The SAFE SAPCR Act

Why This Legislation Is Needed

Under current Texas law, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239a requires the party taking a default judgment, or their attorney, to certify the defendant's last known email address and mailing address. The court clerk then sends notice of the judgment electronically under Rule 21(f)(10) and by mail to the certified address. However, the rule contains no requirement that the attorney verify the address is accurate or current. There is no due diligence requirement, no cross-referencing with other court records, and no penalty for certifying a false address.

This gap creates a mechanism for fraud: an attorney who wants to obtain a default custody judgment can certify a stale or false address, knowing the respondent will never receive notice. The respondent parent loses their constitutional right to be heard — and their children — without ever knowing there was a case.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1: Mandatory Constable Service

The SAFE SAPCR Act would require that initial service of process in all SAPCR cases be performed by a constable or sheriff, rather than by private process servers. This ensures an official record of service and reduces the opportunity for coordinated service schemes. Exceptions would be permitted when the respondent waives service, when the petitioner serves personally with written acknowledgment, or when the court orders alternative service for documented good cause.

Section 2: Attorney Due Diligence Certification

Before filing a Certificate of Last Known Address under Rule 239a, the petitioner's attorney would be required to file a separate due diligence certification documenting the specific steps taken to locate the respondent. This would include searches of public records, court databases, social media, and other reasonable sources. The certification would be signed under penalty of perjury and would become part of the court record.

Section 2A: Cross-Reference Requirement for Related Cases

In any SAPCR where a prior related family proceeding (such as a habeas corpus case) involving the same parties and children was pending or dismissed within the preceding 12 months in the same county, the petitioner's attorney would be required to certify that a reasonable search was made of the related court file for current contact information. This closes a specific gap: attorneys are not currently required to check files from closely related cases in the same court for known service addresses, even when those addresses are recent and reliable.

Section 3: Automated Case Registry

The Act proposes creating an automated registry that allows any parent to check whether a SAPCR has been filed involving their children. This would prevent situations where a parent is completely unaware that a custody case exists. The registry would be searchable by parent name and child name, with appropriate privacy protections.

Section 4: Expedited Bill of Review Hearings

When extrinsic fraud is alleged in a SAPCR default judgment, the Act would require expedited Bill of Review hearings. Under current law, a Bill of Review can take months or years to be heard. The Act would require courts to set a hearing within 60 days of filing when the petitioner alleges that a false Certificate of Last Known Address was used.

Section 5: Criminal Penalties

The Act would establish criminal penalties for knowingly filing a false Certificate of Last Known Address. Under current law, there is no specific criminal penalty for this conduct, even when the attorney knows the address is false. The proposed penalties would classify this conduct as a state jail felony when it results in a default judgment that affects parental rights.

Current Texas Law vs. Proposed Changes

Legislative Timeline

• 89th Texas Legislature (2025): The 89th Session adjourned Sine Die on June 2, 2025. The SAFE SAPCR Act was not introduced during this session.
• 90th Texas Legislature: Convenes January 12, 2027. The SAFE SAPCR Act is being prepared for introduction during this session.
• Current status: Gathering co-sponsors, building coalition support, and refining bill language based on documented cases of Rule 239a abuse.

How the Documented Case Supports This Legislation

The case documented on this website — Cause No. 202417675 in Harris County — illustrates every gap the SAFE SAPCR Act would close. An attorney certified a decade-old address 104 days after successfully serving the respondent, the court entered a default judgment based on that false certification, and the respondent did not learn of the judgment for 14 months. Each provision of the Act directly addresses a specific failure that occurred in this case. For a detailed timeline, see the evidence page. The case remains active: the most recent filing is the July 2026 Amended Bill of Review, with trial reset to October 19, 2026.