Tex. Codes » Family Code · TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · SUBTITLE D. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES · CHAPTER 233. CHILD SUPPORT REVIEW PROCESS TO ESTABLISH OR ENFORCE SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 233.0271 (2026)

Confirmation Of Nonagreed Order Without Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 233.0271. CONFIRMATION OF NONAGREED ORDER WITHOUT HEARING. (a) If a request for hearing has not been timely received, the court shall confirm and sign a nonagreed child support review order not later than the 30th day after the date the petition for confirmation was delivered to the last party entitled to service.

(b) The Title IV-D agency shall immediately deliver a copy of the confirmed nonagreed review order to each party, together with notice of right to file a motion for a new trial not later than the 30th day after the date the order was confirmed by the court.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 911, Sec. 80, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2008–2013 · leading case: In Re Off. of Attorney Gen. of Texas, 264 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Off. of Attorney Gen. of Texas, 264 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008). · cites it 5× “The trial judge concluded (1) that it was the responsibility of the Attorney General, as the moving party, to ensure that the return of service was timely filed with the papers of the cause so that the confirmation order could be signed within the time period required by Texas…”
in the Interest of J.A.C., a Child, 362 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). · cites it 4× “2001)); see also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 233.0271(a). However, “ ‘[e]ven if a statutory requirement is mandatory, this does not mean that compliance is necessarily jurisdictional.”
In Re Jac, 362 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). · cites it 4× “2001)); see also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 233.0271(a). However, "`[e]ven if a statutory requirement is mandatory, this does not mean that compliance is necessarily jurisdictional.”
in Re the Off. of the Attorney Gen. of Texas, No. 01-08-00114-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 22, 2008). · cites it 3× “The trial judge concluded (1) that it was the responsibility of the Attorney General, as the moving party, to ensure that the return of service was timely filed with the papers of the cause so that the confirmation order could be signed within the time period required by Texas…”
in the Interest of G.J.F., No. 03-07-00643-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 29, 2008). · cites it 2× “" Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 233.0271 (a). The attorney general argues that the court's failure to confirm and sign the attorney general's proffered order in exactly the form proposed: creates a due process problem because the parties might not have requested a hearing because they…”
in the Interest of G.J.F., No. 03-07-00643-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 29, 2008). · cites it 2× “” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 233.0271 (a). The attorney general argues that the court’s failure to confirm and sign the attorney general’s proffered order in exactly the form proposed: creates a due process problem because the parties might not have requested a hearing because they…”
in the Interest of A.A., a Child, No. 05-11-00540-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 23, 2013). “TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §233.0271. However, once it did, fundamental fairness dictates we apply the requirements of due process of law.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 233.0271(a): 4 cases
In Re Off. of Attorney Gen. of Texas, 264 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008). “The trial judge concluded (1) that it was the responsibility of the Attorney General, as the moving party, to ensure that the return of service was timely filed with the papers of the cause so that the confirmation order could be signed within the time period required by Texas…”
in the Interest of J.A.C., a Child, 362 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “2001)); see also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 233.0271(a). However, “ ‘[e]ven if a statutory requirement is mandatory, this does not mean that compliance is necessarily jurisdictional.”
In Re Jac, 362 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “2001)); see also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 233.0271(a). However, "`[e]ven if a statutory requirement is mandatory, this does not mean that compliance is necessarily jurisdictional.”
in Re the Off. of the Attorney Gen. of Texas, No. 01-08-00114-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 22, 2008). “The trial judge concluded (1) that it was the responsibility of the Attorney General, as the moving party, to ensure that the return of service was timely filed with the papers of the cause so that the confirmation order could be signed within the time period required by Texas…”
Tex. Fam. Code § 233.0271(b): 2 cases
in the Interest of J.A.C., a Child, 362 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “2001)); see also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 233.0271(a). However, “ ‘[e]ven if a statutory requirement is mandatory, this does not mean that compliance is necessarily jurisdictional.”
In Re Jac, 362 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011). “2001)); see also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 233.0271(a). However, "`[e]ven if a statutory requirement is mandatory, this does not mean that compliance is necessarily jurisdictional.”
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.