Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 2160 amends Family Code procedures governing interviews of children in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. The bill allows a court to interview a child either in chambers or, at the court’s discretion, in another location in the courthouse. On the application of a party, amicus attorney, or attorney ad litem, the court must interview a child 12 years of age or older and may interview a child under 12 to determine the child’s wishes regarding conservatorship, possession, access, the person with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence, or any other issue affecting the parent-child relationship.

The bill also revises procedures for jury trials and records of child interviews. In a jury trial, an interview conducted under Section 153.009, Family Code, may not be introduced to the jury. If the court interviews a child 12 years of age or older, the court must make a record of the interview and, unless a party has filed a notice of appeal, must order the record sealed. The bill repeals existing Section 153.009(b), Family Code.

The Committee Substitute makes conforming changes to Family Code provisions governing temporary orders and modification of conservatorship orders. Those provisions would refer to a child expressing a preference to the court in an interview conducted under Section 153.009, rather than specifically in chambers. The bill applies to suits affecting the parent-child relationship that are pending on the effective date or filed on or after that date.

The originally filed version of HB 2160 and the Committee Substitute both address interviews of children in suits affecting the parent-child relationship, but the Committee Substitute restructures Section 153.009, Family Code, more significantly. The filed bill would have preserved separate subsections for interviews about conservatorship or primary residence and interviews about possession, access, or other issues. The committee substitute consolidates those subjects into a single interview provision, expressly allowing the court to interview the child about conservatorship, possession, access, the person with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence, or any other issue affecting the parent-child relationship.

The Committee Substitute also narrows where an interview may occur. The filed bill would have allowed the court to interview the child “in chambers or in another location used by the court.” The Committee Substitute instead allows the interview to occur in chambers or, at the court’s discretion, “in another location in the courthouse.” That change limits the alternative location to the courthouse, rather than any location used by the court.

The jury-trial language changes in a material way. The filed bill would have retained the rule that, in a jury trial, the court may not interview the child regarding an issue on which a party is entitled to a jury verdict, while updating the reference from “in chambers” to “under this section.” The Committee Substitute instead provides that an interview conducted under Section 153.009 may not be introduced to the jury. In practical terms, the filed bill restricted the court’s authority to conduct certain interviews in jury cases, while the Committee Substitute permits the interview but limits its use before the jury.

The Committee Substitute also changes the record-making requirement. The filed bill would have allowed the court to make a record of an interview with a child age 12 or older on its own motion and required a record only on motion of a party, amicus attorney, or attorney ad litem. It also made that record part of the case record and added a new subsection requiring the court to seal a record unless a notice of appeal had been filed. The Committee Substitute instead requires the court to make a record whenever it interviews a child age 12 or older and requires the court to seal that record unless a notice of appeal has been filed.

Finally, the Committee Substitute adds a repeal of Section 153.009(b), Family Code, because its substance is folded into the revised Subsection (a). The conforming amendments to Sections 156.006(b) and 156.101(a), Family Code, are also phrased differently: the filed bill referred to a child expressing a preference “as provided by Section 153.009,” while the committee substitute refers to an “interview conducted under Section 153.009.” Both versions apply to suits pending on the effective date or filed on or after that date.

Author (1)

Erin Gamez

Contact the Author

Rep. Erin Gamez

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0606

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.510

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the committee substitute for House Bill 2160 is not expected to have a significant fiscal implication to the State. The fiscal note does not identify a negative net fiscal impact for the 2026–27 biennium and assumes that any costs associated with implementing the bill could be absorbed using existing resources.

The likely administrative effect would fall on the courts because the bill changes procedures for interviewing children in suits affecting the parent-child relationship, including record-making and sealing requirements. However, LBB did not identify those procedural changes as requiring new appropriations, staffing, technology, or a separate implementation structure. The fiscal note lists the Office of Court Administration and Texas Judicial Council as the source agency, indicating that the assessment is tied to court-system operations.

