Harris County Case Study
A documented timeline of how extrinsic fraud separates families
Last updated: August 26, 2026
Understanding What Happened
This case study documents a real SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) case in Harris County, Texas. The facts presented here come directly from public court records and official filings. They illustrate the systemic vulnerabilities that allow extrinsic fraud to occur.
The purpose of this documentation is not to make accusations, but to show how the current system enables abuse and why legislative reform is necessary to protect families.
Key Facts at a Glance
Texas 2023: Estimated Cost of Inaction
*Based on publicly available data and internal estimates. See methodology below.
Estimated Back-End Cost Per Fraudulent Case
When fraudulent default judgments are eventually discovered, the fallout can be expensive. These are estimated ranges based on typical attorney fees and court costs:
| Expense Category | Estimated Range |
|---|---|
| Bill of review proceedings | $7,500 – $50,000+ |
| Emergency motions and appeals | $15,000 – $50,000 |
| Judicial time and court resources | $3,000 – $8,000 |
| State Bar investigations | $5,000 – $15,000 |
| CPS involvement (if applicable) | $8,000 – $25,000 |
| Estimated total per case | $45,000 – $168,000+ |
*These are estimates based on typical Texas family law attorney fees. Actual costs vary by case.
Potential SAFE SAPCR Act Impact (Estimated)
*Projections based on internal analysis. Not independently verified.
Fiscal Methodology: Sources Behind Our Estimates
The estimates above are based on publicly available data from the following sources. These are projections, not verified statistics.
Case Volume: Texas Office of Court Administration
According to the Texas Office of Court Administration FY 2023 Annual Statistical Report, family law cases remain one of the largest categories in the Texas court system. While new family law filings fell 6% in 2023—the lowest since 1994—the volume remains substantial at over 200,000 cases annually in district courts alone.
Source: Texas Judicial Branch - Annual Statistical Reports
Constable Service Costs: Texas Comptroller Data
The Texas Comptroller's Sheriffs' and Constables' Fees Dashboard tracks service of process fees across all Texas counties. Current rates for citation service range from $70 to $100 depending on county:
- Travis County: $85 per citation (Travis County Constable Pct. 5)
- Bell County: $70 for standard service (Bell County Constables)
- Tarrant County: Comparable rates (Tarrant County Constables)
Note, 23 August 2026: a sentence here previously reconciled the $50 figure used in the legislative brief with the rates above by calling it “conservative, accounting for a weighted average across high-volume urban counties.” That does not hold: a weighted average of figures that are all $70 or more cannot be $50, and for a cost estimate “conservative” would mean erring high, not low. The two numbers may well be measuring different things — what a constable charges per service is not the same instrument as a filing fee that funds constable operations — but that basis has not been set out, so the claim has been removed rather than restated. The rates above are what the linked sources report.
Attorney Fees: Texas State Law Library
According to the Texas State Law Library and Texas Law Help, family law attorney fees in Texas typically range from $150 to $500 per hour, with retainers from $2,000 to $15,000+ depending on complexity.
A bill of review is an equitable proceeding to set aside a final judgment after the normal appeal period has expired. These complex post-judgment proceedings typically require:
- Initial retainer: $5,000–$15,000
- Discovery and depositions: $2,500–$10,000
- Trial preparation and hearing: $5,000–$25,000+
- Total range: $7,500–$50,000+
Source: LegalMatch - Family Lawyer Cost in Texas
DFPS/CPS Costs: State Budget Data
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) operates with a biennial budget of $4.8–$5.1 billion (DFPS Budget Reports). In FY2023, CPS completed 163,855 investigations with 268,734 alleged victims (DFPS Data Book).
When custody fraud triggers CPS involvement—whether through false allegations or welfare checks on children improperly removed—the costs include:
- Investigation staff time and resources
- Potential foster care placement costs
- Court-ordered services and monitoring
- Estimated per-case impact: $8,000–$25,000
State Bar Disciplinary Costs
The State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel processes thousands of grievances annually. In the 2021-2022 bar year, 7,175 ethics complaints were filed against Texas attorneys (Texas Lawyers' Insurance Exchange).
