Relating to access to, disclosure of, and notification of protective order registry information, judicial sanctions regarding improper disclosure of or misleading information, and a study on the registry.
HB 1571, known as Anthony’s Law, revises Texas law governing the protective order registry and related court filings in family law cases. The bill requires parties in a divorce proceeding to disclose whether a protective order or emergency protection order exists or is pending, and to certify that they reviewed the protective order registry. It also requires attachment of copies of relevant orders when available, and authorizes courts to sanction a party who fails to disclose a registry-listed order or knowingly misleads the court about such an order or application.
The bill expands and clarifies access to the protective order registry maintained by the Office of Court Administration. It allows certain officials and users, including courts, prosecutors, peace officers, and some attorneys and self-represented victims, to search and receive registry information through the website, while limiting attorney access to pending applications and confidential or sealed information. It also creates a new notification mechanism so that when a person subject to a protective order appears in another county for a civil violation or criminal offense, the issuing court is notified of the violation, the receiving court, the prosecutor, and the investigating officer.
HB 1571 further directs the Office of Court Administration to study whether these registry changes can be implemented securely without compromising system integrity or unauthorized access, and whether the registry could be expanded to share information with national or other state databases. The office must report its findings and recommendations to state leadership and legislative committees by September 1, 2026, and the study section expires January 1, 2027. The act takes effect September 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact is primarily on the Family Code and Government Code provisions governing protective orders, registry access, and court procedures in divorce and enforcement matters. It would increase disclosure obligations for litigants, broaden controlled access to registry information for justice-system actors, and add sanctions for nondisclosure or misrepresentation. It also places an administrative burden on the Office of Court Administration to support new access and notification functions and to evaluate technical and security implications.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a public-safety and court-administration measure, with its title and structure suggesting concern for protecting victims and improving enforcement of protective orders. No votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate divided sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the likely support centers on victim safety, better information-sharing, and stronger enforcement, while potential concerns would focus on privacy, confidentiality, and the security of expanding registry access.
HB 1571 amends the Family Code and Government Code to require greater disclosure of protective orders in divorce proceedings, authorize sanctions for nondisclosure or misleading statements, and expand controlled access and notification features within the protective order registry. It affects litigants in family law cases, courts, prosecutors, peace officers, victims representing themselves, and attorneys with limited registry access, while also imposing a study and reporting obligation on the Office of Court Administration.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears supportive and safety-oriented, with the measure presented as a way to improve protective order enforcement, court awareness, and victim protection. Because no committee transcript or vote record is included, there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the provided materials. The available text suggests a generally favorable posture toward the bill’s goals, tempered by an implicit need to ensure secure implementation and protect confidential information.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between broader access to protective order information and the privacy/security of sensitive records. Attorneys’ access is specifically limited for pending applications and confidential or sealed information, indicating concern about over-disclosure. Another likely issue is whether the registry can safely support expanded notifications and possible interoperability with national or other state databases without risking unauthorized access or system integrity, which is why the bill requires a formal study by the Office of Court Administration.