Enforcing child custody orders is a perennial problem for the government. There are countless horror stories of children spirited away by one parent, while the other called desperately for police intervention. There is a new tool for cities in this ongoing struggle, in the form of a new enforcement mechanism. Although cities may feel compelled to use this mechanism, its use falls well outside the municipal courts’ jurisdiction.

H.B. 969

In the 88^th Legislature, House Bill 969 added a Subchapter to Chapter 157 of the Family Code. The relevant text of this new subchapter comprises only thirty-three words, and it took effect on September 1, 2023. Below is the entire text of that new Subchapter.

“Section 157.551. A municipality or county in this state may adopt an ordinance or order that imposes a civil penalty of not more than $500 for engaging in conduct described by Section 25.03, Penal Code.”

It is possible for a municipality to pass an ordinance under this statute and attempt to enforce the ordinance in the court. Courts should be aware of this attempt and understand the jurisdictional issues which preclude such cases being filed in municipal courts.

The referenced Section 25.03 of the Penal Code describes the criminal offense of Interference with Child Custody. The statute prohibits taking or retaining a child under age 18, including removal from the county, when the person knows this violates the express terms of a judgment or order disposing of child custody. The prohibited conduct constitutes a state jail felony. There is no provision in law to allow prosecution of this criminal offense (or any state jail felony) in municipal court. While that does not, in itself, preclude municipal courts from being given jurisdiction over a separate civil offense, it would be at least a point to begin finding jurisdiction.

Municipal Court Jurisdiction

Municipal Courts’ jurisdiction, like all courts in Texas, is created and defined by the Constitution and Statutes. Because Municipal Courts are statutorily created, we must look to the statutes for grants of jurisdiction.

In the Government Code, Section 29.003, Municipal Courts are granted exclusive original jurisdiction within the territorial limits over criminal cases arising under municipal ordinances. Municipal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with Justice Courts over fine only and non-jailable alcohol misdemeanors within the territorial limits of the municipality.

A civil penalty standing alone is not a criminal offense. A criminal offense may have a civil penalty attached (as in the case of restitution), but municipal courts have no jurisdiction over the underlying criminal offense, nor any general civil jurisdiction.

In Section 27.031 of the Government Code, Justice Courts are granted jurisdiction over “civil matters in which exclusive jurisdiction is not in the district or county court in which the amount in controversy is not more than $20,000, exclusive of interest.” This civil jurisdiction provision is not granted to municipal courts, and still may be insufficient on its own to grant jurisdiction over a civil penalty, issued by ordinance, to a Justice court.

Municipal courts have civil jurisdiction only where specifically granted. For example, under Government Code Section 29.003, municipal courts have jurisdiction over bonds and bond forfeitures. Under Section 30.00005, municipal courts of record may be granted civil jurisdiction to enforce substandard and dangerous building ordinances and junk vehicles.

There is also a provision in that statute giving municipal courts of record under an enabling ordinance concurrent jurisdiction with district courts, but only for purposes of enforcing municipal ordinances under Chapter 54. Even with this enabling ordinance, municipal courts of record have no authority to enforce other civil penalties.

SAPCR Limitations

Further, this new subchapter is in the Family Code, Chapter 157. That chapter applies to Suits Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCRs). SAPCRs can be brought only in district courts, juvenile courts having the same jurisdiction as a district court, or other courts expressly given jurisdiction of a SAPCR, per the Family Code, Sec. 101.008. A statute could certainly give jurisdiction in SAPCRs to municipal courts. There is no indication that the new statute does so.

By the same token, there is no rule that a statute in Chapter 157 must only apply to SAPCRs and the courts that enforce them. The legislature could certainly put any statute they chose into any chapter. If the text of the statutes and the clear meaning of the language used is not ambiguous and does not create an absurd result, the statute must be interpreted outside the context of surrounding statutes.

The language here is not ambiguous. This statute allows a municipality or county to create a civil penalty. This statute also does not create an absurd result. Although a municipality may not enforce this civil penalty in municipal court, there is no reason it could not be enforced in another court. District Courts, Family Courts, and County Courts at law may have jurisdiction to enforce these penalties. Even Justice Courts may have jurisdiction to enforce these civil penalties, under the general grant of civil jurisdiction involving less than $20,000.

Other Civil Examples

This is not the only such civil penalty, created by ordinance, but not enforceable in municipal court. For example, the civil penalty for violation of a plat restriction under Local Government Code Section 212.156 cannot be pursued in municipal court. Conversely, the civil penalties in Local Government Code Section 54.017 and 214.0015 can only be assessed in municipal courts of record with an enabling ordinance, because there is a specific grant of civil jurisdiction in Section 30.00005 of the Government Code.

In short, although the civil penalty created in the new Family Code Section 157.551 is created by ordinance and is likely intended as an aid to enforcement of child custody orders, municipal courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce these penalties.