2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB793
HB793 makes several protective-order confidentiality measures mandatory when requested, rather than leaving them to the court's discretion.
Official caption: Relating to the confidentiality of certain personal information of an applicant for or a person protected by a protective order.
Official report lists House author(s): Thompson. 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.
- HB793 makes several protective-order confidentiality measures mandatory when requested, rather than leaving them to the court's discretion.
- At the application stage, a requesting applicant's mailing address and county of residence must be protected.
- For the protective order itself, a protected person—or an adult member of that person's family or household—may request exclusion of the protected person's address, county of residence and telephone number, or the address and phone number of the person's workplace/business or a protected child's school or child-care facility.
- When a protected person files a change-of-address or phone-number notification, the court must also keep the changed information confidential on request and exclude it from the notification.
- The law took effect September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
HB793 makes several protective-order confidentiality measures mandatory when requested, rather than leaving them to the court’s discretion. It also requires judges at protective-order application hearings to tell eligible people who are present about the right and specifically ask whether they want the information excluded. Confidentiality remains request-based; the bill does not automatically seal every protective-order file. Final law
At the application stage, a requesting applicant’s mailing address and county of residence must be protected. The applicant still supplies that information privately to the court, designates someone to receive case notices and documents, and supplies that person’s mailing address. The court must order the clerk to remove the protected details from public court records when applicable, retain a confidential court-use record and prohibit release to the respondent.
For the protective order itself, a protected person—or an adult member of that person’s family or household—may request exclusion of the protected person’s address, county of residence and telephone number, or the address and phone number of the person’s workplace/business or a protected child’s school or child-care facility. The court must honor the request. Existing record-handling law requires the clerk to remove the information from public records and keep a confidential record for court use or the specified law-enforcement-system purpose. Confidential record provision
When a protected person files a change-of-address or phone-number notification, the court must also keep the changed information confidential on request and exclude it from the notification. Someone seeking to protect their mailing address must privately provide the address and county to the court and designate a recipient for notices. This matters because the existing notification procedure otherwise sends a copy to the respondent and other entitled recipients. Change-notification procedure
The law took effect September 1, 2025. It applies to protective-order applications already pending on that date or filed afterward, and to address/phone-change notifications filed on or after that date. It does not require everyone with an older completed case to receive automatic retrospective redaction. Official history
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill, House committee report, engrossed version, Senate committee report and final law contain identical operative provisions. Both chambers advanced it without amendments; the official amendment index lists none, and there was no conference rewrite.
The substantive changes are the switches from “may” to “shall” for requested confidentiality, the new judicial advisement-and-question requirement, and protection of changed contact information in later notifications. The governor signed June 20 after House passage May 2 and Senate passage May 21.
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?
Applicants, protected people and their families may be safer when court paperwork does not reveal locations or contact details to the public or respondent. Requiring the judge to ask helps people who do not already know the confidentiality option exists. These safeguards reduce a disclosure risk; they do not guarantee safety or remove the information from every outside source.
Courts and clerks must identify requests, remove protected details from the relevant public documents and preserve permitted confidential access. Applicants seeking mailing-address protection must arrange a designated notice recipient so the case can continue without publicizing their address.
The latest fiscal note anticipated no significant state or local-government fiscal impact and assumed costs could be absorbed within existing resources. The act does not appropriate new money.
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.