When fraudulent service leads to bar grievances, costs include:
- CDC investigation resources
- Respondent attorney's defense costs
- Potential disciplinary hearing expenses
- Estimated per-case impact: $5,000–$15,000
Source: State Bar of Texas - Disciplinary Process Overview
Court Filing Fees: Harris County District Clerk
Per the Harris County District Clerk Fee Schedule:
- New family suit filing: $350
- Motion for new trial: $80
- Motion to modify with children: $95
These fees compound rapidly when improper service forces families into years of corrective litigation.
The Constitutional Mandate
Under Texas Family Code Chapter 106, courts may award attorney's fees in family law proceedings. Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution guarantees due course of law before any citizen can be deprived of rights. "Due course" requires actual notice—not papers served to an address abandoned years ago.
"This isn't a new cost—it's insurance against existing liability. Prevention at $50 per case vs. remediation at $45,000+ per case. The math is simple."
Case References
- SAPCR Case: District Court, Harris County (2024)
- Concurrent Habeas Corpus Case: Harris County (filed 2023, DWOP'd June 4, 2024)
- Bill of Review: District Court (2025)
- Civil Action: District Court (2025)
Parties Involved (Per Public Records)
Petitioner's Attorney
An attorney in East Harris County filed the SAPCR petition and Certificate of Last Known Address.
Respondent
The parent who was personally served on April 6, 2024, wrote to petitioner's counsel six times requesting mediation and the served documents, but never received notice of the default hearing and learned of the judgment 14 months later.
The Court
Granted default judgment on August 20, 2024 based on the Certificate of Last Known Address without independent verification of service.
Timeline of Events (From Public Records)
Latest case update: The Bill of Review trial has been reset to October 19, 2026. An amended Bill of Review was filed, the ex parte emergency motion was withdrawn, and service by constable is proceeding. Read the current update →
This is the complete, date-by-date record drawn from public court filings in Harris County, Texas. It documents Willis v. Rendon Legal, PLLC and Laci Rendon (Cause No. 2025-95850, 189th District Court), a civil suit alleging that attorney Laci Rendon of Rendon Legal, PLLC filed a Certificate of Last Known Address that was incorrect — 104 days after the respondent had been personally served at a different address. The defendants deny the allegations. Statements below describe what the pleadings assert; they are not findings of a court.
The timeline also covers the separate Bill of Review (Cause No. 202592876, 311th District Court), which seeks to set aside the underlying default order. Entries sourced to the First Amended Bill of Review are one party's verified allegations: as of the July 20, 2026 filing, the opposing party had not yet been served in that proceeding and has therefore had no opportunity to answer them.
Laci Rendon Files SAPCR Petition
Attorney Laci Rendon of Rendon Legal, PLLC files a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) on behalf of Elizabeth Alvarado against the respondent father in the 311th District Court of Harris County, Texas (Cause No. 202417675). The petition was filed at 1:44 p.m. on March 19, 2024 in the 312th District Court and transferred to the 311th the following morning. It was supported by the March 19, 2024 affidavit of Elizabeth Alvarado, filed March 20, 2024, on which the application for a temporary restraining order rested; the clerk issued the restraining order and a notice setting a hearing for April 23, 2024 on March 21, 2024.
Personal Service in Baytown; Arrest and Property Withheld
The respondent traveled from New Orleans to Houston for a visit with his children. He was personally served with the SAPCR petition at a Baytown hotel at 6:15 p.m. on April 6, 2024, according to the process server’s sworn affidavit of service. He was arrested that night on an assault charge filed by Ms. Alvarado and booked the following day; the underlying police report records no visible marks or injuries. The pleadings in Cause No. 2025-95850 allege that the service documents were not returned with his other property, leaving him without a copy of the petition.
Why This Matters
Personal service establishes that the petitioner's side was able to locate the respondent at his actual location on this date. The pleadings rely on that fact when contesting the address certified 104 days later.
