According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the bill will not have a significant fiscal implication for the State. The primary reason for this assessment is that the requirements introduced by the bill, namely, that courts must include detailed, specific written findings in certain orders relating to child welfare cases, can be implemented within existing judicial and administrative resources. The Office of Court Administration and the Department of Family and Protective Services are not expected to require additional appropriations to comply with the bill’s procedural updates.

From a local government standpoint, the fiscal note also reports no significant impact. Although trial courts at the county level will be required to produce more detailed documentation in certain proceedings, this is not expected to materially increase their operational costs. The tasks, primarily involving enhanced documentation and judicial explanation, are seen as an extension of duties already performed in these cases, rather than the introduction of a new program or administrative structure.

Overall, the fiscal impact analysis reinforces that HB 2399 is a procedural and transparency-focused reform, not one that introduces new programs, funding mechanisms, or service delivery mandates. As such, both state and local entities are expected to absorb any marginal administrative burden without additional funding. This makes the bill a low-cost policy change with the potential to improve accountability and clarity in child welfare judicial decisions.

At its core, the bill requires courts handling suits brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to include specific factual findings in a distinct section of any order determining whether to return a child to their parents. This reform targets a recurring concern: the tendency for important judicial decisions to rely on vague or generic language, often citing the record without explicitly stating the evidence used to justify ongoing removal from the home.

The bill’s enhancements—specifically requiring detailed findings at each stage where a child’s return is denied—are procedural in nature but carry meaningful implications for parental rights and state accountability. The changes apply to all pending and future cases and ensure that decisions are made with a transparent and well-documented rationale. Importantly, the bill also prohibits these interim written findings from being introduced as evidence at the final trial, preserving fairness and preventing prejudgment from coloring the ultimate outcome of the case.

The Legislative Budget Board found no significant fiscal impact to either the state or local governments, affirming that courts and agencies can comply with these procedural requirements using existing resources. Meanwhile, the Senate Research Center’s bill analysis underscores the importance of this reform in promoting clear judicial reasoning in decisions that often have life-altering consequences for families.

In summary, HB 2399 strengthens the rule of law in child welfare proceedings by clarifying and reinforcing due process standards. It achieves this without expanding government power, increasing costs, or creating new agencies, aligning well with core liberty principles, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2399.

• Individual Liberty: This bill strengthens individual liberty by enhancing due process protections for parents involved in suits brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). By requiring courts to include fact-specific findings when deciding not to return a child to their parents, the bill ensures that a parent’s right to family integrity is not curtailed based on vague or unsubstantiated reasoning. Families receive clearer justification for state action, which empowers them to challenge those decisions through well-informed legal responses.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill indirectly supports personal responsibility by holding judges and the legal system accountable for making thoughtful, well-reasoned decisions. Judges must take responsibility for their rulings and cannot rely on boilerplate language or vague references to the record. This encourages more careful legal analysis and a transparent judicial process, reinforcing the expectation that public officials and institutions must justify their actions clearly and thoroughly.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not address economic or regulatory issues affecting private business, trade, or entrepreneurship. Therefore, it is neutral on the principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: While not directly related to land or physical property, the bill touches on parental rights, which are widely regarded as an essential liberty interest akin to property in legal and philosophical traditions. By requiring greater judicial justification before prolonging the state’s conservatorship over a child, the bill reinforces protections around the sanctity of the family, which historically falls under the umbrella of individual autonomy and self-determination, values closely related to private property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill embodies limited government by constraining the arbitrary use of state power in family law proceedings. It does not expand the authority of DFPS or the courts; rather, it tightens oversight of how state decisions are made in highly sensitive cases. By requiring courts to justify intrusions into family life with factual specificity, it curtails unchecked discretion and reinforces the principle that the state must meet a high standard before interfering in private relationships.

• SB 1093 (Same As)