Relating to the enforcement of a court order for possession of or access to a child and related order modifications.
LowStandard timeline
Low Cost
Effective:2025-06-20
Enforcing Agencies
Texas State District Courts • Texas Family Courts
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date:June 20, 2025 (Immediate effect due to supermajority vote).
Compliance Deadline:June 20, 2025. The law applies immediately to all suits *pending* on this date and all enforcement orders rendered on or after this date.
Agency Rulemaking: None. This statute is self-executing by the Texas District and Family Courts. There will be no regulatory grace period.
Immediate Action Plan
Audit "For Cause" Clauses: Revise executive and key personnel contracts to ensure incarceration for civil contempt is grounds for termination or suspension without pay.
Update Leave Policies: Establish a protocol for handling court-ordered parenting time that conflicts with work schedules. Determine if this falls under personal leave or a separate category.
Brief Payroll: Notify payroll teams that attorney's fee garnishments in family law cases are now mandatory for repeat offenders and cannot be waived by the court; expect strict enforcement.
Monitor Pending Litigation: If you are aware of key personnel currently involved in high-conflict custody modifications, advise them (or their counsel) that the rules of engagement change effective June 20, 2025.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
Executive Employment Agreements: Review "Termination for Cause" definitions immediately. Ensure that "incarceration" or "finding of contempt" constitutes "Cause." Under HB3181, a key executive found in contempt for a fourth time *must* serve jail time; you cannot rely on them receiving a suspended sentence or probation.
Morals Clauses: Clarify if a civil contempt finding regarding family law violations triggers a breach of morals clauses for public-facing representatives.
Hiring/Training
HR Training: Train HR staff to distinguish between standard PTO requests and court-ordered "make-up" possession. Under the new Sec. 157.168, employees may present court orders requiring them to take possession of a child for twice the duration of previously denied time. HR must understand the legal weight of these orders versus company blackout periods.
Absence Management: Update policies regarding "No Call/No Show" vs. "Incarceration." Since probation is now prohibited for repeat violators, expect full-term absenteeism for employees subject to these enforcement orders.
Reporting & Record-Keeping
Payroll Garnishments: Prepare for an uptick in wage withholding orders. Sec. 157.167 now prohibits judges from waiving attorney's fees and costs for repeat violators. These fees are mandatory and will likely be collected via turnover orders or garnishment.
Leave Documentation: Document the specific reason for leave requests. If an employee claims leave is for "court-ordered possession," request a copy of the order to verify the dates and duration align with the "double duration" mandate.
Fees & Costs
Administrative Burden: No direct fees to the state, but increased administrative costs in Payroll/HR for processing mandatory fee garnishments and managing complex leave scheduling.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
Scheduling of "Double Duration" Possession: The law mandates make-up time be "twice the duration" of the denied time but leaves the specific scheduling to the court's discretion (to be completed within two years). It is unclear if a court can order this time to be taken consecutively (e.g., two weeks straight) that conflicts with business-critical periods. Employers should be prepared to consult counsel if a court order directly interferes with business operations.
The "Look-Back" Period: The statute applies to individuals who have been found in contempt "three or more times." It does not specify a time limit for these prior findings. A contempt finding from five years ago likely counts toward the "four strikes," creating immediate exposure for employees with a history of litigation.
Need Help Understanding Implementation?
Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.
Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.
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.
HB3181 removes judicial discretion in high-conflict child custody enforcement, mandating incarceration (without probation) and financial penalties for individuals found in contempt of court for the fourth time. While this is a Family Code amendment, employers face immediate operational risks regarding sudden, mandatory employee incarceration, rigid court-ordered leave requirements ("double make-up time"), and increased payroll garnishments for mandatory attorney's fees. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: June 20, 2025 (Immediate effect due to supermajority vote).
Q
Who authored HB3181?
HB3181 was authored by Texas Representative Harold Dutton during the Regular Session.
Q
When was HB3181 signed into law?
HB3181 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce HB3181?
HB3181 is enforced by Texas State District Courts and Texas Family Courts.
Q
How urgent is compliance with HB3181?
The compliance urgency for HB3181 is rated as "low". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of HB3181?
The cost impact of HB3181 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does HB3181 address?
HB3181 addresses topics including family, family--parent & child and conservatorship.
Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025
Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?
Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.
