Texas Senate Bill SB279

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Filed: 12/20/10
• Introduced: 12/20/10
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/14/11
• Voted on by Senate: 3/24/11
• Refer: 1/31/11
• Out of House Committee: 4/27/11
• Report Pass: 3/14/11
• Voted on by House: 5/12/11
• Engrossed: 3/24/11
• Governor Action: 5/27/11
• Refer: 3/29/11
• Report Pass: 4/20/11
• Enrolled: 5/12/11
• Passed: 5/27/11

Caption

Relating to inclusion of pets and other companion animals in protective orders; providing a penalty.

Impact

If enacted, SB279 would significantly impact family violence law in Texas by expanding the definitions of threats and elements of abuse to include pets and companion animals. Such a change would not only alter the language of protective orders but also add legal ramifications for violating these conditions. It underscores a societal acknowledgment of the important role that animals play in the lives of their owners, particularly in high-stress situations like domestic abuse. This move could encourage more victims to seek protective orders by alleviating concerns over their pets' safety, making it a critical enhancement to existing laws protecting vulnerable individuals.

Summary

SB279 is a legislative bill aimed at amending the Family Code and Penal Code of Texas to explicitly include pets and other companion animals in protective orders related to family violence. The proposal seeks to enhance the protections available to individuals under such orders by preventing abusive individuals from harming, threatening, or interfering with the care of a pet or assistance animal. This reflects a growing recognition of the emotional and psychological ties between individuals and their animals, particularly in the context of domestic violence situations. Inclusion of companion animals in these legal protections is intended to provide a more comprehensive response to family violence which often affects not just the individuals involved but also their pets.

Contention

While the bill aims to promote the welfare of pets and enhance protections for victims of family violence, it may encounter opposition from some lawmakers who argue it could complicate existing legal frameworks associated with protective orders. Concerns may be raised regarding the practical implications of enforcing such provisions, particularly in determining culpability when it comes to pet care during instances of domestic abuse. There may also be debates surrounding the allocation of resources for enforcing these protections and ensuring compliance by those subject to protective orders, which could potentially lead to challenges in implementation.