Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judicial compliance asks court to subsidize supervised‑visitation program as unpaid orders climb
Summary
Judicial compliance reported growing demand for court‑ordered supervised visitation, rising costs for security and recording, and asked the Commissioners Court to consider subsidizing the program; the Board of Judges has requested a county contribution of about $291,000 to sustain services while fee increases are phased in.
The county’s judicial compliance office told Commissioners Court that supervised visitation services — court‑ordered monitored visits between parents and children — are operating at a deficit and that judges asked the court to consider a subsidy to preserve program continuity.
Why it matters: Supervised visitation is a specialized service used in cases involving substance abuse, domestic violence, mental‑health concerns or other factors that lead judges to restrict unsupervised contact. Judicial compliance said many families cannot afford the hourly supervised‑visitation fee and that security, recording and staff costs are growing.
What was reported - Deficit and request: Judicial compliance said one program component — supervised visitation — is driving a budget deficit in the domestic relations division. The Board of Judges asked the court to consider subsidizing supervised visitation; the stated request figure in committee discussion was approximately $291,000. - Fee adjustments: The Board of Judges approved raising hourly supervised‑visitation fees from $30 to $40 as a partial offset; program managers cautioned many participants remain indigent and that fee increases will not fully close the gap. - Cost drivers: Site security (officers on site), staff to run visits and mandatory recording of all sessions (for evidence and review) were cited as major recurring costs. The county’s visits were hosted at the Juvenile Justice Center, which provides private rooms and on‑site security, an arrangement that reduces some risk but has prompted concern among families about location. - Alternatives and grants: Judicial compliance explored VOCA and other grant options — larger metropolitan programs had secured VOCA funding — but noted that local program scope is narrower and some grants did not fit the county’s service set. The office said judges had tried to increase user fees and recommended adjustments; they also asked HR/budget staff to examine subsidy options.
Ending and next steps Court members asked judicial compliance to return with more detailed revenue/expense breakdowns, estimates of how much fee increases would cover, and an analysis of alternative sites and security costs. The Board of Judges’ $291,000 subsidy request is under review; commissioners directed staff to explore whether targeted general‑fund support or carryover/ARPA funds can bridge the immediate gap while longer‑term income options are assessed.
