Relating to the confidentiality of certain personal information of an applicant for or a person protected by a protective order.
ModeratePlan for compliance
Low Cost
Effective:2025-06-20
Enforcing Agencies
Texas Courts (Family Law) • County and District Court Clerks
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date:June 20, 2025 (Note: Legislative data indicates a supermajority vote, triggering immediate effect and overriding the standard September 1 date).
Compliance Deadline:June 20, 2025. The law applies immediately to all protective order applications *pending* on this date and all filed thereafter.
Agency Rulemaking: No formal agency rulemaking is required. Implementation relies on County and District Court Clerks updating their filing processes immediately.
Immediate Action Plan
1.Issue HR Directive (By June 15): Instruct HR staff that incoming Protective Orders may lack address data; verify they have a secure method to obtain necessary payroll data from the employee directly.
2.Update Security Protocols: Mandate that Security teams cross-reference Protective Orders with internal Criminal Trespass Warnings to ensure the respondent is legally barred from the specific physical premises.
3.Audit Service Policy: Explicitly prohibit employees from designating the company's front desk as their proxy for receiving court notices related to family violence cases.
4.Check Pending Cases: Identify any employees currently going through the protective order process; advise them that if their order is pending on June 20, the mandatory confidentiality rules will apply.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
Third-Party Data Processors: Review agreements with payroll providers and benefits administrators. Ensure they are contractually obligated to suppress the home and work addresses of flagged employees to prevent accidental disclosure in routine mailings or directory updates.
Hiring/Training
Front Desk & Reception Protocol: Train front-line staff to refuse to act as the designated proxy for service of process for employees. Under HB793, the applicant must designate a person to receive court notices; accepting this role creates unnecessary liability and physical security risks for your reception staff.
Security Enforcement: Security personnel must be trained to enforce workplace bans based on internal "Criminal Trespass" authority rather than relying solely on the face of the Protective Order, as the specific workplace address may now be legally redacted from the court document.
Reporting & Record-Keeping
Data Segregation: HR must establish a "segregated file" protocol. While the court order will be sanitized of contact info, you still need the employee's address for tax and payroll purposes. This data must be isolated from general employee directories to mirror the court's confidentiality mandate.
Subpoena Response: Legal departments must update intake checklists. If you receive a subpoena for an employee's file in a related civil matter, you must ensure you do not inadvertently produce data that the court has ordered confidential.
Fees & Costs
No Direct Fees: There are no new government fees associated with this bill.
Operational Costs: Minimal costs associated with updating HR privacy policies and internal security databases.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
Enforcement vs. Redaction: The law allows the court to exclude the "address of the place of employment" from the order served to the respondent (the abuser). This creates a legal gray zone: How can a respondent be criminally charged for violating a distance restriction if the address is not listed in the order?
*Business Risk:* A respondent may claim lack of notice regarding the specific prohibited location.
*Mitigation:* Businesses cannot rely solely on the Protective Order. You must issue a separate, private Criminal Trespass Warning (CTW) to the respondent (if safe/feasible) that explicitly lists the banned property address to ensure enforceability.
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.
In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed S.B. 578, which addressed some of the need for privacy for survivors during the protective order process. Current law now authorizes, but does not require, a court to keep confidential the mailing address and county of residence of an applicant for a protective order on request of the applicant. However, the bill author has informed the committee that because the requested confidentiality is not mandatory, applicants who are fleeing family violence may be hesitant to seek protection from the court. H.B. 793 seeks to address this issue by removing a court's ability to reject an applicant's request for confidentiality during the protective order process, requiring the court to inform each person of their right to have information kept confidential on request, outlining the duties of the clerk to maintain a confidential record, and specifying the applicant's responsibilities.
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. 793 amends the Family Code regarding the confidentiality of certain personal information of an applicant for or a person protected by a protective order as follows:
·with respect to an application for a protective order, the bill replaces the authorization in current law for a court, on the applicant's request, to render an order prohibiting the release of the applicant's mailing address and county of residence to the respondent with a requirement for the court to render such an order; and
·with respect to the information that, under current law, may be excluded from a protective order on request by a person protected by the order or a member of the family or household of a person protected by an order:
othe bill replaces the authorization for the court to exclude the information with a requirement for the court to exclude the information and further specifies that the member of the family or household who may make such a request is an adult member of the family or household; and
othe bill requires a court, in the hearing on a protective order application, to inform each protected person or adult member of the family or household of such person who is present at the hearing of the protected person's right, on request, to have the information excluded from the protective order and specifically ask the person if they wish the court to exclude that information from the protective order.
The bill does the following with respect to the authorization in current law for a person protected by a protective order to file a notification of change of address or telephone number with the court that rendered the order to modify the information contained in the order:
·requires the court, on the request of a person protected by a protective order, to keep confidential the changed address or telephone number in the filed notification and requires the court, on granting the request for confidentiality, to order the clerk to maintain a confidential record and exclude from the notification the information used only by the court or a law enforcement agency for purposes of entering the information required by state law into the statewide law enforcement information system maintained by the Department of Public Safety; and
·requires an applicant, if the applicant seeks to keep their mailing address confidential, to disclose the applicant's mailing address and county of residence to the court; designate a person to receive on behalf of the applicant any notice or documents filed with the court related to the order; and disclose the designated person's mailing address to the court.
H.B. 793 applies to an application for a protective order that is pending on or filed on or after the bill's effective date or a notification of change of address or telephone number that is filed on or after the bill's effective date.
Honorable Jeff Leach, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence
FROM:
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
HB793 by Thompson (Relating to the confidentiality of certain personal information of an applicant for or a person protected by a protective order.), As Introduced
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
It is assumed that any costs associated with the bill could be absorbed using existing resources.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source Agencies:
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council
LBB Staff:
JMc, KDw, NTh
Related Legislation
Explore more bills from this author and on related topics
HB793 removes judicial discretion and mandates that Texas courts must redact the residence, telephone number, and place of employment from protective orders upon request. This legislation directly impacts Human Resources and Corporate Security protocols, requiring employers to maintain stricter internal confidentiality regarding employees protected by these orders while complicating the enforcement of workplace "stay-away" directives. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: June 20, 2025 (Note: Legislative data indicates a supermajority vote, triggering immediate effect and overriding the standard September 1 date).
Q
Who authored HB793?
HB793 was authored by Texas Representative Senfronia Thompson during the Regular Session.
Q
When was HB793 signed into law?
HB793 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce HB793?
HB793 is enforced by Texas Courts (Family Law) and County and District Court Clerks.
Q
How urgent is compliance with HB793?
The compliance urgency for HB793 is rated as "moderate". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of HB793?
The cost impact of HB793 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does HB793 address?
HB793 addresses topics including family, family--family violence, protection of personal information, courts and courts--general.
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.
