Tex. Codes » Family Code · TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · SUBTITLE B. SUITS AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 153.193 (2026)

Minimal Restriction On Parent's Possession Or Access

✓ laws through the 89th Legislature (2025)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 153.193. MINIMAL RESTRICTION ON PARENT'S POSSESSION OR ACCESS. The terms of an order that denies possession of a child to a parent or imposes restrictions or limitations on a parent's right to possession of or access to a child may not exceed those that are required to protect the best interest of the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.

SUBCHAPTER E. GUIDELINES FOR THE POSSESSION OF A CHILD BY A PARENT NAMED AS POSSESSORY CONSERVATOR


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: In the Interest of J.R.D. & T.C.D., 169 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of J.R.D. & T.C.D., 169 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005). · cites it 4× “Thus, even against the background of these monumental rights and explicit legislative directives to limit a parent’s time with a child only as necessary, see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.193 (West 2002), a trial court, if it were ever so slightly more persuaded in one direction…”
Newell v. Newell, 349 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011). · cites it 6× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 153.193 (West 2008); see M.”
Monica Moreno v. Ernesto Perez, 363 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011). · cites it 3× “THIS APPEAL Moreno brings six issues on appeal, arguing that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Moreno to pay child support above the presumptive guidelines, (2) the trial court’s order restricting Moreno’s possession of the children to Harris County violates…”
in the Interest of S.A.H, a Minor Child, 420 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014). · cites it 2× “The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning restrictions on a parent’s possession and access that are in the best interest of the child; however, restrictions on possession cannot “exceed those that are required to protect the best interest of the child,” Texas Family…”
In re Harrison, 557 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018). “See Tex. Fam. Code § 153.193. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in restricting a parent's possession and access when the record contains evidence to support a finding that such restrictions are in the children's best interest.”
In the Interest of K.S., 492 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016). “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.193 , 153.256; see Ohendalski v.”
in the Interest of P.A.C & K.V.C., Child., 498 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016). “); see also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 153.193 (Vernon 2014) (terms of an order restricting or limiting a parent’s right to possession of or access to a child must not exceed those required to protect the best interest of the child).”
In the Interest of Walters, 39 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001). “Laws 113, 151, 282 (codified at Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 153.191 (Vernon 1996)) (emphasis added).”
Tuan Anh Tran v. Sheryn D. Nguyen, 480 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015). · cites it 2× “” Tex. Fam. Code § 153.193. Complete denial of access should rarely be ordered.”
Ohendalski v. Ohendalski, 203 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006). “” See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 153.193 (Vernon 2002).”
George v. Jeppeson, 238 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007). “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.193 (Vernon 2002) (“Minimal Restriction on Parent’s Possession or Access”).”
Rahmatullah Basha Syed v. Khadija Masihuddin, 521 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.193 (West 2014).”
Show all 110 citing cases →
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.