Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 1914 proposes amendments to the Texas Family Code by adding Section 156.107 to address how possession of a child is handled when a conservator becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated. Under the bill, the incapacitation of a conservator is recognized as a material and substantial change in circumstances, which under Texas law may justify modification of a prior court order concerning custody or possession. The bill defines incapacitation broadly to include physical or mental conditions, or incarceration, that substantially impair the conservator’s ability to provide food, shelter, or care for the child or for themselves.

In such instances, the other conservator—provided they have not been restricted or denied access in the existing court order—automatically gains the right to assume the incapacitated conservator’s periods of possession to ensure the child’s health and welfare. This transfer of temporary possession continues until either the incapacitated conservator regains the capacity to care for the child or the court issues a new order reflecting the changed circumstances.

The bill also clarifies that possessory conservators who have been denied possession or had significant restrictions placed on them in prior orders, particularly due to concerns over the child’s physical or emotional safety, are not eligible to assume temporary possession under this new provision. Importantly, nothing in the statute prevents any party with standing from seeking a formal modification of the custody or possession order through the court system. The bill applies only to instances of incapacitation that occur on or after its effective date.

The Committee Substitute introduces several important refinements to the originally filed version that collectively enhance legal clarity and elevate the standard for modifying possession orders when a conservator becomes incapacitated. While both versions aim to establish that the incapacitation of a conservator—due to physical or mental condition or incarceration—constitutes a material and substantial change in circumstances justifying modification, the substitute version adds language emphasizing that such a change must also result in a "significant impairment of the child’s physical health or emotional development." This addition aligns the bill more closely with existing family law standards, where such heightened thresholds are typically required to justify alterations in custody arrangements.

Another key distinction is the modified language regarding the rights of the other conservator to assume possession during the incapacitation period. The original bill grants the other conservator the automatic right to assume “all” of the incapacitated conservator’s periods of possession. In contrast, the substitute bill conditions this entitlement, stating that the other conservator may exercise those periods only "to the degree necessary to ensure the health and welfare of the child." This adjustment provides important flexibility for judges and better centers the child's best interests, rather than treating possession rights as automatically transferable in full.

Finally, the substitute bill introduces improved statutory language that more precisely references the types of court orders that may be modified under the new section. This includes more detailed references to existing decrees covering conservatorship and possession, ensuring the statute applies clearly and predictably. Together, these changes reflect a more thoughtful and balanced legislative approach that better integrates with existing family law protections and judicial discretion.

Author (3)

David Cook

Ana-Maria Ramos

Mihaela Plesa

Co-Author (1)

Penny Morales Shaw

Contact the Author

Rep. David Cook

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0374

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.402

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1914 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The Office of Court Administration anticipates that any costs associated with implementing the provisions of the bill could be absorbed within existing agency resources. This suggests that while the bill may generate some administrative activity—such as additional filings for temporary possession orders or modifications—these duties fall within the normal scope of judicial functions and can be managed without new appropriations.

Similarly, the fiscal implications for local governments are expected to be minimal. Counties, which are typically responsible for housing family courts and related services, are not projected to incur significant new costs. The process envisioned by the bill largely relies on existing legal frameworks and does not create new obligations for law enforcement, county clerks, or child welfare agencies. Instead, it formalizes a temporary possession process that may help streamline certain custody transitions without requiring immediate court intervention.

Overall, the fiscal analysis indicates that the bill strikes a balance between enhancing legal clarity and preserving administrative efficiency. By providing a structured response to a conservator’s incapacitation, the bill could even reduce some burdens on the court system by minimizing emergency hearings, further supporting the finding that its costs are negligible or absorbable within current budgets.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 1914 earns a strong recommendation for passage based on its alignment with the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and individual liberty, particularly within the context of family law. The bill addresses a critical gap in the Texas Family Code by explicitly recognizing a conservator’s incapacitation—whether due to mental or physical illness or incarceration—as a material and substantial change in circumstances. This clarification is important, as it allows for swift, temporary adjustments to custody arrangements without requiring prolonged litigation, thereby reducing strain on families and the courts.

The committee substitute improves upon the originally filed version by refining key legal standards. It adds that such incapacitation must also amount to a "significant impairment of the child's physical health or emotional development"—a phrase that aligns with existing family law benchmarks for modifying custody. This higher threshold ensures that changes are made in the child’s best interest, preserving both parental rights and the child’s welfare. Furthermore, the bill avoids overreach by including protections against transferring possession to conservators previously restricted or denied access due to safety concerns.

From a fiscal standpoint, the bill is cost-neutral. The Legislative Budget Board determined that there would be no significant fiscal impact to the state or local governments, and that any implementation costs could be absorbed using current resources. This supports the principle of responsible governance by providing a practical, child-centered solution without burdening taxpayers or expanding state bureaucracy.

In sum, HB 1914 offers a well-calibrated statutory tool for families and courts to respond flexibly and responsibly to unforeseen disruptions in a child’s conservatorship. It enhances legal clarity, prioritizes child welfare, and respects judicial precedent—all without imposing financial or regulatory burdens—making it a model of liberty-consistent legislative reform. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 1914.

The bill strengthens individual liberty by protecting the child’s right to continuity and stability during periods when a conservator becomes incapacitated. It ensures that, in such cases, a fit and legally authorized conservator can step in without delay to care for the child. This protects the child’s welfare without unnecessarily disrupting familial relationships or imposing arbitrary government control. Moreover, by maintaining restrictions on possessory conservators who previously posed risks, the bill safeguards children’s personal safety while respecting the legal bounds of parental rights.
The legislation promotes personal responsibility among conservators by setting expectations for how incapacity impacts their legal responsibilities. It implicitly encourages parents to prepare for contingencies and supports legal frameworks that respond proportionally to real-life challenges. The bill allows other conservators to assume caretaking duties responsibly and temporarily without requiring immediate court action, showing trust in families to act in the child’s best interest.
While the bill does not regulate business activity directly, it may reduce legal costs for families by enabling an automatic, structured temporary possession arrangement when one conservator becomes incapacitated. This can potentially limit the need for costly emergency hearings or extended legal battles—an indirect but valuable support to the economic liberty of families navigating the family court system.
Though this bill doesn't modify traditional property rights, it respects the judicial determinations enshrined in custody and possession orders. By explicitly denying temporary possession to conservators who have been restricted due to past endangerment findings, it upholds court rulings as legally enforceable outcomes. In that way, the bill helps preserve the integrity of prior legal decisions, which are a form of intangible legal interest akin to property rights.
The bill exemplifies limited government by reducing the need for immediate judicial intervention in cases of temporary incapacitation. It creates a streamlined, default process for managing possession without requiring new hearings or bureaucratic involvement unless safety concerns exist. At the same time, it maintains safeguards by allowing parties with legal standing to seek formal modification through the courts when necessary. This promotes judicial efficiency while keeping the state’s role appropriately minimal and targeted.

View Bill Text and Status