According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 116 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill, which amends provisions of the Family Code relating to the grounds for involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship, does not impose new duties that would require additional appropriations beyond what is already allocated to relevant state agencies.

Specifically, the LBB notes that any additional responsibilities for the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) or the Office of Court Administration (OCA) resulting from the bill’s changes are assumed to be manageable within their existing budgets. This suggests that the implementation of HB 116 would not necessitate new staff, facilities, or operational funding.

Furthermore, the bill is also not anticipated to have a significant fiscal implication for local government entities. Courts and local child welfare authorities are expected to incorporate the changes using current procedures and personnel without requiring additional resources.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 116 for its meaningful reform to the Texas Family Code regarding the involuntary termination of parental rights. The bill eliminates a provision that allowed courts to permanently sever the parent-child relationship solely because a parent failed to fully comply with every detail of a court-ordered service plan. This narrow, technical basis for termination has often resulted in the loss of parental rights even in cases where the parent posed no demonstrable danger to the child. By removing this provision, HB 116 ensures that the state’s most serious intervention in family life—terminating parental rights—is reserved for situations where a child is truly at risk.

The bill maintains robust protections for child welfare. Courts still have full authority to terminate parental rights when there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse, neglect, or endangerment. This change does not weaken the state's ability to protect children but rather strengthens due process for families by ensuring that legal decisions reflect substantive harm, not procedural failures. In doing so, HB 116 protects vulnerable parents, particularly those facing economic hardship, housing instability, or systemic barriers, from disproportionate state action based on technicalities.

From a policy standpoint, the bill reflects core Texas liberty principles, especially individual liberty and limited government. It shifts state intervention away from punitive, box-checking models and toward substantive evaluations of parental capability. The recommendation aligns with Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock’s call for a more just and focused approach to family law in Texas, recognizing that parental rights should not be terminated lightly or without cause.

In conclusion, HB 116 advances family justice by reinforcing fairness and judicial discretion while maintaining strong safeguards for children. It is a thoughtful, balanced reform that limits unnecessary state overreach and promotes responsible parenting without punishing poverty or procedural missteps.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly advances individual liberty by reinforcing a parent’s right to raise their child without unnecessary government interference. It removes a provision that allowed courts to terminate parental rights based solely on a parent's failure to comply with all elements of a state-mandated service plan, even when no active harm or endangerment was present. By shifting the focus to actual conduct that endangers a child, the bill better aligns with constitutional due process protections. This ensures that a parent's fundamental rights are not severed for mere noncompliance with bureaucratic procedures.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill preserves accountability for parental behavior. It does not eliminate the state’s ability to terminate rights when a parent poses a risk to the child’s safety, maintaining high standards for personal responsibility. Instead, it corrects a system that could punish parents for being unable to meet every condition due to factors such as poverty, disability, or lack of access to services, even when they made genuine efforts. The change emphasizes that personal responsibility includes protecting children from harm, not satisfying inflexible procedural metrics.
• Free Enterprise: There is no direct effect on free enterprise. However, by reducing the number of potentially unnecessary state interventions and extended foster care cases, the bill may help families remain intact and stable, which can support economic self-sufficiency. Moreover, it avoids costly legal and foster care proceedings when termination isn't warranted, indirectly supporting the efficient use of public resources.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly affect private property rights. However, keeping families together when it is safe to do so preserves the broader autonomy of the household, often a key sphere where property rights, financial decisions, and parental authority converge. By limiting unjust state intrusion into family life, the bill supports the principle that individuals should control their personal affairs and family dynamics unless real harm is present.
• Limited Government: This bill is a strong example of limited government in action. It reins in the state's power to terminate parental rights for procedural failures, ensuring such extreme action is reserved for cases involving actual abuse or neglect. By doing so, it curtails overreach, protects vulnerable families from unnecessary intervention, and restores discretion to judges who must weigh each case’s substance over statutory checklists. It respects the principle that the government should act only when necessary and proportionate to the public interest.

• HB 5026 (Same As)