Parents, attorneys and judicial reform advocates traveled to Austin this week with a common message for the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct: The state needs to do more to hold judges accountable.
Dozens of Texans appeared before the commission Wednesday, sharing stories of costly legal battles, lengthy delays in court decisions, alleged conflicts of interest and frustration with a judicial oversight system they believe lacks transparency.
Much of the testimony focused on family courts, where parents described spending thousands of dollars fighting custody disputes while waiting months for judges to issue rulings.
The hearing also put the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) itself under scrutiny, with several speakers questioning whether the agency has enough authority to discipline judges and whether its own proceedings should be more accessible to the public.
Parents Describe Frustration With Texas Family Courts
Approximately 50 people testified before the 13-member commission, which typically meets behind closed doors to investigate complaints against judges and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted.
State law requires the commission to hold a public meeting every other year, giving Texans an opportunity to raise concerns about judicial conduct.
Wednesday's testimony included allegations of judges accepting campaign contributions from attorneys appearing before them, potential financial conflicts involving judges' family members, and court transcript fees exceeding $20,000.
Others complained about waiting months for decisions after hearings had concluded.
Texas resident Robert Garza argued that many of those problems stem from judges having broad discretion without sufficient oversight.
“What a lot of people here are talking about today is that judges are violating their discretion,” Garza said. “They’re making up the rules. Texas has been one of the worst states I’ve sat in for family courts.”
Garza knows the frustrations of family court firsthand.
He said he spent years navigating custody disputes involving his ex-wife, including allegations that she interfered with court-ordered visitation.
According to Garza, he eventually hired an attorney and paid $5,000 to pursue enforcement of an existing custody order, only to wait another six months for a hearing.
Even after appearing before a judge, he said, the delays continued.
“I thought, okay, the judge is now going to rule, but a month went by, two months went by, and I’m like, where’s the ruling? Then I looked into the code and found there is nothing saying the judge has to rule within a set time,” Garza said.
His experience has fueled a push for changes to how Texas courts operate.
Proposed Reforms Would Put Deadlines on Judicial Decisions
One of Garza's proposals would require judges to issue rulings within 10 business days of a hearing.
The measure would still allow additional time in complicated cases, but judges would have to provide an explanation for the delay every 10 business days.
Garza believes that approach would preserve judicial discretion while preventing cases from sitting unresolved indefinitely.
He also wants cases automatically referred to the SCJC whenever an appellate court or the Texas Supreme Court determines that a lower court judge abused their discretion.
Garza has spent 17 years advocating for family court reforms and has worked with Texas lawmakers on legislation addressing custody disputes.
Among those efforts are Senate Bill 718 from 2023, which addressed false allegations in child custody cases, and Senate Bill 2794 from 2025, which established escalating criminal penalties for parents who knowingly interfere with court-ordered custody or visitation.
Both measures were authored by state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney.
Garza said his advocacy extends well beyond Texas.
“I’ve spent 17 years in the family court system, and I have solutions to a lot of the issues. My bills have been adopted or proposed in all 50 states,” he said.
Advocates Want Cameras in Courtrooms and Greater Transparency
While some speakers focused on their personal experiences, others arrived with legislative proposals aimed at changing how the judicial system operates.
Jennifer Lundy, representing Texans for Judicial Accountability, urged commissioners to support measures that would make court proceedings more transparent.
“Texas has many fabulous, honest judges. For the few who are not, we are bringing new tools to the 90th [Texas] Legislature,” Lundy said. “First, the Access Act, advancing court cost efficiency with secure systems, puts audio and video in our courtrooms.”
According to Lundy, state Sen. Bob Hall, R-Rockwall, has agreed to carry the proposed legislation.
Supporters argue that recording courtroom proceedings would provide a more reliable record of what happens during hearings, protecting people who believe they have been treated unfairly while also helping defend judges against unfounded accusations.
Lundy also called for additional changes to the SCJC itself.
