Relating to required findings for the issuance of a protective order.
Summary
HB 2288 revises the Family Code and related criminal procedure provisions governing when Texas courts must or may issue protective orders. The bill clarifies the required judicial findings for a protective order in family-violence cases by expressly requiring a court to find both that family violence has occurred and that it is likely to occur in the future. It also updates the statutory presumption of future family violence in certain cases involving a respondent with prior convictions or deferred adjudication for offenses against a child, termination of parental rights, and efforts to seek contact with the child.
The bill further amends several protective-order provisions to align them with this findings framework, including rules for protective orders after violations of expired orders, longer-duration protective orders, and protective orders issued under criminal procedure articles involving stalking and bias-motivated offenses. It also specifies that the new law applies only to protective orders rendered on or after September 1, 2025, leaving earlier orders governed by prior law.
Impact
HB 2288 would change the legal standards Texas courts use when issuing protective orders, primarily by tightening and clarifying the findings that must be made before an order is entered. It affects Title 4 of the Family Code, provisions on presumptions of future family violence, and related articles in the Code of Criminal Procedure for certain criminal cases where protective orders may be issued based on probable cause and future-risk findings. The bill would directly affect courts, applicants for protective orders, respondents, and children or family members protected by those orders.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was treated as a technical or clarifying measure rather than a highly controversial policy change. There are no recorded committee transcript snippets or vote details indicating strong opposition or debate in the provided materials, and the bill advanced to the House General State Calendar. Overall, the sentiment appears neutral to supportive, with the focus on aligning statutory language and court findings across related protective-order provisions.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s adjustment of the evidentiary and legal thresholds for protective orders, especially the explicit requirement that courts find future risk and the expanded presumption in cases involving prior offenses against a child, terminated parental rights, and attempts to contact the child. Another area that could draw attention is the bill’s application to protective orders tied to criminal conduct, including stalking and bias-motivated offenses, because it links civil protective-order relief to criminal probable-cause findings. No specific opposing viewpoints are documented in the provided record, but these are the provisions most likely to raise questions about scope and due process.