What Good Are Our Laws If the Courts Don’t Enforce Them? Public comment testimony on court reform, August 18, 2026.

Created by the Legislature to examine how Texas can strengthen marriage and families, a temporary state commission is now hearing another message: For some families, the courthouse itself has become part of the problem.

A family-policy mission meets the reality of the courthouse

When Texas lawmakers created the Texas Commission on Marriage and Family, its mission appeared straightforward: examine ways to strengthen marriages, support parents, reduce family breakdown and make Texas a better place to raise children.

At the Commission’s Aug. 18 meeting, however, that conversation moved into more difficult territory.

Over nearly five hours, public commenters described what they said happens when families enter Texas courts already in crisis and emerge years later financially depleted, emotionally exhausted and, in some cases, more divided than when litigation began.

According to attendees, 24 people provided public comment. Their experiences varied, but a common concern emerged: Texas can pass laws intended to protect parents and children, yet those protections mean little if families cannot depend on courts to apply and enforce them consistently.

The available statutory record confirms that Commission meetings are open to the public. The specific details of the Aug. 18 meeting, including the number of commenters and the substance of individual accounts, are presented here based on the supplied meeting report and attendee descriptions. Public comments are not, by themselves, adjudicated findings.

The meeting nevertheless placed an important question before a Commission created to study family stability: What happens when the institutions families must use appear to deepen the conflict they are supposed to resolve?

Public-comment video

Caroline Allison’s public comment to the Texas Commission on Marriage and Family on August 18, 2026

A Commission born from House Bill 3284

House Bill 3284 created the Texas Commission on Marriage and Family during the 2025 legislative session. The enrolled bill states that the seven-member Commission is intended to study and develop strategies for promoting strong marriages and healthy families, identify state laws and policies that may discourage marriage and family formation, evaluate state-funded programs and make recommendations to the Legislature.

The reported final vote in the House was 107–32, with two members present and not voting. The Senate approved the bill 25–6. The enrolled legislative record confirms those vote totals.

The bill took effect immediately on June 20, 2025, according to the supplied legislative background and the bill’s immediate-effect provision. The Commission must deliver its written findings and legislative recommendations to state leaders and legislators by Nov. 1, 2026. It will be abolished on Dec. 31, 2026.

That schedule gives the Commission only a short period to turn testimony, research and policy discussions into recommendations that could affect the 2027 legislative session.

The law does not give the Commission authority to rewrite Texas statutes or direct individual courts. Its role is advisory. That makes the quality of the information it receives especially important. A report built only around programs and statistics could miss what families experience after they file a case. A report built only around individual stories could lack the data needed to design workable reforms.

The Commission needs both.

Who is in the room matters

The Commission’s structure was designed to bring several areas of expertise into the same process, including family law, counseling, child development, research, nonprofit family programs and clergy.

Carl Caton, founder of the San Antonio Marriage Initiative, serves as chairman. His background reflects the Commission’s original emphasis on strengthening marriages and family formation.

Michael Hiller, a board-certified family-law attorney and mediator, brings experience with approaches intended to make divorce and family disputes less destructive. During the Aug. 18 discussion, Michael Hiller appeared receptive to concerns about unnecessary conflict and the possibility that legal proceedings can intensify family damage.

Cynthia Barela Graham, a board-certified family-law attorney with experience connected to the State Bar and family-law organizations, brings a perspective from inside the legal system. Her questions and responses were described as more skeptical toward some criticisms of family courts.

That contrast is not evidence of misconduct. It is useful to the policy process.

A serious examination of family-court reform must include professionals who understand why litigation is sometimes necessary, including cases involving domestic violence, substance abuse, hidden assets, child-safety concerns or genuinely disputed facts. It must also include parents who have lived through the system and can identify where written protections did not feel meaningful in practice.

Andrew C. Brown, vice president of policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has worked on parental-rights and child-welfare issues and participated in the broader policy discussion surrounding the Commission.

State family-policy officials, including Crystal Starkey of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, have also been involved in the Commission’s surrounding work.

Together, these participants represent marriage advocates, family-law professionals, state administrators, policy specialists and parental-rights advocates. On Aug. 18, they also heard from people who have personally encountered Texas family courts.