Executed Citation Filed April 15, 2024 — Contents Under Subpoena
The docket in Cause No. 202417675 reflects a restricted entry dated April 15, 2024, titled “Citation/Temporary Restraining Order (Executed).” The contents of that filing, including the return of service, are the subject of subpoenas duces tecum in the pending Bill of Review. The officer’s return form inside it is unexecuted; the proof of service is a process server’s sworn affidavit, which records personal service at a Baytown hotel and lists the documents delivered, among them the temporary restraining order and the order setting a hearing. The respondent’s position is that he was arrested the same day, that the served documents were not returned with his property, and that he was left without a copy of what he had been handed or knowledge of the cause number.
Six Emails Sent to or Copied to Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent wrote to petitioner's counsel at her firm address requesting copies of the service documents and a path to mediation. Four messages were addressed to her directly and two more copied her:
- April 28, 2024, 7:27 PM: Requested mediation and asked for “the papers I was served with at the hotel in Baytown”
- April 28, 2024, 7:37 PM: Supplement to the same thread
- April 29, 2024: Correspondence to the District Attorney’s office, copying counsel
- April 30, 2024: Follow-up — “yet to hear back”
- May 9, 2024: “3rd attempt requesting mediation,” including a contact phone number
- June 9, 2024: Further correspondence to the District Attorney’s office, copying counsel
The First Amended Bill of Review states that these emails referenced the only cause number the respondent knew at the time — the Habeas Corpus case — because he had no knowledge the SAPCR existed, and that counsel never disclosed it.
The pleadings in Cause No. 2025-95850 allege that none of the emails were answered, and no reply from counsel appears in the exported thread. The exhibits attached to those pleadings establish that respondent's contact information was in counsel's possession.
Petitioner Visits Respondent at Houston Hotel
Cash App and hotel records attached as exhibits to the Bill of Review document two visits by Elizabeth Alvarado to respondent at a hotel in Houston, Texas — 49 and 41 days before the Certificate of Last Known Address was filed. The pleadings rely on these records to allege that respondent's actual location was known to the petitioner.
Habeas Trial Setting — Citation Requested to New Orleans, Never Issued
Court records for Cause No. 202353496 show citation was requested to respondent’s actual New Orleans address and never issued. Two of those requests are in hand, filed December 27, 2023 and January 31, 2024, each directing service to that address “or anywhere found” and asking the District Clerk to issue. The court had the address too: the Scheduling Order signed March 21, 2024, which set this trial date, was addressed to respondent there. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution on June 4, 2024; the order recites that no party appeared for trial on the merits.
Why This Matters
A concurrent case in the same court had respondent’s out-of-state address on file — used by the petitioner’s side in its own service requests and by the court in its own scheduling order, four months before a different address was certified in the SAPCR. The pleadings cite this as evidence bearing on that certification.
Certificate of Last Known Address Filed Under Rule 239a
Laci Rendon signed and filed a Certificate of Last Known Address naming an address that both parties had abandoned in 2013 — eleven years before the SAPCR was filed. The address itself is omitted here; it is a residence now occupied by unrelated third parties.
The pleadings allege neither party had occupied it since 2013. The filing came 104 days after personal service in Baytown, after the six unanswered emails, and after the documented hotel visits. The plaintiff in Cause No. 2025-95850 alleges these facts demonstrate the certification was made with knowledge it was incorrect; the defendants deny the allegation. The claims were dismissed with prejudice at the pleadings stage on 19 March 2026, so no court has reached the merits of the dispute.
The Disputed Certification
Rule 239a requires the party taking a default judgment to certify the defendant's last known address. It imposes no duty to investigate and no verification requirement. This case is the SAFE SAPCR Act's central example of what that gap allows.
Default Judgment Entered Without Respondent's Appearance
Based on the filed Certificate of Last Known Address, the court authorized service by mail to the address listed. A default judgment was entered awarding sole managing conservatorship to the petitioner and restricting respondent to supervised visitation only. The pending Bill of Review (Cause No. 2025-92876) alleges that respondent received no actual notice of the proceeding before judgment.
Unsupervised Visits Continue While the Order Goes Undisclosed
The First Amended Bill of Review alleges that during this period — beginning the day the default judgment was signed — the petitioner brought the children to the respondent for visits that were unsupervised, contrary to the supervised-only restriction in the order she had just obtained, and without disclosing that the order existed.
