Here is something I run into almost every week. Somebody calls me furious because their ex is ignoring the order. They have been keeping notes for eight months and they are ready to file enforcement. Then I read the order and my heart sinks, because the provision they want enforced says something like “the parties shall exchange the child at a mutually agreeable time and place,” or “Father shall be responsible for his portion of uninsured medical expenses.” That is not enforceable. Not by contempt, anyway, and probably not at all. The reason has a name, and it is the Slavin rule.
What Ex parte Slavin actually held
There is a Texas Supreme Court case from 1967 that every pro se litigant in this state should know about: Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. 1967).
A father had an order saying he owed $150 a month for three children. When the oldest turned eighteen, he cut his payment to $100, figuring the obligation dropped by a third. The trial court held him in contempt and jailed him. The Texas Supreme Court let him out.
The rule the Court laid down is that a decree must spell out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms, so that the person will readily know exactly what duties are imposed on him. Said plainly: if the order makes you guess, the court cannot jail you over your guess.
The Slavin rule cuts both ways
This is not a one-sided weapon. It is the first thing a good opposing attorney looks for when you file enforcement against their client, and it should be the first thing you look for when they file one against you. Same rule, both directions.
Fight for specificity while the order is still being drafted
When you are negotiating an order or drafting proposed orders, push for specificity even when it feels petty.
- “Mutually agreeable” is a landmine. Put in the address. Put in the time.
- Put in what happens if somebody is late.
- Say who pays what percentage, by what deadline, after receiving what proof.
When the other side says “we can just work it out,” understand what they are actually building: an order you cannot enforce. I would rather have a picky order I can take to a judge than a friendly one that is purely decorative.
If you are the one facing enforcement, read the exact words
Read the exact words of the provision they cited. Not the spirit of it. The words.
Then read their motion, too. Texas Family Code Section 157.002 requires the moving party to identify the specific provision violated, state the manner of noncompliance, and, for possession and access, give the date, place and time of every single occasion. A lot of pro se enforcement motions do not do that, and honestly, neither do a lot of lawyer-drafted ones.
If your order is already full of vague language
You are not stuck with it forever. That is a conversation about clarification or modification, and it is worth having before the next violation instead of after. I walked through that process here: Your Decree Is Too Vague to Enforce — How a Motion to Clarify Fixes It.
Read your order word by word
Have you actually sat down and read your order word by word lately, or are you going off what you remember it saying? That is a big difference, and the Slavin rule lives in the gap between the two. If you want help going through yours line by line, reach out.
Ben Schooley
ben@prosecoachtx.com
www.prosecoachtx.com
Pro Se Coach is not a lawyer and cannot and does not provide legal advice. This article is general information about Texas law, not advice about your case.