Beaumont council rejects civil-penalty ordinance for child-custody interference after judges and police warn of limits and burdens

The Beaumont City Council voted to deny a proposed ordinance that would have created a civil-penalty path at municipal court for interference with child-custody orders. The item followed months of public comment from residents who urged local enforcement options.

Judge Lively and Police Department leaders told council members the municipal ordinance, as drafted, would create legal and practical problems. Judge Lively said the first interaction typically is with police and that family courts and the district attorney's office have long-standing processes for pursuing custody interference under state law. "The first interaction is gonna be with the police department," Lively said during council discussion, explaining the sequence of how custody disputes enter the criminal and civil systems.

Police Chief Plunkett told council that officers routinely log these incidents — about 340 calls over the past two years — and generally provide event numbers and direct families to civil remedies. "What officers can do if the ordinance was put in place with a civil penalty is strictly the ability to do what we've been doing, which is give them an event number," Plunkett said. The chief and the judge both said the proposed municipal approach would shift resource burdens to municipal court and police without resolving underlying family-law disputes, and that municipal courts are often not courts of record, complicating appeals.

Public commenters urged council to adopt a remedy that would give families tools short of criminal prosecution. Daniel Campisi, who had advocated for action, told the council earlier that House Bill 969 (2023) provided a civil penalty mechanism the city could adopt; Campisi said the change would "reduce the emotional toll" on families and provide enforcement alternatives. But judges, prosecutors and police said the local ordinance in its present form would be difficult to enforce, might duplicate or conflict with state felony charges, and could produce civil penalties with little means of collection or remedy.

After extended discussion and requests for further review with the Texas Municipal League and other city attorneys, council members voted to deny the ordinance. Several council members said they are open to continued work on the problem and to exploring alternative measures such as designated monitored drop-off zones and better interagency coordination, but they declined to adopt the municipal civil-penalty approach as drafted.

The denial means the status quo remains: police will continue their existing practice of logging incidents and advising families to pursue civil remedies through family court and prosecutors, while municipal staff said they will seek additional information and examples from other Texas cities to determine whether a workable local approach exists.