In the high-stakes world of Texas family law custody disputes, few tools have been as frequently used—and often abused—as court-ordered counseling, particularly in the context of “reunification therapy”. But with the passage of House Bill 3783, effective June 20, 2025, that landscape has shifted significantly.
This new legislation amends Section 153.010 of the Texas Family Code, placing strict limitations on what courts may order regarding counseling in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.
Reunification therapy, often ordered to rebuild parent-child relationships in high-conflict custody cases, has faced criticism for therapist overreach. Many states have enacted laws to ban “reunification therapy,” an unproven and controversial industry that allegedly rebuilds relationships between children and their “estranged parent.” In actuality, this practice often allows a parent to abuse family court proceedings to obtain orders that enable a court-ordered professional to remove children from their primary caretaker. This often includes requiring the primary caregiver and their family to cease all contact with their children.
HB 3783, signed into law with bipartisan support and input from groups such as the Texas Council on Family Violence and the Texas Family Law Foundation, addresses these concerns directly. As a former family court judge and full-time mediator, I’ve seen therapy orders backfire when therapists, not judges, dictate possession terms—a practice this law now curbs.
A Legislative Response to Therapy Misuse
HB 3783 was crafted in response to growing concerns about the unchecked discretion granted to therapists in reunification therapy settings. The House Research Organization noted troubling practices where children were forcibly removed from their custodial environments, transported across state lines, or subjected to isolation from family and community, all under the guise of therapeutic intervention.
The bill’s sponsors, including Rep. Lacey Hull and Sen. Tan Parker, aimed to codify protections for children and clarify the limits of court involvement in therapy mandates. One key issue addressed: the delegation of possession and access decisions to counselors—a common but now prohibited practice.
What the Law Prohibits
Under amended Section 153.010(d), courts may not order counseling that requires (Tex. Fam. Code § 153.010(d)):
| Prohibited Practice | Description |
| Isolation | Isolating a child from family, school, religious community (e.g., church), or other support networks, including barring contact with a parent or family member. |
| Overnight Stays | Requiring a child to stay overnight or for multiple days in an out-of-state or other location, even if accompanied by a parent. |
| Coercive Transport | Transporting a child by force, threat of force, undue coercion, or actions risking their safety. |
| Possession Changes | Temporary or permanent changes to the Standard Possession Order (SPO) or access schedules. |
| Abuse or Coercion | Using force, threat of force, undue coercion, or verbal abuse against the child. |
Additionally, under Section 153.010(c), if credible evidence of family violence or sexual abuse is presented per Section 153.004, courts cannot order:
- Joint counseling sessions between a victim and their perpetrator.
- A victim to pay any costs for counseling involving the perpetrator.
These restrictions effectively end the practice of therapists acting as de facto decision-makers by prohibiting changes to possession schedules without court approval.
Stricter Therapist Qualifications
Therapists ordered to provide counseling must now meet rigorous standards (Section 153.010(a)):
- Hold a mental health license requiring at least a master’s degree (e.g., LPC, LMFT, LCSW).
- Have a background in family therapy.
- Possess training in the dynamics of family violence (not just domestic violence) if the court deems it relevant.
This shift raises the bar and limits participation to more qualified professionals, addressing long-standing complaints about inappropriate or unqualified counselors guiding sensitive family transitions.
Legal and Practical Implications for Practitioners
For Litigators Seeking Reunification Therapy:
- Be prepared to frame your request narrowly. Avoid language suggesting the therapist will control visitation or override the SPO.
- Propose agreements by both parties to modify possession schedules, if needed, but tie any changes to court approval, not therapist discretion.
- Focus on therapy goals and therapist qualifications, rather than using therapy as a lever to restrict the other parent’s access.
For Litigators Opposing Such Orders:
- Cite the prohibited provisions of 153.010(d) directly.
- Argue that vesting power in the therapist to manage access or alter the SPO is not only improper, but now illegal.
- Challenge any attempt to circumvent the SPO without a formal modification suit under Chapter 156.
This Law Is a Material and Substantial Change
HB 3783 expressly states that it constitutes a “material and substantial change of circumstances”, providing grounds to seek a modification of a possession or access order issued before the law took effect. Practitioners should evaluate past orders involving reunification therapy to determine whether modification is now warranted or required under Chapter 156.
Where Mediation Fits In
As a full-time mediator and former family court judge, I often encounter parties wrestling with the emotional and logistical challenges of reunification. HB 3783 offers both a new boundary and an opportunity:
- For parents seeking reconciliation, it encourages clear, court-sanctioned agreements that avoid outsourcing judicial discretion.
- For those concerned about coercive or inappropriate therapy orders, it offers a firm statutory shield.
In mediation, I can help the parties craft agreed-upon therapeutic arrangements that respect both the child’s well-being and the existing legal limits. And when therapy is needed, I can help guide parties to ensure that agreed-upon therapy is conducted in a way that supports, not supplants, the parenting plan, and importantly, that aligns with HB 3783’s mandates.
Final Thoughts
HB 3783 brings overdue structure to the realm of court-ordered “reunification therapy”. For practitioners, it marks the end of “therapist-as-judge” practices and a return to judicial control over possession and access. For families, it’s a guardrail against the misuse of therapy in custody battles.
It’s a new era, and one that demands both strategic advocacy and a firm understanding of the evolving law.
If you’re interested in crafting settlement terms that comply with HB 3783, or you’re unsure whether an existing reunification order can stand, mediation may be your next best step. I’m here to help guide those conversations with legal insight and practical clarity.
