not bring the child back when he asked her to do so. He sued her for child abduction and went to Germany for Hague Convention proceedings. They ultimately reached an agreement and the mother and child returned to Texas.

Texas Not “Home State” of Child Whose Mother Moved to Illinois During Pregnancy

Published on: May 5, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Texas has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), which identifies what state has jurisdiction over custody matters. The UCCJEA generally prioritizes the child’s home state for jurisdiction. The child’s home state is where they have lived with a parent for the six months before the custody proceeding commenced, or if they are less than six months old, where they have lived with a parent since birth.

For a Texas court to have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination, Texas must be the child’s home state on the date the proceeding commenced or must have been the child’s home state within six months before the proceeding commenced if the child is absent from Texas but a parent or person acting as a parent still lives in Texas. Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(1). Texas may also have jurisdiction if another state court does not have jurisdiction or if child’s home state court declined jurisdiction because Texas was a more appropriate forum and the child and the parents, or the child and at least one parent or on person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with Texas and there is substantial evidence in Texas regarding the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(2). A Texas court may also have jurisdiction if all courts having jurisdiction on the grounds above have declined to exercise it because a Texas court is a more appropriate forum. Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(3). Furthermore, Texas may have jurisdiction when no other court or any state would have jurisdiction based on the above criteria. Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(4).

A mother recently challenged a Texas court’s jurisdiction over her child’s custody. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties separated while the mother was pregnant and she moved to Chicago before the child was born. The mother filed for divorce in Illinois and the father filed for divorce in Texas. The mother’s petition did not include an issue related to the custody of the unborn child, but the father’s petition did. The child was born in in Illinois after both petitions had been filed.

Texas Court Denies Modification to Prevent Mother’s Relocation with Children

Published on: April 7, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Courts may modify a Texas custody order if doing so is in the best interest of the children and there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances of the child or a conservator since the order was rendered. Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101. In determining the children’s best interest, courts consider the factors set forth in Holley v. Adams, but the court is not limited to those factors and all of the Holley factors may not apply in each case.

Courts may also place geographic restrictions on the child’s primary residence to ensure children are able to have frequent and continuing contact with their parents. To determine the children’s best interest when one parent wants to relocate, court consider a number of factors set forth in Lenz v. Lenz. A father recently appealed the denial of his modification petition seeking a more limited geographic restriction.

Modification Proceeding

The father petitioned for modification of the parent-child relationship to reduce the statewide geographic restriction to Midland County. Alternatively, he asked the court to modify the relationship as it deemed in the children’s best interest. He also asked for increased travel expenses because the mother had relocated. In her counterpetition, the mother sought to be named the sole managing conservator with the father being named possessory conservator with supervised visitation. They both alleged a material and substantial change in circumstances since the divorce decree was signed and entered.