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 156. MODIFICATION
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 156.001 (2026)

Orders Subject To Modification

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

Sec. 156.001. ORDERS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION. A court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction may modify an order that provides for the conservatorship, support, or possession of and access to a child.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: In re Interest of J.J.G., 540 S.W.3d 44 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Interest of J.J.G., 540 S.W.3d 44 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). · cites it 2× “2007) ; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.001 (West 2014) (providing that court with continuing exclusive jurisdiction may modify order providing for conservatorship, support, possession of, or access to child); itation index="43" url="https://cite.”
Smith v. Karanja, 546 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018). “He did not provide a reporter's record on appeal. Standard of Review "A court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction may modify an order that provides for the conservatorship, support, or possession of and access to a child.”
Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.001. A trial court may modify an order that provides for the possession of or access to a child- if the modification would be in the best interest of the child, and the circumstances of the child, a conservator, or another party affected by the order…”
Ochsner v. Ochsner, 517 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. 2016). “Only the court that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction can modify a child-support order, Tex. Fam. Code § 156.001, and it may do so only in response to a proper motion to modify under section 156.”
In re Lemons, 47 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001). · cites it 2× “To accept Relator’s argument would make Texas Family Code § 156.001 2 meaningless.”
In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008). “Because we conclude that Martha’s lawsuit seeks to modify the 1995 custody order, however, we hold that the parental presumption does not apply. A “modification suit” refers to an action in which a party attempts to effectuate a change in visitation rights following the entry of…”
in the Interest of P.D.M. & K.E.M., 117 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003). · cites it 3× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.001 . If the parties were not seeking to modify a prior custody order, there would have been no need to file suit in the court with continuing jurisdiction over the children under the divorce cause number.”
Off. of the Attorney Gen. of Texas v. C.W.H., 531 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. 2017). “101(d)); see also Tex. Fam. Code § 156.001. Section 101.034 now defines a "Title IV-D case” to include "a suit for modification filed by the Title IV-D agency under Section 231.”
Rahmatullah Basha Syed v. Khadija Masihuddin, 521 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017). “2007); see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.001 (West 2014) (providing that court with continuing exclusive jurisdiction may modify order providing for conservatorship, support, possession of, or access to child); id.”
Off. of the Attorney Gen. of Texas v. Richard Lynn Scholer, 403 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. 2013). “See Tex. Fam.Code §§ 156.001, 157.001(a)-(b).”
Carolee A. King v. Donald Joseph Lyons, 457 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014). “” Both King and Lyons appealed. Analysis “A court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction may modify an order that provides for the conservatorship, support, or possession of and access to a child.”
In the Interest of A.M., 974 S.W.2d 857 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998). “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 156.001 , 156.002 (Vernon 1996).”
Show all 95 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.