Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001 (2026)

Public Policy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 153.001. PUBLIC POLICY. (a) The public policy of this state is to:

(1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;

(2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and

(3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.

(b) A court may not render an order that conditions the right of a conservator to possession of or access to a child on the payment of child support.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, Sec. 25, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 787, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 262 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002). · cites it 2× “” Tex. Fam.Code § 153.001(a). The statute further provides that “[t]he best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.”

Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002). · cites it 3× “Like Texas, the California Family Code pronounced a public policy in favor of “frequent and [continuing] contact” between the parents and children.”

Patterson v. Brist, 236 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.001 (a)(2) (“The public policy of this state is to .”

In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Fam.Code §§ 153.001, .002, .0071. 1.”

Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “applicable law The Texas Family Code § 153.001 outlines Texas public policy for all suits affecting the parent-child relationship: (a) The public policy of this state is to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the…”

Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010). · cites it 2× “(quoting TEX. FAM. CODE § 153.001(a)(2)). [114] A.”

In the Interest of J.R.D. & T.C.D., 169 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.001 (a) (West 2002).”

In the Interest of B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003). “See Tex. Fam.Code § 153.001(a). “[U]ntil the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.”

In the Interest of E.C.R., Child, 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013). “See also Tex. Fam.Code § 153.001(a)(2) ("The public policy of this state is to .”

Stamper v. Knox, 254 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “We therefore consider whether Knox bore his burden of establishing (1) that Stamper was equitably estopped from denying his paternity and (2) that it was in K.”

Critz v. Critz, 297 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “251(b) (Vernon 2008). I would hold that erasing the parental presumption in an original suit on custody when a court appoints multiple parties as managing conservators but gives primary possession to a nonparent would weaken these constitutional and statutory interests and would…”

Comanche Nation v. Fox, 128 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 153.001(a)(2) (West 2002).”

Show all 262 citing cases →

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(1) — 1 case

in the Interest of C.M., a Child (Tex. App. 2014).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a) — 65 cases

In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002). “” Tex. Fam.Code § 153.001(a). The statute further provides that “[t]he best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.”

Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App. 2004). “applicable law The Texas Family Code § 153.001 outlines Texas public policy for all suits affecting the parent-child relationship: (a) The public policy of this state is to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the…”

In the Interest of J.R.D. & T.C.D., 169 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App. 2005). “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.001 (a) (West 2002).”

Naguib v. Naguib, 137 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. App. 2004).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(1) — 31 cases

Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002). “Like Texas, the California Family Code pronounced a public policy in favor of “frequent and [continuing] contact” between the parents and children.”

Stamper v. Knox, 254 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. 2008). “We therefore consider whether Knox bore his burden of establishing (1) that Stamper was equitably estopped from denying his paternity and (2) that it was in K.”

Critz v. Critz, 297 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App. 2009). “251(b) (Vernon 2008). I would hold that erasing the parental presumption in an original suit on custody when a court appoints multiple parties as managing conservators but gives primary possession to a nonparent would weaken these constitutional and statutory interests and would…”

in the Matter of the Marriage of Nikki Lanelle Christensen & Dean Christensen, Jr., & in the Interest of W.C., a Child, 570 S.W.3d 933 (Tex. App. 2019).

Stucki v. Stucki, 222 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. App. 2006).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(1)(3) — 1 case

Heather Hamilton v. Arthur Maestas (Tex. App. 2020).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(2) — 45 cases

Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010). “(quoting TEX. FAM. CODE § 153.001(a)(2)). [114] A.”

Patterson v. Brist, 236 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. App. 2006). “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.001 (a)(2) (“The public policy of this state is to .”

In the Interest of E.C.R., Child, 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013). “See also Tex. Fam.Code § 153.001(a)(2) ("The public policy of this state is to .”

Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002). “Like Texas, the California Family Code pronounced a public policy in favor of “frequent and [continuing] contact” between the parents and children.”

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(3) — 4 cases

Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002). “Like Texas, the California Family Code pronounced a public policy in favor of “frequent and [continuing] contact” between the parents and children.”

in the Interest of V.M.T., a Child (Tex. App. 2018).

Prabhakar Gopalan v. Andrea Marsh (Tex. 2026).

in Re: Jamie Majors (Tex. App. 2015).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(l) — 2 cases

In the Interest of M.A.M., 346 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. App. 2011).

In the Interest of K.L.W., 301 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. App. 2009).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(l)(2) — 1 case

Tasha Rose Marsh v. Robert Christopher Marsh (Tex. App. 2017).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(l)(2)(3) — 1 case

Tasha Rose Marsh v. Robert Christopher Marsh (Tex. App. 2017).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(l)(3) — 1 case

Tasha Rose Marsh v. Robert Christopher Marsh (Tex. App. 2017).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(b) — 8 cases

in the Interest of H.S.B., a Child, 401 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. App. 2011).

In Re A.N.H., a Child, 70 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App. 2002).

In the Interest of P.D.D., a Child, 256 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App. 2008).

In Re Pdd, 256 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App. 2008).

in the Interest of M. E. H. (Tex. App. 2020).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.