2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB3181
HB3181 makes compensatory parenting time the general rule when court-ordered possession of or access to a child is denied, unless a party shows good cause not to order it.
Official caption: Relating to the enforcement of a court order for possession of or access to a child and related order modifications.
Official report lists House author(s): Dutton. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB3181 makes compensatory parenting time the general rule when court-ordered possession of or access to a child is denied, unless a party shows good cause not to order it.
- Ordinary make-up time remains the same type and duration as the denied time and must occur within two years after the court finds the denial.
- The governor signed June 20, 2025; the act took effect September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
HB3181 makes compensatory parenting time the general rule when court-ordered possession of or access to a child is denied, unless a party shows good cause not to order it. Previously, that mandatory-with-good-cause-exception approach applied specifically to denials resulting from a DFPS investigation that found no abuse or neglect; the general rule otherwise allowed, rather than required, make-up time. Final law.
Ordinary make-up time remains the same type and duration as the denied time and must occur within two years after the court finds the denial. But if the person denying access has at least three prior contempt findings for denying court-ordered time with the same child, the additional time the court orders must total twice the time denied. These are court findings, not simply a count of missed visits or accusations.
The act adds three other consequences for repeated violations:
- A current contempt finding plus at least three prior contempt findings for violating possession or access orders concerning the child establishes a material and substantial change in circumstances sufficient to justify modifying the existing conservatorship or access order. This supplies a modification ground; it does not automatically transfer custody or eliminate the best-interest requirement. Modification framework.
- With a current contempt finding for disobeying a possession or access order and at least three prior findings of that kind, the court cannot use the provision allowing community supervision and suspended commitment. The act does not itself specify a mandatory number of jail days.
- The court cannot waive otherwise-required attorney’s fees and costs when the respondent has at least three prior contempt findings for denying court-ordered time with the child in the case. The existing fee provision still governs what is awarded; the act does not promise reimbursement of any amount a party demands.
The governor signed June 20, 2025; the act took effect September 1, 2025. The modification, community-supervision and make-up-time changes apply to the specified suits already pending in trial court on that date and suits filed afterward. The fee-waiver change applies to enforcement orders rendered on or after that date; earlier enforcement orders remain under former law. Official history.
What changed along the way?
The filed bill, retained in the House committee report, triggered the repeat-violation consequences after a prior contempt finding and expressly included justification for a temporary order. Dutton’s adopted House amendment changed each of the four repeat-violation thresholds to at least three prior findings and deleted the words authorizing “a temporary order and” in the new modification ground. Those are the rules carried into enrollment, not the broader filed proposal. The House-passed, Senate-reported and final texts agree substantively. Amendment index; all versions.
The act also repeals the old separate DFPS-investigation make-up-time subsection and its companion no-cause-of-action/no-immunity-waiver subsection, replacing the specific make-up-time rule with the broader one. It does not expressly create a damages claim against DFPS. Separate temporary-order standards remain in the Family Code; deleting the proposal’s temporary-order language should not be read as automatic emergency custody authority.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Children and people denied court-ordered contact may benefit from more reliable enforcement and compensatory time. Repeated violators face greater time, legal-cost and contempt consequences. Courts must still determine the relevant facts, prior findings and applicable exceptions; the statute is not a license for either parent to change an order unilaterally.
The May 16 fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local-government fiscal impact, assuming implementation costs can be absorbed with existing resources. It does not estimate private attorney’s fees, family burdens or the outcome of individual cases. No appropriation is made.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.