Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 2288 revises the standards Texas courts must apply when issuing protective orders in family violence cases by requiring courts to make two distinct findings: that family violence has occurred and that it is likely to occur again in the future. The bill amends multiple provisions of the Family Code to consistently apply this two-part standard throughout the protective order process, replacing prior language that focused on a broader finding of whether family violence was likely to occur in the future. It also clarifies that mutual protective orders may only impose restrictions on a party whom the court specifically finds committed family violence and is likely to commit family violence again.

The bill also strengthens existing presumptions that support the issuance of protective orders in cases involving children. It provides that a presumption of future family violence exists when a respondent has been convicted of or placed on deferred adjudication for certain violent or sexual offenses against the child, has had parental rights terminated, and is seeking or attempting to seek contact with the child. Additionally, the bill preserves an exception allowing courts to issue a new protective order after the violation of an expired protective order without requiring the standard findings that ordinarily apply to new applications. It also updates provisions governing protective orders lasting longer than two years by conforming them to the revised findings required elsewhere in the Family Code.

Finally, the bill aligns related provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure governing stalking and bias-motivated offense protective orders with the revised Family Code framework. Rather than requiring the standard family violence findings, courts issuing those specialized protective orders must continue to make offense-specific findings demonstrating probable cause and a likelihood of future prohibited conduct. The changes apply only to protective orders rendered on or after September 1, 2025, with existing protective orders remaining subject to prior law.

The Committee Substitute for HB 2288 represents a significant change in approach from the originally filed bill. As filed, the legislation would have created a new affirmative defense allowing a respondent in a protective order proceeding to avoid the issuance of a protective order by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that family violence was not likely to occur in the future. Under the filed version, once a court found that family violence had occurred, a protective order would generally be required unless the respondent successfully established that affirmative defense.

The Committee Substitute abandons that affirmative-defense framework entirely. Instead of shifting the burden to the respondent, it amends the Family Code to require the court itself to make two affirmative findings before issuing most family violence protective orders: that family violence has occurred and that family violence is likely to occur in the future. The substitute also revises the entitlement and issuance provisions throughout the Family Code to consistently apply this two-part judicial finding, rather than relying on a respondent's ability to defeat the application through an affirmative defense.

The Committee Substitute also substantially expands the scope of the legislation beyond the originally filed bill. Rather than creating only a single new affirmative-defense provision and a conforming amendment to the issuance of protective orders, the substitute amends multiple sections of the Family Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. These changes include revising the statutory presumption applicable to certain respondents with prior criminal convictions and terminated parental rights, clarifying findings required for mutual protective orders, conforming provisions governing extended-duration protective orders, updating procedures when a respondent violates an expired protective order, and aligning specialized protective orders for stalking and bias-motivated offenses with the revised judicial findings framework.

Finally, the substitute changes the bill's transition provisions to reflect its broader statutory revisions. The originally filed bill applied only to applications for protective orders filed on or after September 1, 2025. The Committee Substitute instead applies its changes to protective orders rendered on or after that date, while providing that protective orders issued before the effective date remain governed by prior law. The September 1, 2025, effective date itself remains unchanged.

Author (1)

Harold Dutton

Contact the Author

Rep. Harold Dutton

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0510

Capitol Office:

CAP 3N.5

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2288 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on state government. The fiscal note concludes that any administrative costs associated with implementing the bill's revised standards for issuing protective orders could be absorbed using existing agency resources and would not require additional appropriations or staffing.

The LBB also determined that the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. Although courts will apply revised statutory findings when considering applications for protective orders, the LBB anticipates that these procedural changes can be implemented within existing judicial operations without creating substantial new costs for counties or other local governmental entities.

Overall, the official fiscal analysis indicates that the bill's changes are procedural in nature and are not expected to generate significant new expenditures or savings for either state or local governments. As a result, the legislation is not anticipated to have a material impact on the state budget or local government finances.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 2288 clarifies the legal standard governing the issuance of family violence protective orders by requiring courts to find both that family violence has occurred and that it is likely to occur in the future before issuing most protective orders. According to the committee analysis, the legislation is intended to align the statutory standard with the underlying purpose of protective orders—to provide protection from ongoing or future threats rather than to address solely past acts of violence. The substitute also replaces the introduced bill's affirmative-defense approach with a judicial findings framework, creating a more balanced and consistent process while making conforming changes throughout the Family Code and Code of Criminal Procedure.

From a limited-government perspective, the bill does not meaningfully expand the size or scope of government. It creates no new agency, office, program, fund, or regulatory authority, grants no additional rulemaking authority, and does not materially expand judicial or executive discretion beyond clarifying the findings courts must make under existing law. Instead, it modifies the legal standard courts apply within an already established protective order process.

The bill likewise does not increase the burden on taxpayers. The LBB determined that there is no significant fiscal implication for either state or local government and that any implementation costs can be absorbed using existing resources. As a result, the bill is not expected to require additional appropriations, staffing, or ongoing expenditures.

Finally, the bill does not impose a new regulatory burden on individuals or businesses. It does not establish new licensing requirements, compliance obligations, reporting mandates, or restrictions on private conduct outside the existing judicial process for protective orders. Instead, it refines evidentiary findings required in court proceedings without creating additional regulatory obligations for the public or regulated entities.

Overall, HB 2288 improves statutory clarity and consistency while avoiding meaningful government growth, new taxpayer costs, or additional regulatory burdens. For those reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2288.

Individual Liberty: The bill modestly strengthens individual liberty by requiring courts to make an explicit finding that family violence is likely to occur in the future before issuing most protective orders. This provides an additional safeguard against the issuance of protective orders based solely on past conduct, while preserving the ability of courts to protect individuals facing an ongoing threat. At the same time, the bill maintains existing protections for victims through statutory presumptions in certain high-risk cases and exceptions for violations of expired protective orders. Overall, the bill better balances individual due process rights with public safety.
Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by requiring judicial findings based on current facts rather than creating an affirmative defense that respondents would be required to prove. Individuals seeking protective orders must still demonstrate the statutory elements necessary for relief, while respondents remain accountable when evidence establishes an ongoing likelihood of family violence. The legislation preserves accountability without shifting burdens in a manner that could undermine the judicial process.
Free Enterprise: The bill has no meaningful effect on free enterprise. It does not regulate businesses, alter commercial activity, create licensing requirements, or impose compliance costs on employers or private industry. Its provisions are limited to judicial procedures governing protective orders.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not materially affect private property rights. It does not alter ownership rights, authorize takings, impose land-use restrictions, or create new property-related regulatory requirements. While protective orders may continue to restrict an individual's access to certain locations under existing law, the bill simply clarifies the findings required before those orders may be issued.
Limited Government: The bill is generally consistent with limited-government principles because it clarifies existing judicial standards without expanding the size or scope of government. It creates no new agencies, programs, funding streams, or rulemaking authority. Rather than expanding government power, the bill establishes a clearer statutory threshold that limits when courts may exercise existing authority to issue protective orders.

View Bill Text and Status