The SAFE SAPCR Act

Service Accountability and Fraud Elimination in Suits Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship · One-page brief for the 90th Texas Legislature · Updated July 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

Remedy	Why it fails the parent who was never notified
Motion for new trial — 30 days	Expires long before an unnotified parent learns a judgment exists.
Restricted appeal — 6 months	Same problem, and requires error on the face of the record.
Bill of review — 4 years	Available, but it is a separate lawsuit with a threshold most pro se parents cannot clear, and it carries no hearing deadline.

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 strengthened penalties for interfering with a custody order. It presumes the order is valid. Nothing in current law tests whether the order was obtained with real notice in the first place. A parent can be penalised for interfering with an order entered against them without notice — enforcement without a corresponding accuracy requirement. The SAFE SAPCR Act supplies the missing half.

Procedural note for staff. Rule 91a — dismissal of baseless causes of action — is unavailable in these cases by its own terms: "Except in a case brought under the Family Code…" TRCP 91a.1, implementing Tex. Gov't Code § 22.004(g). A parent seeking to set aside a SAPCR judgment is therefore not exposed to 91a dismissal, though the carve-out does nothing to supply notice in the first instance.

The Proposal — Six Provisions

Mandatory constable service in SAPCR cases. Personal service by a constable or authorised officer, rather than substituted service resting on an uncorroborated address certification.
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.
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.
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.
Expedited bill of review for improper service. A 45-day hearing requirement, temporary orders available pending resolution, and automatic referral to the State Bar and law enforcement where fraud is found.
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 — Self-Funding

A $50 constable service fee funds both constable operations and the registry system. 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.

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.