News and Insights

On December 13, 2019 the Travis County Civil District Judges made a new Standing Order for Family Law cases that goes into effect and is to be served with all new divorce suits and suits affecting the parent-child relationship filed in Travis County beginning January 1, 2020.

The amended order is not drafted from scratch, but is a fresh look, update, and refurbishment to its predecessor.  The old standing order still applies to cases filed before 2020.  I've posted both in these pages under Forms and Resources.  This article discusses the new order as compared to the old order.

The new order varies in some important ways and I'll point out some of them in this article.

First, the new order removes the judges' prior blanket prohibition on removing children the subjects of divorce and custody suits from the State of Texas, without express approval, which was at 1.1 of the old order.  It appears that the interstate travel for vacations, treatments, weddings, funerals -- anything temporary, is not prohibited by the new order.  Still the parties are ordered not to change the child's current residence unless by written agreement, or order of the court authorizing such change.

NEW 2.4  Next the judges have added language specifically prohibiting the parties from making derogatory comments about the other party, the other party's family members, and another party's dating partner within the presence of or within the hearing of the child and on social media accessible to the child.   

UPDATE old 2.1 vs new 3.1.  The old order prohibited communicating using "vulgar, profane, obscene, or indecent language or in a coarse or offensive manner."  The new order narrows that down to prohibiting communications that are "threatening or harassing."  Rather than erosion of decency I think this may be a shift towards understanding contemporary usages of the language, manners of speech, expressions, humor, and cultural references -- which oaths are minor and which suggest harm. 

This is also probably a recognition that non-verbal communications can be threatening as well.  Not long ago a judge asked me "What is a meme?"  Memes and GIFS and emojis are part of our electronic age and the courts of appeals across the nation are discussing the meaning of emojis and visual, non-verbal, communications and finding that those too can be harassing or threatening.     Still, don't be an ass to your spouse.  That's an intransigent, uncooperative, and braying animal.  As satisfying as telling someone off is, it becomes evidence. 

UPDATE  old 2.2 vs new 3.2.  The prohibition against threats is changed from threats of unlawful action against "any person" to threats of unlawful action against any party (spouse, co-parent, intervenor), member of a party's family or household, a party's pet or companion animal, or a party's property.  Paramours (new boyfriends's and girlfriends) not part of the household appear not to be protected here anymore.  The new order does add protection for pets and property, though.

UPDATE old 2.3 vs new 3.3.  The old order prohibited abusive conducted via the telephone broadly -- any person, purpose, unreasonable hours, repetitive calling, and calling anonymously.  The new order protects parties only.  The new order also broadens its prohibition on the malicious use of communicative technologies from merely the telephone to also include e-mail, text messages, or any other electronic communications -- things that buzz or beep in your pocket.  

NEW 3.5.  This brand new section specifically prohibits accessing another party's e-mail account, financial account, social media account, or any other electronic account.  

NEW 3.6.  Another brand new section specifically prohibits illegal interception and recording of another party's electronic communications.  This is covered in other civil and criminal statutes, both state and federal, but adding it here as an injunction adds teeth to the family court's power to curtail and punish this behavior immediately.  

NEW 3.7  No harming pets, and no interfering with the care or custody of a pet that belongs to someone else, including a child.  Enforcement with respect to child's animal may be problematic as pets are property and parents own a child's property usually, bit I dare say that if you mess with Junior's dog you're going to be in trouble at the courthouse regardless.

UPDATE 3.3,4 vs 4.1(c).  This section is consolidated and expanded to include intellectual property and a broader definition of tampering.  Now tampering is straight up "No Tampering" whereas before it was tied to tampering "causing pecuniary loss to the other party."  Also here the judges curtail the ability to destroy or tamper with intangibles.  Do not cut off your spouse's website vindictively.

UPDATE 3.7 vs 4.1(f).  Formerly prohibited withdrawals from checking and savings accounts.  It is expanded to prohibit withdrawals and transfers of money from any financial institution.    

UPDATE 3.11 vs old 4.1(j).  Formerly this prohibited termination or limitation of credit and charge cards in the other party's name.  It is now restricted to limiting termination of credit in the name of your "spouse" as in other parts of this revision, and is expanded to include lines of credit.  Do not cancel or limit your spouse's line of credit.  

UPDATED 3.13 vs 4.1(l).  Formerly the order prohibited "discontinuing or reducing" withholding of federal income taxes.  It is amended to prohibit that a party "alter" withholding on his or her own salary or wages while the case is pending.

UPDATE 3.14 vs 4.1(m).  Adds "delivery" to the list of services one is not allowed to cancel, but no longer specifies that the protected services are "at the other party's residence."  Presumably the judges intend to broaden the prohibition on canceling services to a party's business locations and vacation homes.  

NEW 4.1 (n).  Do not exclude your spouse from the marital residence if he or she has been there within the 30 days before the filing of the petition for divorce.  

NEW 4.1 (o).  Do not enter any safe deposit boxes belonging to you or to your spouse or subject to your spouse's control.  

NEW 4.1 (p).  Do not delete data or content from social network profiles used or created by either spouse or any child the subject of the case.  This appears to be the judges' own spoliation notice as to social media ordering everybody to preserve evidence.  

UPDATED 5.2 vs 4.3 (b).  Prohibits changing or altering the beneficiary designation on any life insurance on the life of either "spouse" or "any child who is the subject of this case."  This departs from the prior order that prohibited altering the beneficiary designations for either "party or the parties' children."  It's nuanced, but this is important -- a divorced co-parent (not a spouse) in a SAPCR carrying life insurance on or for an adult child of the parties (not the subject of the current proceeding) is no longer prohibited from altering beneficiary designations by the standing order.  Note also that the prior order distinguished 5.2 "the parties' children" from 5.3 "the parties' minor children."

UPDATE 6.3 vs 6.1 (c).  Adds "school" and "reasonable and necessary expenses for minor children" to the list of specific spending authorizations under the order.