Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002 (2026)

Contents Of Motion

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Sec. 157.002. CONTENTS OF MOTION. (a) A motion for enforcement must, in ordinary and concise language:

(1) identify the provision of the order allegedly violated and sought to be enforced;

(2) state the manner of the respondent's alleged noncompliance;

(3) state the relief requested by the movant; and

(4) contain the signature of the movant or the movant's attorney.

(b) A motion for enforcement of child support:

(1) must include the amount owed as provided in the order, the amount paid, and the amount of arrearages;

(2) if contempt is requested, must include the portion of the order allegedly violated and, for each date of alleged contempt, the amount due and the amount paid, if any;

(3) may include as an attachment a copy of a record of child support payments maintained by the Title IV-D registry or a local registry; and

(4) if the obligor owes arrearages for a child receiving assistance under Part A of Title IV of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq.), may include a request that:

(A) the obligor pay the arrearages in accordance with a plan approved by the court; or

(B) if the obligor is already subject to a plan and is not incapacitated, the obligor participate in work activities, as defined under 42 U.S.C. Section 607(d), that the court determines appropriate.

(c) A motion for enforcement of the terms and conditions of conservatorship or possession of or access to a child must include the date, place, and, if applicable, the time of each occasion of the respondent's failure to comply with the order.

(d) The movant is not required to plead that the underlying order is enforceable by contempt to obtain other appropriate enforcement remedies.

(e) The movant may allege repeated past violations of the order and that future violations of a similar nature may occur before the date of the hearing.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 911, Sec. 17, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Ochsner v. Ochsner, 517 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ochsner v. Ochsner, 517 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. 2016). · cites it 8× “Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(b)(1). . Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.”

In the Interest of A.G., 531 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “In making his ruling, the judge specifically questioned whether Guevara’s motions for enforcement contained the information required under Texas Family Code section 157.002, including the provisions of the decree allegedly violated, the manner of noncompliance, and the date,…”

In Re Turner, 177 S.W.3d 284 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Notice of Violations Turner contends that Abell’s motion for enforcement is defective in that it does not meet the requirement of Texas Family Code Section 157.002(a)(1) 3 that requires a movant to identify the provision of the order violated and sought to be enforced.”

in the Interest of T.J.L. & M.E.L., 97 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “See Tex. Fam.Code § 157.002(a)(2). We disagree.”

in Re the Off. of the Attorney Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2013). “Tex. Fam.Code § 157.002(b)(1). If contempt is requested, the motion must also include “the portion of the order allegedly violated and, for each date of alleged contempt, the amount due and the amount paid, if any.”

In Re Ezukanma, 336 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002(a)-(b) (Vernon 2009).”

In Re Aslam, 348 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002 (West 2008).”

In Re Butler, 45 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002(b) (Vernon Supp.”

In Re Taylor, 39 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App. 2001). “We held in cause number 10-00-253-CV, the previous mandamus action, that the motion filed by Relator was properly filed under Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002(a) (Vernon Supp.”

In Re Mann, 162 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App. 2005). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002 (Vernon 2002)(emphasis added).”

In Re Taylor, 28 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. App. 2000). “Subdivision (a) of the statute requires such a motion to: (1) identify the provision of the order allegedly violated; (2) state the manner of noncompliance; (3) state the relief requested; and (4) be signed by the mov-ant or his attorney.”

in the Interest of H.G-J., A.G.-J., & K.G.-J., Child., 503 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App. 2016). “[[Image here]] Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002. The OAG’s pleading does not contain the required allegations to constitute a motion for enforcement.”

Show all 68 citing cases →

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(3) — 1 case

Christopher Rogers v. Amy Rogers (Tex. App. 2023).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(a) — 11 cases

In the Interest of A.G., 531 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App. 2017). “In making his ruling, the judge specifically questioned whether Guevara’s motions for enforcement contained the information required under Texas Family Code section 157.002, including the provisions of the decree allegedly violated, the manner of noncompliance, and the date,…”

In re Hall, 433 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App. 2014).

In Re Ezukanma, 336 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2011). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002(a)-(b) (Vernon 2009).”

in Re: Bryan Rowes (Tex. App. 2015).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(a)(1) — 6 cases

In Re Turner, 177 S.W.3d 284 (Tex. App. 2005). “Notice of Violations Turner contends that Abell’s motion for enforcement is defective in that it does not meet the requirement of Texas Family Code Section 157.002(a)(1) 3 that requires a movant to identify the provision of the order violated and sought to be enforced.”

in Re Mark D. Luebe, 404 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. App. 2010).

Ex parte Arnold, 926 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. App. 1996).

In Re Allen Sproul v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(a)(2) — 4 cases

in the Interest of T.J.L. & M.E.L., 97 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App. 2002). “See Tex. Fam.Code § 157.002(a)(2). We disagree.”

In re Fountain, 433 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2012).

In Re Tjl, 97 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App. 2003).

in Re Connie v. Harrison (Tex. App. 2015).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(b) — 3 cases

In Re Butler, 45 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002(b) (Vernon Supp.”

In Re Michael Anderson, Relator v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025).

James Raymond Davis v. Wendy J. Mangan (Tex. App. 2005).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(b)(1) — 8 cases

Ochsner v. Ochsner, 517 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. 2016). “Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(b)(1). . Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.”

in the Interest of T.J.L. & M.E.L., 97 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App. 2002). “See Tex. Fam.Code § 157.002(a)(2). We disagree.”

In Re Ezukanma, 336 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2011). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002(a)-(b) (Vernon 2009).”

In Re Alg, 229 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App. 2007).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(b)(2) — 5 cases

In the Interest of A. D., 73 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2002).

In Re Ad, 73 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2002).

in Re R.E.D., 278 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. App. 2009).

in Re Dani Roisman (Tex. App. 2022).

In Re Red, 278 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. App. 2009).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(b)(3) — 4 cases

in Re Amy Williams (Tex. App. 2015).

In the Interest of S. A. L. & C. R. S. L. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025).

Carrie Hanson v. Lacye Garza (Tex. App. 2025).

Tierra Wilson v. Houston Hous. Auth. (Tex. App. 2015).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(b)(l) — 1 case

In Re Ezukanma, 336 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2011). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.002(a)-(b) (Vernon 2009).”

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(c) — 2 cases

in the Interest of T.J.L. & M.E.L., 97 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App. 2002). “See Tex. Fam.Code § 157.002(a)(2). We disagree.”

In Re Tjl, 97 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App. 2003).

— Tex. Fam. Code § 157.002(e) — 4 cases

in Re Mark Lee Newby, 370 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App. 2012).

In the Interest of L.F.W.N. & K.L.N., Child. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024).

Yevgenia Shockome v. Timothy Shockome (Tex. App. 2013).

Kent Allen Tramel v. Lori Ann Tramel (Tex. App. 2012).

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.