Clearly Legal Blog

On September 1, 2011,  new human trafficking laws—originally HB (House Bill) 3000 and SB (Senate Bill) 24—went into effect in Texas, thereby making these pieces of legislation officially “the law” in Texas. Though it is too early to know how these new laws will be interpreted by the courts, here is a quick look at what sort of alleged activity the new laws cover, how they punish that alleged activity, and how the new laws affect existing Texas laws.

Prior to the enactment of HB 3000 and SB 24 into law, human trafficking was already criminalized in Texas under section 20A.02 of the Texas Penal Code, which, in a nutshell, makes it illegal to transport, recruit, or provide another person, (i.e., the victim,); knowing or intending that the trafficked victim will be engaged in forced labor. TEX. PEN. CODE § 20A.02 (2009). The existing law also criminalized benefiting from such acts, be it through free labor, from a monetary benefit, or through some other means. An offense under this section was characterized as a felony of the second degree, punishable by a period of two to twenty years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000. If the trafficked victim happens also to be a minor, or if the trafficking resulted in the death of the victim, the punishment could have been five years to 99 years or life imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, which made it a first degree felony.

SB 24 amended section 20A.02 to explicitly criminalize trafficking another person through force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of prostitution. Id. at §20A.02(3). It further criminalizes engaging in sexual conduct with a victim trafficked for prostitution. Id. at § 20A.02(a)(4).  So, prior to SB 24, one who solicited a prostitute who had been trafficked and forced into prostitution could not be punished under the harsher trafficking law. Soliciting a prostitute was a misdemeanor under section 43.02 of the Texas

Penal Code, and a first offense was punishable by up to a $2000 fine, a jail sentence of up to 180 days, or both. Now, under the new laws, if the person solicited happens to be a trafficking victim, the person doing the soliciting (as in not the victim who was trafficked) may be punished under the new trafficking law and face felony charges, a longer sentence, and a larger fine. Section 20A.02(a)(4) has no knowledge requirement, meaning that it would not matter if the person does not know the prostitute he intends to hire is a trafficking victim.

HB 3000 created a new offense called Continuous Trafficking of Persons now found in section 20A.03 of the Texas Penal Code. A person commits this new offense by engaging in an offense under section 20A.02 two or more times within a thirty day period. A defendant under this new offense may be charged with one count of Continuous Trafficking per victim trafficked. Continuous Trafficking of Persons is a first degree felony and carries with it a sentence of 25 years to 99 years or life.

In this last legislative session, the State of Texas muscled up the anti-human trafficking laws considerably.  With border security being a hot-button issue on both the state and federal levels, these newly-enacted laws are meant to put those in the business of smuggling people into this state behind bars, and deter those who might consider this lucrative type of smuggling.

Generally in Texas, a parent can be ordered to pay child support for his or her children until the child’s 18th birthday or the child’s high school graduation, whichever comes later. However, if the child is disabled, a trial court may order the child’s parents to provide support for the child without a limit as to age or circumstances. Texas law defines a disabled child as someone who “requires substantial care and physical supervision because of a mental or physical disability and will not be capable of self-support.” Naturally, a lot of possible circumstances can be used to meet this definition. It’s important to note that a child need not be in the care of an institution to be considered disabled, but the law does say that the disability must be discovered before the child’s 18^th birthday. 

To give an example that illustrates the application of the law talked about in the paragraph above, consider the ruling from In re T.A.N., No. 07-08-0483-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo January 8, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.).  In this case, the child who was the subject of the suit had bone cancer in his left leg and subsequently was involved in an accident setting back his recovery. Evidence showed that the child’s left leg was shorter than his right leg, that the skin on the affected leg was fragile from multiple surgeries, and that these conditions would remain problems throughout the child’s life. This condition made the child unable to do everyday tasks such as putting on socks or going grocery shopping. He was also unable to walk a mile unassisted or sit for an extended period of time. Further, the pain from his condition limited his ability to concentrate. All of these factors are taken into account and allow to the court to make a big-picture assessment of the type of medical needs that await this child in the future. 

Evidence also showed the expenses of the child’s heath care. He would need several additional surgeries in his lifetime, and one past surgery had cost over $200,000. The child’s uninsured medical costs were $60,000-$70,000 a year.  He also had to buy adaptive equipment, such as his shoes which cost $1,000 a pair. These financial burdens were certainly taken into account by the court when it made its’ decision to determine that this child was disabled and would need extra support.

The support obligor (person ordered to pay the child support)  argued that there was not enough evidence to support a finding that his son was disabled because there were long periods of time during which his son did not need substantial care of personal supervision and was able to care for himself. Yet the trial court determined because of the child’s substantial medical expenses, the evidence was sufficient to establish that he was financially incapable of self-support—at least until he graduates from college and finds a job that he could perform—and thus disabled under the laws in the Texas Family Code. Though the court acknowledged there were times when the child did not need substantial care or personal supervision, the court pointed out that the law does not require a child be in need of continuous care before the statute considers him/her to be disabled.