Overall Vote Recommendation

Vote Yes; Amend

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 2216 revises key sections of the Texas Family Code to modify how state agencies and courts handle the removal and placement of children, particularly in cases involving termination of the parent-child relationship. The bill is a comprehensive reform targeting the legal standards, definitions, and procedures used by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and the courts when determining whether to take possession of a child or terminate parental rights. The bill includes both procedural updates and substantive changes to legal grounds for court intervention.

A major change introduced in HB 2216 is the elevation of the standard of proof for termination of parental rights from the current "clear and convincing evidence" to the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" in certain instances. This reflects a shift toward enhancing due process protections for parents facing the loss of custody, in recognition of the fundamental liberty interest in the parent-child relationship. The bill also expands definitions, such as what it means for a child to be "born addicted" to a substance, and introduces clearer guidance on the effects of substance use by a parent during pregnancy.

Additionally, the bill strengthens the requirement that the state make “active efforts” to preserve or reunify families before moving toward termination. This aligns Texas statute more closely with provisions found in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), even beyond its original scope. At the same time, HB 2216 adds to the list of parental behaviors that can constitute grounds for termination, including continued failure to support or visit a child, parental conduct leading to school truancy, and prior terminations of parental rights to other children.

Overall, HB 2216 aims to better balance child protection with the constitutional rights of parents by reinforcing procedural safeguards, while also broadening the criteria under which the state may intervene in family relationships. The proposed changes carry significant implications for judicial discretion, agency responsibility, and parental autonomy in child welfare proceedings.

The Committee Substitute for HB 2216 introduces notable refinements and expansions to the originally filed bill, enhancing due process protections for parents while preserving the state’s child protection authority. One of the most substantial shared features is the shift from a “clear and convincing” standard to the more rigorous “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for terminating parental rights. However, the substitute takes this further by requiring courts to issue highly specific findings in written form, establishing a causal link between parental behavior and harm to the child, rather than allowing for generalized conclusions.

Additionally, while both versions of the bill replace “reasonable efforts” with “active efforts” to reunify families, the substitute provides a robust, codified definition of what “active efforts” must entail. It outlines a detailed, multi-step process that DFPS must follow, such as providing individualized support services, helping parents overcome barriers to reunification, and tailoring interventions to cultural or familial contexts. This goes beyond the original bill’s general language and offers courts and agencies a clearer framework for accountability.

The substitute bill also introduces new safeguards against biased or superficial removals. It explicitly states that factors such as poverty, single-parenthood, or nonconforming social behavior cannot be used on their own to justify removal or termination, language absent in the originally filed version. Moreover, the substitute adds significant provisions to ensure familial placement is prioritized. It requires DFPS to follow a placement preference hierarchy favoring relatives and long-standing caregivers and prohibits using a family’s socioeconomic status or child bonding in foster care as reasons to override that preference. It also establishes a new right for relatives to intervene in court if DFPS fails to honor that hierarchy without good cause.

Procedurally, the substitute grants more time for parents to secure legal representation by allowing a postponement of full adversary hearings for up to 30 days, rather than the 7-day extension allowed under current law. It also enhances transparency by expanding DFPS’s disclosure obligations before hearings, requiring the department to share not just evidence it plans to use, but also potentially exculpatory records. Overall, the Committee Substitute maintains the original bill’s core intentions but offers more comprehensive protections and structure to ensure fair treatment of families within the child welfare system.

Author (5)

Lacey Hull

Toni Rose

Harold Dutton

Keresa Richardson

Gary Gates

Co-Author (1)

Helen Kerwin

Sponsor (1)

Kevin Sparks

Contact the Author

Rep. Lacey Hull

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0727

Capitol Office:

EXT E2.212

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2216 is estimated to have a negative impact of approximately $12.6 million to General Revenue-related funds in the 2026–2027 biennium, increasing to over $21 million annually in subsequent years through 2030. These costs are primarily attributed to the bill's mandates for DFPS to engage in "active efforts" to reunify families, implement procedural safeguards, and accommodate expanded court obligations.