For local governments, LBB also anticipates no significant fiscal implications. Because the bill operates within existing family-court proceedings and does not create a new program, fee, mandate requiring major local expenditures, or recurring state-local funding obligation, the fiscal impact is effectively neutral under the assumptions provided by LBB.

Vote Recommendation Notes

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2160 as it does not materially grow the size or scope of government. The bill does not create a new agency, office, advisory body, fund, program, enforcement mechanism, or rulemaking authority. The Committee Substitute does not grant additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. Its changes are confined to existing family-court proceedings and adjust how courts may conduct child interviews in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.

The bill does modestly expand judicial procedural flexibility, but that expansion is narrow. Under the Committee Substitute, a court may interview a child in chambers or in another location in the courthouse, rather than being limited to chambers. This gives judges more discretion over the interview setting, but only within an existing courthouse proceeding and only in cases already before the court. That is a limited procedural adjustment, not a structural expansion of government authority.

HB 2160 does not increase the burden on taxpayers in any significant way. The LBB anticipates no significant fiscal implications to the state and assumes any costs associated with the bill can be absorbed using existing resources. LBB also anticipates no significant fiscal implications to units of local government. Because the bill does not require new appropriations, staffing, facilities, or a new administrative apparatus, taxpayer exposure appears minimal.

The bill does not increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses. It does not regulate private enterprise, impose licensing or permitting requirements, create compliance obligations for employers or businesses, or add civil or criminal penalties. The bill analysis also states that it does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase punishment for an existing offense, or change eligibility for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

The principal liberty concern is the bill’s effect on court involvement in family disputes. Courts already have authority to interview children in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship, and HB 2160 adjusts the location, record-making, sealing, and jury-use rules for those interviews. The Committee Substitute strengthens privacy protections by requiring applicable interviews with children age 12 or older to be recorded and sealed unless a notice of appeal has been filed. It also prevents such interviews from being introduced to the jury in jury trials, which helps separate the court’s child interview from jury fact-finding.

On balance, a Yes position is appropriate because the bill makes a narrow procedural improvement within existing family-court jurisdiction while avoiding the major liberty costs that would normally weigh against legislation: new bureaucracy, new spending, new penalties, new regulatory burdens, or expanded agency discretion. The bill modestly increases judicial flexibility, but it does so in a constrained setting and pairs that flexibility with privacy protections for children.

Free Enterprise

The bill has no apparent impact on free enterprise. It does not regulate businesses, alter market competition, create subsidies, impose occupational licensing requirements, or add compliance costs for employers or private entities. The bill analysis also states that the bill does not create or increase a criminal offense and does not add rulemaking authority.

Property Rights

The bill does not affect private property rights. It does not involve land use, eminent domain, takings, property restrictions, asset forfeiture, or compliance obligations tied to ownership or use of property.

Personal Responsibility

The bill preserves the role of parties, amicus attorneys, and attorneys ad litem in requesting interviews of children age 12 or older, while allowing courts to consider a child’s wishes in disputes already before the court. It does not create dependency on a state program or substitute government benefits for private responsibility.

Limited Government

The bill does not materially expand government. It does not create a new agency, office, fund, program, criminal offense, or rulemaking authority, and the Legislative Budget Board anticipates no significant fiscal implication to the state or local governments. Its only expansion is a narrow increase in judicial procedural flexibility within existing family-court cases. Because that discretion is confined to pending court proceedings and paired with privacy protections, the limited-government concern is modest.

Individual Liberty

The bill has a modest but generally favorable impact on individual liberty. It operates in sensitive family-court proceedings, where state involvement already exists, but it does not create new penalties, surveillance powers, or mandates outside the litigation context. The bill gives courts more flexibility in where a child interview may occur, while requiring applicable interviews with children age 12 or older to be recorded and sealed unless a notice of appeal has been filed. That sealing requirement helps protect the child’s privacy and limits broader disclosure of sensitive family-court statements.

View Bill Text and Status