Last updated: August 28, 2026
This site explains Texas SAPCR procedure to parents who mostly cannot afford a lawyer. It is written by one of them, not by an attorney, and it says so in its editorial standards.
That disclosure is honest. It is also the site's weakest point, and no amount of citation discipline fixes it. So this is a direct ask.
The ask
Read one page in your area and tell us what is wrong with it. If you are willing to be credited, we publish your name, bar number and firm on that page. If you would rather not be named, we still want the corrections — send them anyway.
What This Is Not
- Not a request for representation. Nobody is asking you to take a case, appear anywhere, or advise a member of the public.
- Not an endorsement of the litigation. Reviewing a page about Rule 239a is not agreeing with anything about the documented case. You can review the educational material and think the case is meritless. Several of the pages have nothing to do with it.
- Not an advertisement. No fee, no referral arrangement, no lead generation, and nothing for sale on this site.
- Not open-ended. One page, once. If you want to look at another later, that is your choice, not an expectation.
The Pages Where Review Would Matter Most
Ranked by how much damage an error would do to a self-represented parent:
| Page | Why it is first in line |
|---|---|
| Deadline calculator | Computes Rule 329b, restricted appeal and bill of review windows, plus Rule 306a. If the arithmetic or the rule reading is wrong, someone misses a deadline. |
| Bill of review eligibility checker | Applies the three Baker elements and the Peralta/Caldwell non-service exception to user input. |
| Child support | Net resources under § 154.062, guideline percentages, and the cap. Hard numbers people rely on. |
| Venue transfer | The § 155.204(b) deadline is short and waiving it is permanent. |
| TRCP 239 and 239a | The Rule 107 ten-day requirement and what 239a does and does not compel. |
| Mediation | That a § 153.0071(d) MSA binds on signature is the single fact most likely to change what a parent does that day. |
What Review Actually Involves
- Read the page. Most are 1,200–1,400 words.
- Tell us what is wrong: a misread statute, a stale figure, an overstated holding, a missing exception, or a place where the plain-English summary would mislead someone acting on it.
- We fix it, log it publicly in the corrections log, and credit you on the page if you want that.
Corrections get published whether or not you are credited, and we do not argue about them — our source hierarchy puts published authority above anything we have written.
What You Get
- A line on the page: “Reviewed for legal accuracy by [name], [bar number], [firm].” with a link wherever you want it pointed
- A listing on this page as a reviewer
- The ability to withdraw the credit at any time, for any reason, by asking
Why This Is Worth Two Hours
These pages are read by people who are not going to hire anyone. They are going to act on whatever they find, from this site or from somewhere worse. The realistic alternative to an unreviewed page here is not a reviewed page — it is a forum post.
If a parent files a bill of review inside the four-year window instead of assuming a void judgment has no deadline, that is a concrete outcome, and it turns on one paragraph being right.
Reviewers
None yet. This page exists so that the first one has somewhere to appear.
To take this up
Email info@safesapcrtx.org naming the page you are willing to read, or use the contact form. For anything sensitive, PGP and Signal are available.
Also relevant if you are evaluating whether to engage at all: how claims are sourced, what the site publishes and refuses to publish including its conflict of interest, and what this project is.
Related
- Editorial Standards — including the not-attorney-reviewed disclosure
- Research Methodology — source hierarchy and conflict rules
- Corrections Log
- About This Project
- Legislation — the proposal, clearly labelled as one