The SAFE SAPCR Act

Last updated: September 8, 2026

The Problem

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239a lets the party taking a default judgment certify the other parent's "last known address" with no duty to investigate and no verification standard written into the rule. A parent can therefore lose conservatorship, possession, and access in a proceeding they never learned existed, and discover it only after every ordinary deadline to challenge it has run.

Why Existing Remedies Do Not Reach It

A common misreading holds that a void judgment can be attacked at any time. That is true only where the defect appears on the face of the record. PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 272–73 (Tex. 2012). Where a return of service recites valid service, it does not.

The S.B. 2794 Companion Gap

S.B. 2794 (Paxton) would have restructured the criminal offence of interference with child custody, removing the "noncustodial" limitation in Penal Code § 25.03 so it reached either parent. It did not become law — and how it failed is the point.

Verified against Texas Legislature Online bill history for 89(R) S.B. 2794. Penal Code § 25.03(b) still reads "a noncustodial parent commits an offence," and the section's amendment history ends at Acts 2023, 88th Leg.

This is not a bill the Legislature rejected. It cleared one chamber and came out of committee in the other without a single amendment, then ran out of calendar — an argument for refiling it, not against it. It also leaves this Act's gap open. S.B. 2794 would have enforced a custody order while presuming the order is valid; nothing in current law tests whether it was obtained with real notice. A parent could be prosecuted for interfering with an order entered against them without notice. The SAFE SAPCR Act supplies the missing half, and the two are natural companions if S.B. 2794 returns.

The Proposal — Six Provisions

1. Mandatory constable service in SAPCR cases. Personal service by a constable or authorised officer, rather than substituted service resting on an uncorroborated address certification.
2. Attorney due-diligence certification. Before certifying a last known address, counsel must certify the specific steps taken to confirm it — converting an assertion into a checkable record.
3. Cross-reference of related cases. Where the parties appear in another active proceeding, the address used there must be disclosed, closing the gap where one address is used in one case and a different one in another.
4. Automated family court case registry. A statewide registry flagging related cases involving the same parties and children, so courts can see contradictions before entering a default. This is an extension of an existing duty, not a new one. Government Code § 51.303(c) already requires every district clerk to keep an index of the parties to all suits, alphabetically by full name and cross-referenced to the other parties; § 51.303(f), added by H.B. 16 in the 89th Legislature’s 2nd Called Session and effective 4 December 2025, now requires that a case with an electronic record be searchable by each party’s full name, case number and date. Government Code § 72.031(a)(5) separately contemplates a “state court document database” accessible by the public. The county-level index and the search capability are therefore already mandated; what is missing is the cross-county view and an automated flag at the point of default.
5. Expedited bill of review for improper service. A 60-day hearing requirement, temporary orders available pending resolution, and automatic referral to the State Bar and law enforcement where fraud is found.
6. Criminal penalties for knowingly false certification. A defined offence for certifying an address known to be incorrect, with enhancement where the false statement is made to obtain custody.

Fiscal Note — Cost Recovery

The proposal is designed to be funded by a per-service fee collected at filing rather than by appropriation, and indigent parties may seek a waiver under existing Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145, so the mechanism does not create a barrier for parents who cannot pay. No general revenue appropriation is contemplated.

The fee level is deliberately not stated here, revised 8 September 2026. This brief previously specified $50 and asserted that it would fund both constable operations and the registry. Neither half of that was supported. It is a different instrument from the county constable’s current charge for serving a citation, which the Texas Comptroller’s fees dashboard puts at $70–$100 depending on county — so the two figures were never comparable, and publishing the lower one next to the higher one invited exactly the wrong inference. Setting a defensible number requires two things this project does not yet have: the number of SAPCR judgments taken by default each year, and the build and operating cost of the registry. Both are obtainable — the first through the Office of Court Administration, the second through a fiscal note request — and until they exist, a specific fee in this document would be a guess wearing the costume of an estimate.

Status

The SAFE SAPCR Act is a proposal. No such bill has been filed or passed. It is being prepared for the 90th Texas Legislature, which convenes January 2027. Interim committee charges relating to family law or service of process would be the natural vehicle for written testimony during the interim.