Twenty-four Texans take the microphone

Among those attending and speaking were Jennifer Lundy of Texans for Judicial Accountability, George Saldaña, Jeff Morgan, Arnold Yan, Caitlin Ross and Caroline Allison, founder of Stop Legal Bullying, along with other parents, court watchers and advocates.

According to attendees, many people traveled to the meeting or took time away from work to participate. Speakers described cases that they said consumed family savings, damaged relationships and left them uncertain about whether due process had been followed.

Commenters also raised concerns about legal fees, court-appointed professionals, inconsistent enforcement of orders and the difficulty of challenging decisions once a family has run out of money.

Those accounts deserve to be taken seriously without being treated as proven findings about every judge, lawyer or case. A parent’s belief that a court acted unfairly is not the same as a judicial determination that misconduct occurred. At the same time, repeated public accounts can identify questions that policymakers should investigate through records, data and independent review.

The central concern voiced at the meeting was not simply whether a particular parent won or lost.

It was whether the system can be trusted to apply the law in a way that is understandable, consistent and procedurally fair.

What good is a law if the institution cannot be relied upon to follow it?

That question returned throughout the public comments.

Texas lawmakers have enacted statutes addressing parental rights, child welfare and family-court procedure. But speakers argued that legislative protections cannot accomplish their purpose if courtroom enforcement is unpredictable or if families lack practical tools to address perceived failures.

Losing a case does not establish judicial misconduct. Judges must resolve contested facts, interpret statutes and exercise discretion in complex circumstances. Similar cases may also produce different outcomes because the facts are different.

Still, a functioning justice system requires public confidence that statutes and precedent matter, due process will be observed and similar legal principles will be applied with reasonable consistency.

That confidence affects more than divorce proceedings. Parents need to understand how their rights will be evaluated. Attorneys need to advise clients based on written law and precedent. Courts need legitimacy in the eyes of the people whose families, finances and relationships they are deciding.

When people conclude that written law is disconnected from courtroom reality, the concern becomes institutional rather than personal.

That is why judicial accountability belongs in the family-policy conversation. Accountability should mean lawful oversight, transparent procedures and fair review: not harassment of judges or personal targeting of lawyers.

Family breakdown carries a financial price

Family litigation can involve attorneys, mediators, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, amicus attorneys, parenting facilitators, mental-health professionals, receivers and other experts. Many provide necessary services in difficult cases.  Their legitimate role does not eliminate the need for policymakers to examine how the larger system operates.

A household that begins a divorce with retirement savings, home equity and financial stability may emerge from prolonged litigation having spent a substantial portion of those resources on legal and professional services. The final order may end the case, but it does not restore the money.

Financial depletion can affect housing, education, health care and retirement planning. Children may experience the consequences of prolonged conflict long after a case formally closes. Families that were previously self-sufficient may become more dependent on relatives or public programs.  Those consequences create a legitimate state interest in examining whether Texas resolves family disputes as efficiently and constructively as possible.

The existence of legal fees does not prove exploitation, and a lengthy case does not automatically establish misconduct. But policymakers can reasonably ask how professionals are selected and compensated, whether appointments are transparent, what data is collected and whether the system’s incentives favor early, fair and lawful resolution over continued conflict.

Judicial elections and public confidence

Public commenters also raised judicial accountability and campaign finance.

Texas elects many of its judges, and lawyers who appear before elected judges may legally contribute to judicial campaigns subject to state restrictions. A contribution alone does not prove favoritism, improper influence or a connection to a particular ruling.

The appearance issue remains significant.

A parent who learns that an attorney appearing in a case contributed to the campaign of the judge deciding it may question the independence of the process, even when no improper conduct occurred. Texas’s Judicial Campaign Fairness Act provides an existing policy framework for campaign contributions and judicial elections, but the meeting raised a broader question: Should Texas do more to separate judicial-election financing from lawyers who regularly appear before the judges seeking campaign support?

That is a policy question about public confidence, not an accusation against every contributor or judge.

Reform should reduce conflict without denying reality

The discussion around Michael Hiller’s emphasis on reducing conflict pointed toward a constructive reform agenda. Texas could examine earlier intervention, mediation, collaborative approaches, stronger case management and incentives for resolving disputes before families exhaust their emotional and financial resources.

