§ 81.005.Defenses

Title 4. Liability in Tort · Chapter 81. Sexual Exploitation by Mental Health Services Provider · Last amended 1993 · Last verified August 29, 2026

In one sentenceSection 81.005 removes consent, location, and timing as defences, and allows one defence for a former patient not emotionally dependent whose treatment ended more than two years earlier.

Full Text of § 81.005

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c)

(a)It is not a defense to an action brought under Section 81.002 or 81.003 that the sexual exploitation of the patient or former patient occurred:

(1)with the consent of the patient or former patient;

(2)outside the therapy or treatment sessions of the patient or former patient; or

(3)off the premises regularly used by the mental health services provider for the therapy or treatment sessions of the patient or former patient.

(b)It is a defense to an action brought under Section 81.002 or 81.003 by a former patient that the person was not emotionally dependent on the mental health services provider when the sexual exploitation began and the mental health services provider terminated mental health services with the patient more than two years before the date the sexual exploitation began.

(c)A person is considered not emotionally dependent for purposes of this chapter if the nature of the patient's or former patient's emotional condition and the nature of the treatment provided by the mental health services provider are not such that the mental health services provider knows or has reason to believe that the patient or former patient is unable to withhold consent to the sexual exploitation.

End

Plain-English Summary

What cannot be argued, and the one thing that can.

It is not a defence that the exploitation occurred: with the consent of the patient or former patient; outside the therapy or treatment sessions; or off the premises regularly used for the sessions.

The consent bar is the substance of the chapter. The therapeutic relationship involves a professional the patient has been encouraged to trust with their most private material, in a condition of acknowledged emotional vulnerability. Texas treats apparent consent in that setting as not meaningfully given.

The location and timing bars foreclose the obvious argument that a relationship conducted outside the office was personal rather than professional.

Subsection (b) supplies the single defence, available only against a former patient, and it has two elements: the person was not emotionally dependent on the provider when the exploitation began, and the provider terminated services more than two years before it began.

Both are required. A two-year gap does not help if the dependency persisted, and an absence of dependency does not help within two years.

Subsection (c) defines the term against the provider's knowledge: a person is not emotionally dependent if the nature of their condition and of the treatment are not such that the provider knows or has reason to believe the person is unable to withhold consent. The test is what the provider knew or should have known.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is consent a defence to a claim against a therapist?

No. Consent, conduct outside sessions, and conduct off the premises are all expressly excluded as defences.

Is there any defence?

One, and only against a former patient: that the person was not emotionally dependent on the provider when the exploitation began and the provider terminated services more than two years before it began. Both elements are required.

How is emotional dependence assessed?

By whether the nature of the patient's condition and the treatment are such that the provider knows or has reason to believe the patient is unable to withhold consent.

Amendment History

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 573, Sec. 2.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from Texas Legislature Online (statutes.capitol.texas.gov). Enacted by the Texas Legislature. Current through May 14, 2026. Last verified August 29, 2026. · Official source