In June of 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 3783 into law, a measure intended to protect victims of family violence and sexual abuse in high-conflict custody disputes.

However, the bill’s passage was quickly overshadowed by a storm of misinformation. Headlines and social media posts proclaimed that HB 3783 had “banned” or “outlawed” reunification therapy, while others erroneously claimed Texas had adopted “Kayden’s Law,” a federal framework aimed at similar protections.

These assertions, though widespread, are fundamentally inaccurate and have sown confusion among parents, attorneys, therapists, and even judges. Far from prohibiting therapeutic interventions, HB 3783 subtly shifts the landscape by constraining judicial discretion in specific scenarios—potentially hindering child-centered solutions without eliminating them outright.

This article aims to dispel the myths, outline the bill’s true implications, and provide practical guidance for stakeholders navigating its effects.

The Genesis of Confusion: What HB 3783 Does—and Does Not—Do

At its core, HB 3783 amends Texas Family Code §153.010, which governs court-ordered counseling in cases of parental conflict. The original statute afforded judges broad flexibility to mandate interventions tailored to a family’s unique needs.

The new law introduces safeguards, particularly in instances involving credible evidence of family violence or sexual abuse. For example, it prohibits courts from ordering a victim—whether adult or child—into joint counseling with an offending party or requiring the victim to bear the costs (§153.010(c)).

Additionally, it bars programs that involve isolating children, out-of-state placements, coercive transport, or therapist-imposed changes to possession schedules (§153.010(d)).

Importantly, however, HB 3783 does not regulate clinical practices or therapeutic models. It leaves untouched the authority of licensing boards—such as the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council and the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists—to define therapists’ scope of practice, ethical standards, and training requirements.

Licensed professionals, including counselors, marriage and family therapists, social workers, and psychologists, remain fully empowered to offer reunification therapy, contact-repair interventions, attachment-based work, and other evidence-informed approaches to address parent-child relational issues.

The bill neither bans these services nor alters custody evaluation standards. Instead, its focus is on limiting certain court orders, not on dictating what happens in a therapist’s office.

This distinction is crucial. While the law aims to shield victims from coercive or harmful joint sessions, it does not differentiate between adult domestic violence and parent-child psychological maltreatment, such as parental alienation or coercive control.

As a result, judges may find their hands tied in ordering therapeutic reintegration even when it is deemed essential for a child’s long-term well-being—a limitation that experts warned about during the legislative process.

The Vital Role of Reunification Therapy in High-Conflict Families

Reunification therapy, often misunderstood amid the HB 3783 debate, remains a cornerstone of ethical and effective mental health practice in Texas. Grounded in evidence-based research, it addresses relational ruptures caused by high-conflict dynamics, where children may unjustly resist or reject a parent due to manipulation or trauma.

Studies, such as those by Amy Baker (2007, 2010), highlight parental alienation as a form of psychological maltreatment linked to long-term issues like depression and relational dysfunction.

Similarly, Jennifer Harman, Edward Kruk, and Denise Hines (2018) frame alienating behaviors as family violence, while researchers like Leslie Fidler, Nicholas Bala, and Michael Saini (2013) advocate for specialized interventions to restore reality-testing and secure attachments.

Richard Warshak’s work (2015) demonstrates the success of structured reunification programs, showing that children can heal from distorted perceptions when supported by healthy parental involvement.

More recent insights from Matthew Matthewson (2023) reveal that formerly alienated children view reunification as pivotal to resolving loyalty conflicts and rebuilding identity.

In essence, these therapies are not punitive but restorative, prioritizing the child’s emotional safety and relational health. For therapists, this means continuing to provide trauma-informed family therapy without fear of legal reprisal, as long as it aligns with professional standards.

Parents and attorneys should recognize that reunification therapy is not a one-size-fits-all remedy but a tailored process that can prevent permanent family severance. Judges, too, retain the authority to order such interventions in most cases, provided they avoid the bill’s prohibited practices.

The challenge lies not in the therapy’s legality but in ensuring courts feel empowered to mandate it when a child’s best interests demand it.

The Unintended Erosion of Judicial Discretion

During the 2025 legislative hearings, mental health and legal professionals warned that HB 3783’s language could unintentionally block essential therapeutic pathways in complex parent–child cases.