Her proposals include allowing judicial misconduct complaints to be submitted online, publishing transcripts of commission proceedings and findings of guilt within 30 days, and requiring disclosure of campaign contributions made to judges by attorneys appearing in their courts.
The financial disclosure proposal addresses concerns raised by several witnesses about potential conflicts of interest.
Judicial campaigns in Texas can receive contributions from attorneys, creating questions about impartiality when those lawyers later appear before the judges they supported.
Can Texas Do More to Discipline Judges?
The hearing also highlighted a recurring complaint about the state's judicial oversight system: Even when misconduct is substantiated, judges do not necessarily lose their positions.
The SCJC has several disciplinary options, including issuing public sanctions, but removing a judge from office involves additional legal procedures.
Some witnesses argued that the current system does not provide sufficient consequences for serious misconduct.
Two recent disciplinary cases were among the examples discussed.
Earlier this year, the commission publicly sanctioned Harris County District Court Judge Melissa Morris over findings involving unsatisfactory termination of probation for defendants who pleaded guilty to sex crimes involving children, along with violations of grand jury secrecy.
Despite those sanctions, Morris remained in office.
Another case involved District Court Judge Natalia Cornelio, who challenged a public reprimand issued by the commission over a false bench warrant involving death row inmate Ronald Lee Haskell.
A special tribunal upheld the sanctions in July, with Cornelio prohibited from serving as a visiting judge.
The cases have added to calls from reform advocates for stronger disciplinary authority and clearer consequences when judges violate judicial conduct standards.
Texas Lawmakers Have Already Changed the Commission
The push for additional oversight comes after state lawmakers made significant changes to the commission's membership in 2025.
Under the revised structure, the governor appoints seven of the commission's 13 members, up from five previously.
The Texas Supreme Court appoints the remaining six members.
Lawmakers also eliminated the State Bar of Texas' authority to appoint commissioners.
Those changes altered how the oversight body is selected, but Wednesday's testimony made clear that many Texans believe more reforms are necessary.
For some speakers, the concern was not simply how the commission investigates judges, but how much information the public can obtain about those investigations and their outcomes.
Recording Ban Raises Questions About Open Meetings
One of the more pointed complaints Wednesday involved the public hearing itself.
Taran Champagne challenged the commission's prohibition on attendees recording the meeting, arguing that the restriction conflicts with the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Champagne cited Section 551.023, which generally allows people attending open meetings of governmental bodies to make audio or video recordings.
“Section 551.023 of the Texas Open Meetings Act notes under Subsection 8 that a person in attendance may record all or any part of an open meeting of a governmental body by means of a recorder, video camera, or other means of oral or visual reproduction,” Champagne said.
The commission records its public hearings and has posted recordings of previous meetings online.
However, attendees have previously faced restrictions on making their own recordings.
During the commission's 2024 public meeting, then-Chair Gary Steel told attendees that photographing or recording the proceedings was against the law.
Texas procedural rules do place restrictions on cameras during court proceedings, but the SCJC's public meeting is not a trial or appellate oral argument, raising questions about whether those restrictions apply.
The dispute illustrates a broader concern voiced throughout Wednesday's hearing: Whether the agency responsible for holding judges accountable is itself sufficiently transparent.
Judicial Accountability Debate Heads Toward 2027 Legislative Session
Wednesday's hearing offered Texans an opportunity to speak directly to the commission, but many of the proposed changes would require action by state lawmakers.
Advocates are already looking toward the 90th Texas Legislature, which convenes in January 2027, with proposals addressing courtroom recordings, judicial financial disclosures, deadlines for rulings and greater public access to disciplinary proceedings.
The testimony also revealed the difficult balance involved in judicial oversight.
Judges need independence to make decisions based on the law and facts of each case, but that independence must coexist with meaningful accountability when misconduct occurs.
For parents who say they have spent years and thousands of dollars trying to resolve custody disputes, the issue is far from theoretical.
They want timely decisions, fair treatment and a system that responds when they believe a judge has crossed the line.
Whether the commission and state lawmakers respond with additional reforms remains to be seen.
