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 158. WITHHOLDING FROM EARNINGS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 158.309 (2026)

Hearing On Motion To Stay

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

Sec. 158.309. HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY. (a) If a motion to stay is filed in the manner provided by Section 158.307, the court shall set a hearing on the motion and the clerk of court shall notify the obligor, obligee, or their authorized representatives, and the party who filed the application for judicial writ of withholding of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

(b) The court shall hold a hearing on the motion to stay not later than the 30th day after the date the motion was filed, except that a hearing may be held later than the 30th day after filing if both the obligor and obligee agree and waive the right to have the motion heard within 30 days.

(c) Upon hearing, the court shall:

(1) render an order for income withholding that includes a determination of the amount of child support arrearages, including medical support, dental support, and interest; or

(2) grant the motion to stay.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, Sec. 59, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 911, Sec. 57, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1150 (S.B. 550), Sec. 33, eff. September 1, 2018.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 2001–2015 · leading case: in the Interest of D.W.G., a Child, 391 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in the Interest of D.W.G., a Child, 391 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012). “(c) Upon hearing, the court shall: (1) render an order for income withholding that includes a determination of the amount of child support arrearages, including medical support and interest; or (2) grant the motion to stay.”
Isaacs v. Isaacs, 338 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(c)(1). Isaacs claims that these statutes irreconcilably conflict.”
In the Interest of A.L.S., M.B.S., B.P.S. & F.J.S., 338 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “” Tex. Fam.Code § 158.309(c)(l)-(2). Both Stackhouse and the OAG contend that Brown may not challenge the trial court’s order granting Stackhouse’s motion to terminate the administrative writ of withholding because she did not appeal from that order, the issue was not raised in…”
Horton v. Horton, 335 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(a) (West 2008).”
In the Interest of B.C., 52 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App. 2001). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(b) (Vernon Supp.”
in the Interest of R.G., a Minor Child, 362 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309 (West 2008).”
In Re BC, 52 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(b) (Vernon Supp.”
In Re RG, 362 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011). “TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 158.309 (West 2008).”
In Re Als, 338 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “" Tex. Fam.Code § 158.309(c)(1)-(2). Both Stackhouse and the OAG contend that Brown may not challenge the trial court's order granting Stackhouse's motion to terminate the administrative writ of withholding because she did not appeal from that order, the issue was not raised in…”
Carolyn Jane Babbitt v. Ronald Hugh Below, No. 04-13-00759-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 4, 2015). “See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 158.309(c)(1) (West 2014).”
in the Interest of A.L.S., M.B.S., B.P.s, & F.J.S., No. 11-0497 (Tex. June 28, 2011). “” Tex. Fam. Code § 158.309(c)(1)-(2). Both Stackhouse and the OAG contend that Brown may not challenge the trial court’s order granting Stackhouse’s motion to terminate the administrative writ of withholding because she did not appeal from that order, the issue was not raised in…”
John W. Overton v. Mae W. Overton, No. 14-09-00865-CV, 2011 WL 398046 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 8, 2011). “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 158.309 (c) (West 2008).”
Tex. Fam. Code § 158.309(a): 1 case
Horton v. Horton, 335 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(a) (West 2008).”
Tex. Fam. Code § 158.309(b): 2 cases
In the Interest of B.C., 52 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App. 2001). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(b) (Vernon Supp.”
In Re BC, 52 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(b) (Vernon Supp.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 158.309(c)(1): 4 cases
Isaacs v. Isaacs, 338 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 158.309(c)(1). Isaacs claims that these statutes irreconcilably conflict.”
In Re Als, 338 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “" Tex. Fam.Code § 158.309(c)(1)-(2). Both Stackhouse and the OAG contend that Brown may not challenge the trial court's order granting Stackhouse's motion to terminate the administrative writ of withholding because she did not appeal from that order, the issue was not raised in…”
Carolyn Jane Babbitt v. Ronald Hugh Below, No. 04-13-00759-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 4, 2015). “See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 158.309(c)(1) (West 2014).”
in the Interest of A.L.S., M.B.S., B.P.s, & F.J.S., No. 11-0497 (Tex. June 28, 2011). “” Tex. Fam. Code § 158.309(c)(1)-(2). Both Stackhouse and the OAG contend that Brown may not challenge the trial court’s order granting Stackhouse’s motion to terminate the administrative writ of withholding because she did not appeal from that order, the issue was not raised in…”
Tex. Fam. Code § 158.309(c)(l): 1 case
In the Interest of A.L.S., M.B.S., B.P.S. & F.J.S., 338 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “” Tex. Fam.Code § 158.309(c)(l)-(2). Both Stackhouse and the OAG contend that Brown may not challenge the trial court’s order granting Stackhouse’s motion to terminate the administrative writ of withholding because she did not appeal from that order, the issue was not raised in…”
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.