Overall Vote Recommendation

Vote Yes; Amend

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 2340 seeks to enhance the qualifications and accountability of child custody evaluators in Texas, particularly in cases involving children with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The bill amends the Family Code to require that, starting in 2026, child custody evaluators must have completed at least three hours of specialized training on caring for children with such disabilities within the two years preceding an evaluation. This training would cover topics like education, therapy, preparation for independent living, and managing physical or mental health challenges.

The bill also modifies procedures for recordkeeping and disclosure. It mandates that custody evaluators—whether private practitioners or employees of a domestic relations office—must make evaluation records available to authorized parties after completing an evaluation and filing a notice with the court. Evaluators are required to redact sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers and children's birthdates, before disclosure to protect privacy. Additionally, evaluators must retain records according to the retention rules of their licensing authorities.

Importantly, HB 2340 introduces a new evidentiary standard: courts are barred from admitting a custody evaluation report into evidence if the evaluation was conducted for a child with an intellectual or developmental disability and the evaluator did not meet the new training requirements, unless appointed under specific emergency circumstances. These changes are intended to ensure higher standards of care and professionalism in sensitive family law matters, while balancing transparency, accountability, and the protection of vulnerable children.

The originally filed version of HB 2340 and the Committee Substitute are broadly similar in purpose and structure: both seek to strengthen child custody evaluation procedures, especially for cases involving children with intellectual or developmental disabilities. However, some significant differences have emerged in the committee substitute.

First, while the originally filed bill required evaluators to complete at least three hours of training related to disabilities "including education, therapy, preparation for independent living, and methods for addressing physical or mental health challenges," the substitute broadens this slightly to "including education, therapy, preparation for independent living, or methods for addressing physical or mental health challenges". This change softens the requirement, allowing more flexibility in what areas the training may cover, rather than mandating all areas.

Second, regarding the admissibility of custody evaluations in court, the original bill prohibited admission if the evaluator had not completed the required training. The substitute version clarifies an important exception: a custody evaluation can still be admitted if the evaluator was appointed under Section 107.106 (emergency appointment provisions). This was not stated in the originally filed bill and appears to have been added to ensure that urgent custody matters are not delayed due to technical noncompliance.

Third, there were minor technical refinements to align wording about the handling and disclosure of evaluator records. Both versions require redaction of Social Security numbers and children's birthdates before making records available. However, the substitute cleans up some statutory references and restructuring to improve clarity without changing the substance.

Lastly, both versions apply prospectively to custody evaluations ordered after January 1, 2026, but the substitute slightly sharpens the language to more clearly apply changes regarding both disclosure and retention of evaluator records.

Author (1)

William Metcalf

Sponsor (1)

Judith Zaffirini

Co-Sponsor (1)

Royce West

Contact the Author

Rep. William Metcalf

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0726

Capitol Office:

CAP 1N.12

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), no significant fiscal implication to the State from the implementation of HB 2340. The bill's requirements—namely, that child custody evaluators must make certain evaluation records available upon written request and redact sensitive personal information before disclosure—are expected to be managed within existing agency resources. Specifically, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) is assumed to be able to absorb any additional workload without requiring extra funding. Similarly, the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is not expected to experience any fiscal impact from the bill’s provisions.

Additionally, no fiscal impact is anticipated for units of local government. This is likely because the bill primarily affects professional requirements and judicial procedures at the individual evaluator and agency level rather than imposing direct mandates on local courts or county offices.

Overall, the bill imposes new administrative duties on evaluators but does not introduce significant new costs for state or local governments. The financial effect is therefore considered minimal, ensuring that the policy changes proposed will not require new appropriations or tax increases.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 2340 improves child custody evaluation standards in Texas by requiring evaluators to complete at least three hours of specialized training on working with children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It also enhances transparency by revising disclosure and retention requirements for evaluator records and introduces privacy protections for sensitive information. These changes align with the liberty principles of individual liberty (protecting vulnerable children) and personal responsibility (ensuring professional competence).

The bill does not significantly grow the size or cost of government; the Legislative Budget Board found no major fiscal impact for the state or local governments. There is also no increase in taxpayer burden. However, the bill does modestly expand the scope of regulation by imposing new mandatory training and administrative compliance requirements on private custody evaluators. While these new requirements aim to improve the quality of evaluations, they create a new regulatory burden that could disproportionately impact evaluators in rural areas and small counties and could reduce the availability of qualified professionals.

Suggested Amendments:

Making the training requirement permissive or allowing local jurisdictions to implement it.
Creating exemptions for experienced evaluators or those in rural areas.
Ensuring the training requirement applies only when disability-specific issues are directly involved.
Extending the implementation timeline to ease compliance pressures.

Given these facts, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2340 but also suggests amendments as described above to protect flexibility and local control.

Individual Liberty: The bill promotes individual liberty by ensuring that children with intellectual or developmental disabilities are fairly and appropriately considered in custody evaluations. Better-trained evaluators help courts make decisions that respect the dignity, needs, and rights of these children. It protects vulnerable individuals during an important and often life-changing legal process.
Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the idea that professionals, especially those influencing court decisions affecting families, must be competent and accountable. Requiring targeted training expects custody evaluators to take responsibility for being properly prepared to assess children with special needs. It upholds high standards in a sensitive area of family law.
Free Enterprise: The bill adds a new regulatory hurdle for private individuals (custody evaluators) and contractors. Although it doesn’t directly regulate businesses broadly, requiring mandatory specialized training increases the cost of doing business and could limit market participation, especially in rural areas. It could make it harder for evaluators to enter or stay in the field, slightly chilling free enterprise dynamics in a niche professional area.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not impact ownership or use of private property. It is focused on professional qualifications and judicial procedures, not property rights.
Limited Government: The bill modestly expands the regulatory reach of state government by mandating a specific type of training statewide. While it does not create a new agency or a massive program, it moves authority away from local jurisdictions and adds to professional licensure burdens. This expansion could set a precedent for more future mandates if not carefully limited.

View Bill Text and Status