Why This Matters
A Bill of Review requires the petitioner to show the default was unmixed with his own fault. Conduct inconsistent with the order, continuing for months while its existence went unmentioned, is offered as evidence that the respondent had no way of learning about the judgment through ordinary diligence.
All Visitation Ends
The pleading states that visits between the respondent and the children ceased on this date and have not resumed — a period now exceeding eighteen months, and one that began while the respondent still had no knowledge that a court order governed the arrangement.
Respondent Learns of the Default Order — 14 Months Later
Respondent learned of the default custody order for the first time when the petitioner sent him a photograph of the Final Order — more than 14 months after it was entered. The pleadings in Cause No. 2025-95850 allege that the order was not otherwise communicated to him during that time.
The First Amended Bill of Review adds that supervised visitation was first mentioned to him on this date, two weeks after the Harris County Domestic Relations Office closed the visitation file, and that the order then produced had been in the petitioner's possession for fourteen months.
Bill of Review Filed in the 311th District Court
A Bill of Review (Cause No. 202592876) was filed in the 311th District Court — the court that rendered the default judgment — seeking to set aside the August 20, 2024 Final Order in Cause No. 202417675. It was filed together with an Ex Parte Emergency Motion for Temporary Possession of Children. The court did not rule on that emergency motion, and it remained pending on the docket for more than six months.
Civil Suit Filed in the 189th District Court
A separate civil suit (Cause No. 2025-95850) was filed in the 189th District Court of Harris County against Rendon Legal, PLLC and Laci Rendon individually, asserting claims for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and filing a fraudulent court record under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 12.002. This is a different proceeding from the Bill of Review and is before a different court.
Settlement Offer Extended; No Response
Plaintiff extended a settlement offer seeking nominal relief and procedural corrections rather than money damages. The defendants did not respond, and instead retained Kerr Wilson, P.C. as defense counsel.
Law-Enforcement and Bar Referrals
A report was made to the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable's Office, and a perjury referral was submitted to the Harris County District Attorney's Office under Texas Penal Code § 37.02, directed at a sworn affidavit filed in Cause No. 202417675. Formal complaints were also filed with the State Bar of Texas, the Texas Real Estate Commission, and the Judicial Branch Certification Commission. Each of these was a complaint submitted by the plaintiff, not a finding by any agency.
Outcome
On March 20, 2026 the District Attorney's Intake Bureau responded that, based on the information and evidence in the report, “no charges will be filed or additional action taken by the District Attorney's Office.” No criminal charge has been filed against any person in connection with this matter, and no agency has made any finding of misconduct.
Defense Files Answer and Motion to Dismiss
Defense counsel filed an Answer and a pleadings-stage Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the alleged conduct is shielded by attorney immunity and the judicial proceedings privilege, and seeking $3,225 in attorney's fees against the plaintiff under Rule 91a.7. The Answer, in its affirmative defenses, pleads that plaintiff is “wholly responsible for his alleged damages.” The motion recites the docket gap regarding return of service, the unanswered emails and the statutory false-record claim under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 12.002 in its background section, but its argument does not engage them: it rests entirely on attorney immunity and the judicial proceedings privilege.
Plaintiff Files Response Opposing Dismissal
Plaintiff opposed the dismissal motion, arguing under Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015), that conduct alleged to be fraud on the court is "foreign to the duties of an attorney," that the judicial proceedings privilege has been held not to immunize alleged fraud on the court, and that the § 12.002 false-record claim is independently viable. The response cited the 103-day gap, the absence of a return of service in the SAPCR docket, and the three unanswered emails. (That filing dated personal service to April 7, 2024; the process server’s sworn return, filed April 15, 2024, records April 6 at 6:15 p.m., which makes the gap 104 days. The figure is reproduced here as it was filed.)
Defendants Set Motion for Submission — No Oral Hearing Requested
Defendants set the dismissal motion for submission on March 9, 2026. No oral hearing is requested, meaning the court is asked to rule on the papers alone — without argument, without questions, and without any opportunity for the Plaintiff to address the bench.
Court Issues Scheduling Order — Trial Set for 2027
The trial court issues a Scheduling and Docket Control Order setting the case for trial on February 2, 2027, with full deadlines for expert designation, mediation, discovery, and dispositive motions. On its face, the case is moving toward a merits trial.