The shift from "reasonable efforts" to a more robust "active efforts" standard will require a substantial increase in DFPS staff, particularly in Family Group Decision Making and Human Services Technician roles. These positions will support increased engagement with families, facilitate services, conduct planning meetings, and provide transportation for parents and children. The bill is expected to require 137 new full-time employees (FTEs) in FY 2027 and 265 FTEs in subsequent years. Additionally, technology costs related to updates to the IMPACT case management system are projected to total just over $210,000 in the first two years of implementation.

While the bill may eventually generate savings by reducing foster care placements and keeping more children in their homes, those offsets are currently speculative and not factored into the fiscal estimate. Moreover, the bill mandates that courts appoint attorneys for indigent parents regardless of whether they appear in opposition to DFPS suits, a shift that could lead to increased court-appointed attorney costs for counties, though the exact local government impact remains undetermined.

Finally, the fiscal note acknowledges uncertainties surrounding the impact of the higher burden of proof required for termination cases ("beyond a reasonable doubt") and expanded use of teleconferencing in court proceedings. These variables may lead to additional litigation, more extensive evidentiary preparation, and technological upgrades for courts that are not fully accounted for in the current analysis.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 2216 is a meaningful step forward in reinforcing the due process rights of parents and safeguarding the integrity of families within Texas’ child welfare system. By elevating the standard of proof for termination of parental rights from “clear and convincing evidence” to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the bill aligns state policy with the highest evidentiary threshold, ensuring that such life-altering decisions are made only when absolutely necessary. Additionally, the bill’s requirement that the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) make “active efforts” to preserve and reunify families reflects best practices long championed by the Indian Child Welfare Act and recent jurisprudence, extending critical family protections to all Texans.

These reforms are commendable and advance the principle of individual liberty by narrowing the window for premature or unwarranted government interference in family life. However, the bill also substantially expands the administrative scope of DFPS and imposes significant fiscal obligations. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the implementation of “active efforts” and increased legal requirements will require hundreds of new state employees, greater demands on caseworkers, and an estimated $21 million annually in added state costs, with further financial burdens likely to fall on counties due to expanded rights to court-appointed counsel for indigent parents.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2216, recognizing the moral and legal value of the bill’s core reforms while acknowledging the need to mitigate its unintended consequences. Amendments should aim to phase in implementation and monitor staffing and fiscal impact. With these adjustments, the bill can successfully achieve its intended goal of protecting families while preserving a commitment to limited and fiscally responsible government.

Individual Liberty: This is the area where the bill has the greatest positive impact. By raising the evidentiary standard for terminating parental rights to “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the bill affirms that family integrity is a fundamental liberty interest deserving the strongest due process protections. It also places tighter restrictions on what courts may use as justification for child removal, excluding factors such as poverty, single parenthood, or nonconforming social behavior unless directly tied to harm. These reforms create a more just and narrowly tailored system that respects parents' rights to raise their children free from unwarranted state interference.
Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by requiring DFPS to actively engage with families and ensure parents have meaningful opportunities to address concerns before losing their rights. It requires parents to participate in service plans and make progress toward reunification, and sets higher standards for state accountability. This creates a balanced expectation: parents must take steps to regain custody, but only after the state has fulfilled its obligation to assist them in doing so.
Free Enterprise: There is no direct impact on the free enterprise system. The bill does not regulate or restrict businesses. However, indirect implications may arise if DFPS contracts with private service providers (such as transportation, mental health, or parenting support services) to fulfill its “active efforts” obligations, potentially expanding opportunities for community-based organizations.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not involve changes to property ownership or use and does not impact land use or economic rights in a direct way. Therefore, it is neutral with respect to this principle.
Limited Government: While the bill seeks to limit government power over families, it simultaneously expands the size and operational footprint of DFPS, as well as the administrative burden on courts and counties. The implementation of “active efforts” requires hiring hundreds of new staff and increases state and local government spending. Although these investments may result in better outcomes, they mark a notable expansion of state involvement and cost in an area previously governed by narrower procedural requirements. This growth must be carefully managed to avoid undermining the broader principle of limited government.

View Bill Text and Status