According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3758 would have a negative impact of $1,125,793 to General Revenue-related funds for the 2026–27 biennium. The estimated General Revenue-related cost is $589,377 in fiscal year 2026 and $536,416 in fiscal year 2027, with similar recurring annual costs projected through fiscal year 2030.

The primary cost driver is the bill’s requirement that governmental entities provide specified information and reports to all parties before certain child welfare hearings. According to DFPS, implementation would require the agency to redact statements from case record productions and produce the redacted files no later than five days before the applicable adversary or initial hearing. DFPS reported 9,220 removals in fiscal year 2024, with each case expected to involve an investigative file that would need to be provided to each party.

LBB estimates that DFPS would need approximately 8,823 staff hours annually to complete the required redaction process. Based on 1,560 available work hours per year per employee, DFPS anticipates needing 6.0 additional full-time equivalent employees each fiscal year: 2.0 Records Analyst I positions and 4.0 Records Analyst II positions. These staffing costs are recurring, not one-time.

The fiscal impact is limited to state government. LBB assumes any costs to the Office of Court Administration could be absorbed within existing resources, and the fiscal note anticipates no fiscal implication to units of local government.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3758 while also considering amendments as described below to strengthen the bill. HB 3758 advances an important due-process reform in civil child welfare cases filed by a governmental entity. These cases involve serious state action, including proceedings that can affect custody, parental rights, and family integrity. The bill responds to concerns that parents or guardians may face severe legal consequences based on evidence they have limited ability to challenge, including uncorroborated statements, compelled testimony, undisclosed evidence, or statements made during mental health or substance use treatment. By requiring broader disclosure and limiting the admissibility of certain evidence, the bill places stronger procedural constraints on the government before it may use its authority against a parent or alleged perpetrator.

The bill does grow the administrative workload of government, primarily at the Department of Family and Protective Services. The Legislative Budget Board estimates a negative General Revenue-related impact of $1,125,793 for the 2026–27 biennium and anticipates the need for 6.0 additional full-time equivalent employees each fiscal year. Those costs are driven by the need to redact and produce investigative case files before applicable hearings. This is a real limited-government concern because it expands agency staffing and creates recurring state costs.

However, the nature of the government growth matters. The bill does not create a new benefit program, subsidy, regulatory regime, enforcement office, or discretionary grant of agency power. Instead, the added workload is tied to limiting the government’s litigation advantage and requiring the state to disclose evidence when it brings a civil child-welfare suit. In that respect, the bill expands administrative obligations in order to restrain coercive government action. That makes the fiscal and staffing cost more defensible than a conventional expansion of bureaucracy, but it still warrants guardrails.

The bill does increase the burden on taxpayers because the added DFPS workload is expected to require recurring state expenditures. LBB projects ongoing annual General Revenue-related costs of roughly $536,000 to $589,000 per year through fiscal year 2030. The bill does not appear to impose a fiscal impact on local governments, and costs to the Office of Court Administration are assumed to be absorbable within existing resources. Still, the state cost should not be dismissed. A Yes; Amend position is appropriate because the bill’s due-process benefits are substantial, but lawmakers should reduce taxpayer exposure where possible.

The bill does not materially increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses. Its requirements apply to governmental entities involved in civil child-welfare litigation, not to private employers, licensed occupations, small businesses, property owners, or ordinary citizens. To the extent the bill affects individuals, it does so by protecting them against compelled statements, adverse inferences, and the use of certain undisclosed or treatment-related evidence. The regulatory burden concern is therefore low.

The bill should also be amended to control administrative growth and taxpayer exposure. Suggested amendments should include an annual DFPS reporting requirement on the number of productions, redaction workload, average production time, hearing delays, and implementation costs; a sunset or review provision for any new staffing authority tied to the bill; and language allowing secure electronic production of required materials to reduce duplicative work and cost. With those amendments, the bill would better balance due process and limited government. As written, it imposes recurring state costs and expands DFPS administrative responsibilities, but it does so for the purpose of constraining the government in high-stakes civil proceedings. The bill’s transparency and evidentiary protections justify support, provided lawmakers add safeguards to prevent avoidable bureaucracy, mission creep, and long-term taxpayer exposure.

The bill has a neutral impact on free enterprise. It does not regulate businesses, create occupational licensing requirements, impose market restrictions, establish subsidies, or alter private-sector competition. Its obligations apply to governmental entities involved in civil child-welfare litigation, not to private businesses or employers.

The bill does not directly affect land, physical property, takings, or asset use, so its direct impact on private property rights is mostly neutral. However, it has a modest positive liberty effect because it protects family and household autonomy in government-filed proceedings. To the extent state child-welfare litigation can affect a person’s home, family structure, or control over private life, stronger evidentiary and disclosure protections are beneficial.

The bill supports personal responsibility by preserving accountability while requiring the government to prove its case with reliable and disclosed evidence. It does not excuse abuse or neglect, nor does it prevent the state from acting when children are genuinely at risk. Instead, it requires allegations to be supported by corroboration and gives parties better access to evidence so that responsibility is determined through a fairer process.

The bill positively impacts limited government by constraining how governmental entities may use evidence in civil child-welfare suits and by requiring broader disclosure to each party. It reduces state discretion and litigation advantage in high-stakes proceedings. However, the bill also increases DFPS administrative workload, requires additional staffing, and creates recurring state costs. For that reason, the limited-government impact is not purely positive. Overall, it is positive because the added administrative burden is tied to restraining coercive government action, but it should be amended with reporting, sunset review, and electronic production provisions to control taxpayer exposure and prevent unnecessary bureaucratic growth.

The bill positively impacts individual liberty by strengthening procedural protections for parents, guardians, and alleged perpetrators in civil child-welfare cases filed by the government. It limits the use of certain treatment-related statements, prevents compelled statements or testimony, bars adverse inferences from refusal to testify, and requires corroboration for certain out-of-court allegations. These changes reduce the risk that the state can rely on weak, undisclosed, or coercively obtained evidence in proceedings that may affect family integrity.

• SB 1971 (Same As)