It could also examine transparency in court appointments and fees, public data on case duration and outcomes, and clearer mechanisms for enforcing existing protections.

At the same time, Cynthia Barela Graham’s skeptical questioning underscored why reform proposals must withstand scrutiny. Some cases cannot be resolved through cooperation alone. Courts must be prepared to act when safety, hidden assets, substance abuse or other serious issues make adversarial litigation necessary.

Reform should not mean attacking the entire family-law profession. It should mean asking whether the system adds unnecessary conflict to disputes that are already painful.

The goal is not to eliminate litigation. It is to make sure litigation remains a lawful tool for resolving genuine disputes rather than becoming an engine of exhaustion.

Public comment changed the character of the meeting

The Aug. 18 meeting demonstrated why public participation matters.

Researchers, lawyers, state agencies and nonprofit organizations bring expertise that policymakers need. Parents and former litigants bring another form of expertise: direct knowledge of how procedures operate on the ground.

A parent who has spent years in litigation understands the cumulative effect of repeated hearings, professional fees, uncertainty and delayed resolution. A court watcher who attends proceedings over time may notice patterns that are invisible in a single case file. A public-record researcher can connect policy promises to the outcomes documented in government records.

The 24 people who spoke brought those perspectives directly into the Commission’s work.

Their testimony does not resolve disputed cases. It does ensure that the Commission cannot discuss family stability without also confronting the state institutions families must navigate when relationships break down.

A growing network of citizen court watchers

The people attending the meeting also reflect a growing form of civic participation in Texas.

Jennifer Lundy, George Saldaña, Jeff Morgan, Arnold Yan, Caitlin Ross and Caroline Allison, along with other advocates and observers, are not merely attending government meetings. Many document public proceedings, review records, share testimony and use online platforms to broaden access to information.

That activity must remain grounded in accuracy, privacy and lawful public participation. Minors and private family members should not be identified or exposed. Disputed claims should not be presented as findings. Public oversight is strongest when it is documented, attributable and open to verification.

A public comment no longer necessarily disappears when the microphone turns off. When a recording is shared online, residents who could not attend can hear the testimony and evaluate the policy questions for themselves.

That is transparency in practice.

What family-court reform could look like

The Commission has not completed its work, and public testimony should not be confused with an adopted reform plan. But the meeting highlighted questions Texas could begin answering with data:

• How long do contested family cases typically last?
• How much family wealth is consumed by litigation?
• How are court-appointed professionals selected and compensated?
• Are appointments and fees disclosed in a meaningful way?
• How frequently do lawyers appearing before judges contribute to judicial campaigns?
• Which procedures encourage early resolution, and which unintentionally prolong conflict?
• When the Legislature creates protections for parents and children, how can Texas measure whether courts are applying them?
• What review mechanisms are available when families believe due process was not followed?

The answers should come from court records, administrative data, independent research and public testimony considered together.

Families also need clear information about existing channels. Concerns about attorney conduct may fall within the State Bar’s grievance process, while concerns involving judges follow a separate process. Neither process automatically changes a court order or proves the underlying allegations. The official information on State Bar complaints explains both the purpose and limitations of that system.

The Commission has until December

The Commission’s recommendations are due Nov. 1, 2026. The Commission and its authorizing law expire Dec. 31.  That leaves little time to convert testimony into meaningful recommendations before the 2027 legislative session.

If family-court reform appears in the final report, the Aug. 18 meeting may be remembered as a point when Texas’s conversation about family values expanded beyond marriage promotion and parental responsibility.  It began to include government responsibility too.

Texas can encourage marriage, support parenting and fund programs designed to strengthen families. But it must also examine what happens when families enter institutions created and operated by the state.  The parents and court watchers who spoke in Austin delivered a message that deserves careful consideration: Family policies are only meaningful when the institutions responsible for enforcing them apply the law fairly, transparently and consistently.

That is not an attack on every lawyer or judge. It is a demand that the system measure itself against the promises it makes to Texas families.

Disclaimer: Public comments and personal accounts described in this article are not necessarily adjudicated findings. The article is intended for public-interest reporting and policy discussion and is not legal advice.