Dismissal Motion Submitted Without Hearing
The pleadings-stage dismissal motion is submitted to the court on the papers. No oral hearing is conducted. No questions are asked of either side.
Trial Court Grants Dismissal With Prejudice
Twenty-eight days after setting the case for trial, the trial court signed the defense's proposed order dismissing all claims with prejudice and awarding $1,500.00 in attorney's fees against the plaintiff. The order contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law. The boilerplate reference to "the response, if any" is one issue raised in the pending Motion for New Trial.
Plaintiff Files Motion for New Trial
Plaintiff files a Motion for New Trial and Request for Oral Hearing with Videoconference Appearance, challenging the dismissal on three grounds: the statutory false-record claim was never addressed, the court improperly resolved disputed facts on a pleadings-stage motion, and immunity doctrines do not shield knowing fraud on the court.
Motion for New Trial Overruled by Operation of Law
The court did not rule on the Motion for New Trial. It was therefore overruled by operation of law under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b, seventy-five days after the judgment was signed. No hearing was held on the motion and no reasons were given.
The March 19, 2026 dismissal with prejudice stands. Across the whole of Cause No. 2025-95850, the claims were disposed of without an oral hearing, without findings of fact or conclusions of law, and without the case reaching a trial that had been set for February 2027.
Why This Matters
A motion overruled by operation of law is overruled because a deadline passed, not because a court weighed it and disagreed. The silence is the disposition. This is the second time in the same proceeding that a decision issued without explanation — the dismissal order itself contained no findings.
Letter Hand-Delivered to the 311th District Court
In the Bill of Review proceeding (Cause No. 202592876), plaintiff hand-delivered a formal letter to the court coordinator of the 311th District Court raising five procedural issues and making five corresponding requests — principally that the case had been misclassified as a conservatorship matter rather than a Bill of Review, that the pending ex parte motion be withdrawn, and that the trial setting be reset.
Amended Bill of Review Filed; Ex Parte Motion Withdrawn; Trial Reset to October 19, 2026
Three documents were filed together in Cause No. 202592876. The First Amended Bill of Review supersedes the original filed December 12, 2025 and becomes the operative pleading; it is verified and notarized, and it drops the request for ex parte relief. The Ex Parte Emergency Motion for Temporary Possession of Children — which had sat unruled on the docket since December 12, 2025 — was formally withdrawn. A Motion to Continue Trial Setting asked the court to reset the July 20, 2026 setting.
Withdrawing the ex parte motion removed the dependency that had held the case still for roughly six months, including holding back service. With it withdrawn, citation was requested under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 99 and 106, with service by constable under Rules 103 and 106(a)(1). The trial is now set for October 19, 2026.
Why This Matters
The Bill of Review is the proceeding that could set aside the August 20, 2024 default order itself. It is a separate case from the civil suit against counsel and is not affected by that suit's dismissal.
Case Status — August 2026
Bill of Review Set for Trial
Trial in the Bill of Review (Cause No. 2025-92876) set for October 19, 2026, in the 311th District Court.
Citation Served; Answer Filed
Citation was personally served on the respondent-in-review by Harris County Constable Precinct 1. An answer was filed August 11, 2026, entering a general denial and objecting to assignment of the trial to an associate judge — meaning the elected judge of the 311th District Court will preside.
Written Discovery and Subpoenas Issued
Written discovery (requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production) was served, and subpoenas duces tecum were issued for the complete court files and related records. Responses and productions are due in September 2026.
Scheduling Order and Notice of Intent to Dismiss
The court signed a scheduling order on July 20, 2026 setting trial for October 19, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The same order gives notice that the case may be dismissed for want of prosecution on the trial date if there is no citation, answer or waiver on file. Citation was served and an answer was filed on August 11, 2026.
Method of Service on the Discovery and Subpoenas
The discovery requests were served under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a by certified mail, signature required. Three subpoenas duces tecum were issued to custodians of records for the complete files of the two underlying causes. The contents of the discovery requests and the identities of the subpoena recipients are not published here.
The signed certificate of service is published, with the recipient's email address and street address removed: Certificate of Service, 24 August 2026 (PDF, redacted). It records service under Rule 21a by two methods — email, to the address the defendant stated in her own Original Answer, and certified mail, return receipt requested.
