Sec. 157.005. TIME LIMITATIONS; ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT. (a) The court retains jurisdiction to render a contempt order for failure to comply with the child support order if the motion for enforcement is filed not later than the second anniversary of the date:
(1) the child becomes an adult; or
(2) on which the child support obligation terminates under the order or by operation of law.
(b) The court retains jurisdiction to confirm the total amount of child support, medical support, and dental support arrearages and render cumulative money judgments for past-due child support, medical support, and dental support, as provided by Section 157.263, if a motion requesting a money judgment is filed not later than the 10th anniversary after the date:
(1) the child becomes an adult; or
(2) on which the child support obligation terminates under the child support order or by operation of law.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 556, Sec. 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 916 (H.B. 260), Sec. 21, eff. June 18, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 972 (S.B. 228), Sec. 17, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 767 (S.B. 865), Sec. 13, eff. June 19, 2009.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 552 (S.B. 286), Sec. 7, eff. September 1, 2021.
Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 151 (S.B. 869), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2023.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
58
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
In re Munks, 263 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
In re Munks, 263 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
· cites it 4× “” In his sole ground for relief, relator asserts that he is illegally restrained under this order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order of contempt, pursuant to Texas Family Code section 157.005(a). See Tex.”
Isaacs v. Isaacs, 338 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011).
· cites it 6× “On appeal, the ex-husband’s main arguments are that (1) the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Texas Family Code section 157.005, and (2) sections 31.”
Patricia Webber v. Amy Williams, 355 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code ANN. § 157.005(b). The plain language of section 157.”
In the Interest of Kuykendall, 957 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005 (Vernon 1996) now authorizes confirmation of the total amount of child support arrearages, without the “and owing” language.”
In the Interest of S.C.S., 48 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001).
· cites it 3× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b) (Vernon 1999) (emphases added).”
Taylor v. Speck, 308 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b) (Vernon 2008).”
Attorney Gen. v. Litten, 999 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b) (Vernon 1996).”
Burnett-Dunham v. Spurgin, 245 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007).
“The question presented in this appeal is whether Texas Family Code section 157.005 or Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sections 31.”
In re the Marriage of Morris, 32 P.3d 625 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Here, father maintains that subpart (a) of the choice of law provision of § 604 of the Uniform Act, supra, controls and requires the application of the limitations period set forth in Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b). However, the trial court concluded that the phrase "and the…”
Attorney Gen. v. Redding, 60 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001).
“Although the Attorney General never attempted to obtain a judgment against Redding for past due support, Redding contends that such a judgment is a prerequisite to issuance of an administrative writ. To support this argument, Redding relies on section 158.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 157.005(a): 8 cases
In re Munks, 263 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
“” In his sole ground for relief, relator asserts that he is illegally restrained under this order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order of contempt, pursuant to Texas Family Code section 157.005(a). See Tex.”
Isaacs v. Isaacs, 338 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011).
“On appeal, the ex-husband’s main arguments are that (1) the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Texas Family Code section 157.005, and (2) sections 31.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 157.005(a)(2): 1 case
Tex. Fam. Code § 157.005(b): 34 cases
Patricia Webber v. Amy Williams, 355 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011).
“Tex. Fam.Code ANN. § 157.005(b). The plain language of section 157.”
Taylor v. Speck, 308 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b) (Vernon 2008).”
In re the Marriage of Morris, 32 P.3d 625 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Here, father maintains that subpart (a) of the choice of law provision of § 604 of the Uniform Act, supra, controls and requires the application of the limitations period set forth in Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b). However, the trial court concluded that the phrase "and the…”
Attorney Gen. v. Redding, 60 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001).
“Although the Attorney General never attempted to obtain a judgment against Redding for past due support, Redding contends that such a judgment is a prerequisite to issuance of an administrative writ. To support this argument, Redding relies on section 158.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 157.005(b)(1): 3 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Litten, 999 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b) (Vernon 1996).”
In the Interest of S.C.S., 48 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.005(b) (Vernon 1999) (emphases added).”
In re SCS, 48 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001).
Tex. Fam. Code § 157.005(b)(2): 1 case
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.