Can I Move Out of State With My Child in Texas? (2026)

• Whether you can move turns on one clause: Tex. Fam. Code § 153.134(b)(1) requires a court appointing joint managing conservators to either set "a geographic area within which the conservator shall maintain the child's primary residence" or state that the parent may choose a residence "without regard to geographic location."
• To lift a restriction you must prove two things, not one: a material and substantial change in circumstances since the order was signed, and that the change is in the child's best interest. Source: Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101(a).
• Texas district courts processed 65,319 post-judgment modification and enforcement cases in FY2023, down 3% year-over-year and 28% from five years earlier. Source: Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary FY2023, p. 11.
• A jury, not just a judge, can decide the geographic area, and the court "may not contravene a jury verdict" on it — that's exactly what the Texas Supreme Court enforced in Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002). Source: Tex. Fam. Code § 105.002(c)(1); Lenz v. Lenz.
• Moving in violation of the order exposes you to contempt: a fine of up to $500 and up to six months in county jail per violation. Source: Tex. Gov't Code § 21.002(b).
• An "Ector County and contiguous counties" restriction covers 5,768 square miles across six counties with a combined 2020 population of 377,874, so most Permian Basin job moves stay legal without any court filing at all. Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Handbook of Texas.

You can move out of state with your child only if your order has no geographic restriction, the other parent agrees in writing and the court signs off, or a judge or jury modifies the order to remove or widen the restriction. There is no automatic right to relocate, and no notice-and-wait procedure that lets you move by default if the other parent stays silent.

Texas frames this through three statutes working together. §153.001(a) states the public policy: assure frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the child's best interest, provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment, and encourage parents to share the rights and duties of raising the child. §153.002 makes best interest "the primary consideration" on conservatorship and possession. §153.134(b)(1) is where that policy becomes a line on a map.

The practical consequence is that the burden sits with the parent who wants to move. You are asking a court to change a final order, and Texas treats final orders as final until someone proves they should not be.

A geographic restriction is a court-ordered boundary inside which the parent with the exclusive right to determine primary residence must keep the child living. It restricts the child's residence, not yours. You are free to move anywhere you like. The child is not.

Texas orders usually express the boundary one of four ways: a single county, a county plus contiguous counties, a named school district, or the State of Texas. Many decrees add a trigger clause stating the restriction lifts automatically if the other parent moves outside the area — the single most overlooked sentence in Permian Basin custody files. In Ector County, "Ector County and contiguous counties" is the default for joint managing conservators with children; it covers 5,768 square miles and about 378,000 people, so most oilfield job moves stay legal without any filing.

Under Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101(a), a court may modify custody or a geographic restriction if the movant proves both: (1) a material and substantial change in circumstances of the child, a conservator, or another affected party since the last order, AND (2) the modification is in the child's best interest.

What courts have accepted as material and substantial: a genuine job offer with documented income increase, remarriage that changes household resources, the other parent's move away from the area, deterioration of the child's environment, and safety concerns. What courts reject: a general desire to relocate, an unsubstantiated "opportunity," and lifestyle preferences.

Best interest is the Holley v. Adams factors: the child's desires (age-weighted), current and future emotional and physical needs, present and future emotional and physical dangers, parental abilities of the parties seeking custody, programs available, plans for the child, stability of the home, acts or omissions of a parent indicating the existing relationship is not proper, and any excuse for those acts.

Vendors and blogs often say Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002), "made it easier to relocate." What the Texas Supreme Court actually did was hold that a jury, not just a judge, can decide the geographic area in a Texas custody case — and that a trial court "may not contravene a jury verdict" on it. That's the rule of Tex. Fam. Code § 105.002(c)(1).

In practice, that means either party in a Texas modification suit can demand a jury on the geographic-restriction question. Juries can weigh the same Holley best-interest factors a judge weighs, and their answer binds the trial court. It's why relocation cases in West Texas often turn on jury strategy, not just judicial persuasion.

Contempt of court. Under Tex. Gov't Code § 21.002(b), a violation of a court order carries a fine of up to $500 and confinement in county jail for up to six months per violation. Every day the child is out of the restricted area can be a separate violation. Courts also routinely order the child returned, award make-up possession to the other parent, and shift attorney fees.

A move made in violation is also the fastest way to lose a modification suit you might otherwise have won. The other side will file for enforcement first, and you'll be defending the move you already made instead of proposing the move you want to make.

Ector County median household income was $71,536 for 2020–2024, and 47.1% of residents age five and older speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Census QuickFacts, accessed August 2026). Two features of oilfield life shape every relocation case we handle: (1) 14/14 or 7/7 hitches that don't line up with the Standard Possession Order's first–third–fifth weekends, and (2) boom-and-bust paychecks that make support figures fixed in a strong quarter unpayable in a weak one.

Our Ector and Midland cases typically resolve one of three ways: (a) the "contiguous counties" restriction already covers the new job, so no filing is needed; (b) the other parent agrees to a widened area in exchange for a modified support figure or extended summer possession; or (c) we file a modification with documented job offer letters, income comparisons, and a proposed possession schedule that keeps the other parent meaningful time on a workable rotation.