Relating to the confidentiality of certain personal information of an applicant for or a person protected by a protective order.
HB 793 amends the Texas Family Code to make confidentiality protections for certain personal information in protective-order cases mandatory rather than discretionary. For applicants seeking protective orders, the bill requires courts, on request, to protect the applicant’s mailing address and county of residence by ordering the information disclosed only to the court, kept in a confidential record, and withheld from the respondent. It also requires the applicant to designate a person to receive notices and documents on the applicant’s behalf, and to provide that designee’s mailing address to the court.
The bill also expands and clarifies confidentiality protections for people already protected by a protective order. On request, courts must exclude from the protective order the protected person’s address, county of residence, and telephone number, as well as the address and telephone number of the protected person’s workplace, business, child-care facility, or school. In addition, the court must inform eligible people at the hearing of their right to request these exclusions and ask directly whether they want the information omitted. The bill further requires courts to keep confidential a changed address or telephone number included in post-order notifications, using the same confidential-record process.
HB 793 affects Sections 82.011, 85.007, and 87.004 of the Texas Family Code. The practical effect is to strengthen privacy protections for victims or applicants in family violence and protective-order proceedings by limiting public access to sensitive location and contact information. It also imposes procedural duties on courts and clerks to redact public records, maintain confidential records, and prevent disclosure to respondents.
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 134-0 on third reading and the Senate 31-0, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous legislative approval. The absence of committee transcript material or recorded debate suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward privacy and safety protection for people involved in protective-order cases.
The main point of policy significance is the shift from permissive to mandatory confidentiality language, which removes judicial discretion when a qualifying person requests protection. Any potential concern would likely center on administrative burden for courts and clerks or on balancing confidentiality with notice requirements, but no recorded opposition or controversy appears in the available materials.
HB 793 amends the Texas Family Code to require courts, upon request, to protect and exclude certain personal information in protective-order proceedings, including mailing addresses, counties of residence, telephone numbers, and location information for workplaces, schools, and child-care facilities. It changes existing law from discretionary to mandatory confidentiality in several places, requires courts to inform protected persons of these rights, and directs clerks to maintain confidential records and remove protected information from public filings. The bill applies to pending and future protective-order applications and to future address-change notifications, and it takes effect September 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment around HB 793 is strongly favorable. The bill passed both chambers with unanimous or near-unanimous votes, and the available record shows no committee testimony or floor debate indicating significant resistance. The legislative response suggests broad agreement that the measure improves privacy and safety for applicants and protected persons in protective-order cases.
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only likely area of concern is the operational impact on courts and clerks, who must now follow mandatory confidentiality procedures, redact public records, and maintain confidential records. Another possible issue is the balance between protecting sensitive information and ensuring proper notice in protective-order proceedings, but the bill addresses that by requiring applicants to designate a recipient for notices and documents. No organized opposition or named dissent appears in the voting history or committee materials provided.