According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 1863 cannot be determined because the number of filings resulting from the bill is unknown. The fiscal note states that the bill would amend the Family Code by changing the duration of family-violence protective orders and removing certain conditions currently required to grant lifetime protection.

The LBB identifies the Office of Court Administration as the relevant state source agency. According to that agency, the total number of protective orders that would result from the bill cannot be determined. As a result, the fiscal impact is not classified as a definite cost or savings to the state, but rather as indeterminate.

For local governments, the fiscal note reaches the same conclusion. Because courts and related local judicial systems could be affected by changes in protective-order filings or proceedings, but the number of affected orders is unknown, the LBB states that the fiscal implications for units of local government cannot be determined at this time.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1863 unless amended as described below. HB 1863 addresses a serious and legitimate public-safety concern: protecting victims of family violence. The bill analysis explains that current law allows protective orders lasting more than two years only when certain aggravating circumstances are present, such as felony family violence, serious bodily injury, or multiple prior protective orders. House Bill 1863 would remove those specific conditions and allow a court to issue an extended or lifetime protective order against a person found to have committed family violence.

The concern is that the bill expands the scope of government authority by giving courts broader discretion to impose long-term or lifetime civil restrictions. Protective orders can limit where a person may go, whom the person may contact, and how the person may interact with family or household members. Those restrictions may be justified in serious cases, but the bill removes the current statutory guardrails that reserve extended orders for more severe or repeated conduct. From a limited-government perspective, that is a meaningful expansion of coercive state authority.

The bill does not appear to grow the size of government in the sense of creating a new agency, office, program, or rulemaking structure. The committee bill analysis states that the bill does not expressly grant additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. It also does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase punishment for an existing offense, or change eligibility for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision. However, it does grow the scope of government by broadening when courts may impose protective orders lasting longer than two years, including lifetime orders.

The bill’s taxpayer impact is uncertain. The LBB found that the fiscal implications of the bill cannot be determined because the number of filings resulting from the bill is unknown. The Office of Court Administration likewise could not determine the total number of protective orders that would result from the bill. The LBB also found that the fiscal implications for local governments cannot be determined at this time. This does not prove the bill would impose major new costs, but it does create taxpayer exposure because additional filings, hearings, enforcement activity, or modification proceedings could place demands on courts and local judicial systems.

The bill does not impose a conventional regulatory burden on businesses. It does not create a licensing requirement, business mandate, tax, fee, inspection regime, or compliance program. Its regulatory burden falls primarily on individuals who are subject to protective orders. For those individuals, the burden can be substantial because an extended or lifetime order may restrict movement, contact, residence-related access, and family interactions. The issue is not business regulation, but individualized civil restraint backed by court enforcement.

The bill should be amended to preserve stronger due-process protections and limit lifetime orders to the most serious or clearly continuing threats. Suggested amendments should include a heightened evidentiary standard for protective orders exceeding two years, written individualized findings explaining why a shorter order is insufficient, and periodic judicial review for lifetime or extended orders. These changes would allow courts to protect victims in serious family-violence cases while reducing the risk of overbroad, indefinite government restraints.

• SB 1077 (Same As)