Underlying Court File Obtained and Under Review
The complete underlying court file in Cause No. 202417675 — including the executed return of service, the March 19, 2024 supporting affidavit, and the default-judgment record — has been obtained and is being reviewed line-by-line against contemporaneous financial records, correspondence, and court filings from both underlying causes. Certified copies of out-of-state records referenced in the 2024 filings have been requested.
Declaration of Intent — October 19, 2026
On October 19, 2026, I will stand before the 311th District Court and ask it to vacate the default judgment entered August 20, 2024. I will not ask the court to take my word for anything. Every fact I present will come from the court’s own files and from records the parties themselves created — the dockets of both underlying causes, the service requests, the certificates, the correspondence, and the filings made in this case. I will prove that the certification that enabled the default was false when it was signed, that I was prevented from defending myself, and that the judgment was concealed from me for fourteen months. And when it is vacated, I will ask for what I have asked for from the beginning: a trial on the merits, and my children. The pleadings stating these grounds in full are public record in Cause No. 2025-92876.
Sources: Harris County District Clerk public records, Cause Nos. 202417675, 202353496, 2025-92876, 2025-95850. All documents available at www.hcdistrictclerk.com.
Has This Happened to You?
You're not alone. Thousands of parents across Texas have been separated from their children through fraudulent default judgments. Your story matters.
Share Your StoryYour experience could help change the law and protect other families.
Legal Issues Raised
- Rule 239a Exploitation: The current rule requires no verification of address accuracy before an attorney can certify it. Even when an attorney demonstrably knows the correct address, no mechanism prevents false certification.
- Due Process Violation: The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. Custody rights are a fundamental liberty interest that cannot be taken without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Potential Criminal Liability: Texas Penal Code §37.10 (Tampering with Governmental Record) may apply when an attorney knowingly makes a false entry in a court filing.
- Inadequate Remedy: The Bill of Review process places the burden on fraud victims and requires resources most affected parents don't have. There is no expedited process for extrinsic fraud.
- Child's Best Interest: Default judgments made without both parents' input cannot truly serve the child's best interest—a core principle of family law.
Why the 2025 Legislation (SB 2794) Would Not Have Helped
Some might ask: doesn't Texas already have laws requiring proper service? The answer is yes—but they have no teeth.
- SB 2794 (2025): This bill would have increased penalties for custody interference, but it passed the Senate only and died in the House without a floor vote, so it is not law. Either way it would not have addressed the gap at issue here: fraudulent service of process. When a false certificate of last known address is filed, there is no mechanism for verification or challenge before a default judgment is entered.
- No Enforcement Mechanism: Constables serve papers at addresses provided to them. They cannot investigate whether an address is current or correct. The attorney's certification is taken at face value.
- Sheriff Limitations: Sheriffs have no authority to question attorney certifications. They execute service as directed. If an attorney certifies a false address, the sheriff's office sends papers to that address without question.
- The Gap: The current system assumes attorneys will act honestly. When they don't, there is no safety net—no verification, no challenge process, and no accountability until after the damage is done.
The SAFE SAPCR Act addresses this gap by requiring mandatory verification, certified mail with tracking, and expedited remedies when fraud is discovered.
This Must Change
The SAFE SAPCR Act would require mandatory constable service, attorney due diligence certification, and expedited remedies for fraud victims. No parent should lose their children through fraud.
Learn About the SAFE SAPCR Act Sign the Petition Contact Your LegislatorSources
- Harris County District Clerk public records
- Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 239a
- Case filings available through Harris County District Clerk's website
- State Bar of Texas attorney records
All information presented in this case study is derived from publicly available court records and official sources. Individuals are named based on their roles in public legal proceedings as documented in court filings.
Learn More
Understand the legal concepts and get answers to common questions:
- Legal Glossary – Definitions of SAPCR, extrinsic fraud, Bill of Review, Certificate of Last Known Address, and more
- Frequently Asked Questions – What to do if you never received custody papers, how to respond to a SAPCR, and filing a Bill of Review
- Resources – Step-by-step guides and helpful links for Texas family law