SB 2794 presents a measured and equitable reform to Texas’s criminal statute on interference with child custody. The current law only allows for the prosecution of “noncustodial” parents who interfere with a court-ordered custody arrangement. SB 2794 removes this distinction and instead holds any parent accountable if they knowingly entice or persuade a child to leave the custody of the other parent or guardian, regardless of that parent’s legal designation. This change corrects an imbalance in the statute and better reflects the reality that interference with parenting time can come from either parent. By applying the law equally to both parties, the bill affirms the importance of court-ordered custody and shared parental responsibility.
The bill also introduces a revised penalty structure that emphasizes fairness and proportionality. Under current law, a violation is classified as a state jail felony, even for a first-time offense. SB 2794 reduces the initial penalty to a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a $500 fine. This prevents first-time or less serious violations, many of which arise from misunderstandings or emotionally charged situations, from resulting in felony records and potential incarceration. However, the bill maintains stronger consequences for serious or repeated misconduct. If a parent has two or more prior convictions under this law, or if the interference involves persuading the child to leave the state, the offense remains a state jail felony. This tiered system supports law enforcement and the courts in focusing on intentional and repeat offenders.
Importantly, this bill does not grow the size of government or impose new regulations on the private sector. It modifies an existing offense within the Penal Code and does not create any new programs, departments, or enforcement mechanisms. The Legislative Budget Board confirms that the fiscal impact on the state and local governments is not expected to be significant. In fact, by reclassifying many first-time offenses as misdemeanors, the bill may result in cost savings by diverting those cases away from felony courtrooms and state correctional systems. It also does not impose any tax increases or burdens on individuals or businesses.
While there is a theoretical risk of increased legal exposure for parents, particularly custodial ones, who may find themselves subject to the revised statute, the overall framework of the bill still prioritizes intentional interference with custody rather than mere technical violations. Moreover, the law continues to require proof of intent to interfere with lawful custody, which serves as a safeguard against frivolous prosecution. The bill does not introduce new regulatory burdens but rather modernizes and balances an existing law to make it fairer and effective.
Given its aim to promote equal application of the law, reduce unnecessary felony prosecutions, and reserve serious penalties for habitual or egregious violations, all while maintaining a neutral fiscal footprint, SB 2794 represents a reasonable, responsible update to current statute. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2794.
- Individual Liberty: The bill modestly expands the criminal liability for interference with child custody by applying the offense to all parents, not just the noncustodial parent. On one hand, this expansion raises some concern for individual liberty, especially in complex custody situations where a custodial parent may act in good faith to protect their child or exercise their rights under ambiguous circumstances. Without affirmative defenses written into the statute (e.g., for emergency or protective action), there’s a risk of criminalizing parental decisions that might otherwise fall within their discretion. On the other hand, the bill promotes equal protection under the law, a fundamental aspect of individual liberty, by eliminating the legal bias against noncustodial parents. It affirms that no parent is above the law when it comes to interfering with the other’s court-ordered time, thereby upholding the liberty interests of both parents and, arguably, of the child in having access to both parents.
- Personal Responsibility: This bill clearly reinforces the principle of personal responsibility. By applying the interference law to all parents and establishing a “three strikes” framework, it signals that parents are expected to respect custody orders and that repeat violations will result in more serious consequences. The penalty escalation ensures that those who habitually interfere with another parent’s rights are held accountable in a meaningful way. Moreover, the reduction of the initial offense to a Class C misdemeanor recognizes that not all violations merit harsh punishment. It encourages corrective behavior rather than punitive overreach, especially for one-time or borderline offenses.
- Free Enterprise: There is no impact on the principle of free enterprise. The bill does not regulate commerce, business activity, or economic transactions in any way. It applies only to individuals in the context of family law and criminal justice.
- Private Property Rights: This bill does not address property rights in the traditional sense (e.g., land use, seizure, or eminent domain). However, by upholding court orders related to custody, it could be seen as reinforcing the lawful and limited role of state-recognized parental rights, which include authority over a child’s whereabouts and decisions. This is only an indirect connection, and the bill is otherwise neutral on property rights.
- Limited Government: The bill reduces government overreach in key ways. Most notably, it lowers the penalty for a first offense from a state jail felony (which can include incarceration and long-term consequences) to a Class C misdemeanor (a fine-only offense). This move reduces the risk of excessive state involvement in relatively low-level parental disputes and alleviates burdens on the criminal justice system. Additionally, the bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It makes no appropriations, adds no new agencies, and imposes no new mandates. It operates entirely within the existing structure of family law and criminal enforcement, thereby aligning with the principle of keeping government power narrowly tailored and restrained.