They stressed that limiting judicial discretion leaves children vulnerable to ongoing coercive dynamics—particularly when the favored parent is the one found to have engaged in psychological maltreatment and coercive control, both recognized forms of child abuse.

In these cases, the bill can block judges from ordering reunification therapy for the child and favored parent placed on supervised visitation. Although legislative counsel acknowledged these risks and insisted that “work-arounds in the bill are obvious,” expecting judges to navigate the apparent restrictions, courts in practice have struggled to find clear, legally viable ways to restore parent–child relationships under the statute’s constraints.

Post HB 3783, a Texas judge found clear evidence of a favored parent (in this case, the mother’s) psychological maltreatment toward her child—a recognized form of abuse.

Contact was suspended, and full possession granted to the father, with the court emphasizing the need for future family therapy. However, citing HB 3783, the attorney argued there was no lawful way, under HB 3783, to order the needed intervention because the alienating parent was found to have committed abuse, effectively barring the alienating parent and the child from potential reconciliation.

This scenario illustrates the bill’s subtle but profound impact: it curtails judges’ ability to craft nuanced orders, transforming them from adaptive jurists into rigid enforcers of statute.

Such outcomes undermine the historical reliance on judicial discretion in Texas family courts, where orders could include sequenced therapy, psychoeducation, or graduated contact schedules. Without this flexibility, families risk permanent fragmentation, even when evidence supports therapeutic repair.

Correcting Myths and Offering Practical Guidance

Addressing Common Misconceptions

Let’s tackle some widespread myths directly. Despite claims to the contrary, HB 3783 does not ban reunification therapy—it remains a viable option for courts and clinicians. The bill does not adopt Kayden’s Law, nor does it restrict therapists’ practices under licensing rules. Instead, Instead, judicial discretion remains meaningful, but is expressly limited by §153.010(c)–(d) in cases involving family violence, sexual abuse, or coercive program practices.

Preserving Judicial Authority

Judges maintain meaningful power to act in children’s best interests through practical alternatives. Intensive reunification therapy between a child and an alienated parent remains permissible when properly structured. The key is avoiding blanket no-contact requirements and instead using protective measures such as supervised visitation and therapeutic monitoring of the alienating parent.

Practical Pathways Forward

Sequential approaches offer viable solutions. Attorneys can advocate for interpretations of §153.010(c) that distinguish between domestic violence dynamics and parent-child alienation. Starting with individual therapy sessions before advancing to family work provides a measured path forward. Parents should consult qualified therapists early to build strong cases for child-centered interventions.

Evidence-Based Implementation

Therapists must adhere to evidence-informed models and document progress to support court orders. By using these practical approaches, all stakeholders can honor the bill’s protective intent while preserving opportunities for relational healing.

Toward Clarity and Reform: Safeguarding Children’s Best Interests

Whatever its stated purpose, HB 3783 has operated less as a neutral safeguard and more as a one-sided restriction on how families access support. Its implementation has illuminated gaps that erode critical judicial tools—especially those needed to address psychological trauma, coercive control, and complex parent–child dynamics.

If Texas hopes to truly protect children, legislative refinement is necessary: clarifying judicial authority to order reintegration therapy, distinguishing between types of abuse, and preserving safe, evidence-informed pathways for healing.

Years ago, when I wrote A Voice for Nixmary—a book about a seven-year-old girl who died after years of starvation and brutal abuse—I immersed myself in the history of child fatality patterns and the ways child-protection systems respond to public pressure.

The same cycles appeared over and over: after a high-profile tragedy, agencies remove more children and place more families under supervision; when foster-care capacity collapses or foster fatalities rise, agencies swing back toward fewer removals, often leaving children in unsafe homes.

The pendulum rarely stops in the middle, and each oscillation produces new victims.If history is any guide, policies like HB 3783, and the broader movement toward “Kayden’s Law” approaches, risk repeating this predictable cycle.

In the effort to solve one problem, we may be setting the stage for another—an entire generation of children harmed by psychological maltreatment, coercive control, and disrupted parent–child bonds, all while being denied access to the very interventions that could restore safety and emotional well-being.

Time will tell whether we have learned from the past—or whether, yet again, children will bear the weight of unintended consequences.