According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 2495 are minimal. The bill explicitly grants the sole managing conservator—whether a parent, nonparent, licensed child-placing agency, or the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS)—the authority to designate and enroll a child in a school, provided the child meets applicable eligibility or admissions criteria.

From the state's perspective, the bill is not expected to create any significant costs. Agencies such as DFPS and the Office of Court Administration are anticipated to absorb any minor administrative or operational impacts within their existing budgets and resources. This suggests that the bill primarily codifies existing practices rather than introducing new obligations that would require additional funding or staff.

Likewise, there is no expected fiscal impact on local government entities. The legislation does not impose any new mandates on school districts or local courts that would necessitate changes in their operations or funding levels. As such, the fiscal note concludes that HB 2495 has no significant financial implications at either the state or local level.

HB 2495 offers a focused and pragmatic amendment to the Texas Family Code by explicitly granting sole managing conservators—whether they are parents, nonparents, licensed child-placing agencies, or the Department of Family and Protective Services—the exclusive right to designate and enroll a child in a school, subject to any admissions or eligibility requirements. This authority, while generally implied under the conservator’s educational decision-making rights, has not been explicitly defined in statute. The absence of clarity has led to legal disputes and court involvement when disagreements arise between sole and possessory conservators. By codifying this right, HB 2495 aims to reduce legal conflict and emotional strain for children and families involved in custody cases.

The bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It merely clarifies rights already vested in sole managing conservators, thereby minimizing the need for judicial interpretation or intervention. It imposes no new obligations on government agencies or private actors, and it does not introduce or expand any regulatory framework. The Legislative Budget Board has confirmed that the bill has no significant fiscal impact and that any costs incurred by relevant state agencies can be absorbed within existing resources. Likewise, there is no impact on local governments or taxpayers.

From a liberty-based perspective, the bill strengthens individual liberty and personal responsibility by reaffirming the authority of sole managing conservators to make important educational decisions for their children without interference. It also aligns with the principle of limited government by reducing the courts’ involvement in family decision-making where sole conservatorship has already been established.

In conclusion, HB 2495 is a clear, cost-neutral, and liberty-consistent reform that promotes legal clarity, reduces unnecessary conflict, and avoids any increase in government size, taxpayer burden, or regulatory scope. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2495.

• Individual Liberty: The bill reinforces the autonomy of the sole managing conservator to make educational decisions without interference. This respects the individual’s right to direct the upbringing and education of the child in their care, free from unnecessary disputes or state intervention. By clearly stating who has the authority, it minimizes ambiguity and protects that individual’s decision-making power.
• Personal Responsibility: By confirming that the sole managing conservator has the exclusive right to choose and enroll the child in school, the bill places clear responsibility on that person to act in the child’s best interest. It affirms that with authority comes accountability—a foundational concept of personal responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate, restrict, or impact businesses, including private or public educational institutions. There is no effect on market competition or school choice policies. Therefore, it neither promotes nor hinders free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: This bill doesn’t touch property rights directly. It does not create or alter any rules around ownership, use, or access to property.
• Limited Government: The bill reduces the need for court involvement in family disputes by making the law clearer. It prevents unnecessary litigation and limits the role of the state in resolving issues that should be straightforward based on a conservatorship order. This reduces government intrusion into family matters and promotes judicial efficiency.