According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3783 is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill primarily modifies statutory requirements for courts when ordering counseling in suits affecting the parent-child relationship, including counselor qualifications, the need to consider family violence, and prohibiting certain practices deemed coercive or harmful. These provisions are expected to be administratively manageable within existing judicial resources​.

The Office of Court Administration (OCA) reports that while the bill imposes new procedural considerations on judges, such as evaluating abuse claims and ensuring compliance with the specified counseling restrictions, these are not expected to result in measurable additional costs to the state court system. Courts already engage in similar evaluative functions under current family law provisions, and the added statutory language largely codifies best practices rather than creating new obligations that would require significant funding or staffing increases.

However, the bill may have fiscal implications for local governments. Since the bill explicitly allows past court orders to be modified on the basis of its newly enacted provisions—by treating them as a “material and substantial change of circumstances”—the OCA notes that it could result in an increase in motions to modify existing orders. While this could increase local court caseloads and associated administrative work, the precise fiscal impact is indeterminate and would likely vary by jurisdiction depending on the volume of applicable cases.

In summary, while HB 3783 may lead to some localized increases in judicial activity related to case modifications, it is not expected to impose significant costs on the state as a whole, and any impact on local governments is too uncertain to quantify at this time.

HB 3783 offers a targeted and thoughtful response to concerns about coercive and potentially harmful counseling practices in family court cases, particularly those affecting children in high-conflict custody disputes. It strengthens statutory safeguards by prohibiting courts from ordering counseling that involves isolating children from their families, subjecting them to force or coercion, or placing them in counseling sessions with an alleged perpetrator of abuse. Importantly, the bill does not eliminate the court’s authority to order family therapy—it simply ensures that such therapy is safe, evidence-informed, and respectful of the rights of all parties.

The bill also reinforces judicial accountability without expanding government authority. It does not create any new government programs, agencies, or enforcement mechanisms. Rather than growing the size or scope of government, it narrows and clarifies existing powers by placing guardrails around how courts may exercise discretion in sensitive family law matters. This is consistent with principles of limited government and procedural due process.

Equally important, HB 3783 does not increase the burden on taxpayers. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact at the state level. While local courts could see an increase in motions to modify existing orders due to the bill’s provision recognizing its changes as a "material and substantial change of circumstances," any resulting costs are anticipated to be manageable and context-dependent.

Lastly, the bill does not impose new or significant regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses. It modestly clarifies qualification criteria for mental health professionals involved in court-ordered counseling, requiring relevant training in family violence dynamics if applicable. These requirements align with existing licensing norms and do not introduce new licensure or compliance structures.

In summary, HB 3783 improves legal protections for children and families without expanding government size, raising taxpayer costs, or imposing undue regulation. It is a principled and narrowly tailored reform that supports individual liberty, due process, and responsible judicial conduct. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3783.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly promotes individual liberty by safeguarding the rights of children and non-offending parents in high-conflict custody disputes. By prohibiting courts from ordering victims of family violence or sexual abuse to undergo joint counseling with abusers, the bill affirms the right to bodily autonomy and emotional safety. It also protects children from being subjected to forced isolation, out-of-state removals, and coercive “reunification therapy,” which may involve physical restraint or psychological manipulation. These restrictions uphold personal freedom and ensure that state authority cannot be used to violate the dignity or well-being of family members.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill does not directly impose new responsibilities on individuals, it reinforces judicial responsibility by requiring courts to carefully consider evidence of abuse before mandating counseling. It ensures that the parties involved in litigation are treated with fairness and that mental health professionals are held to appropriate professional standards. This encourages responsible decision-making by both courts and professionals involved in sensitive family law matters.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not create any new regulations on private businesses or significantly impact the counseling industry as a whole. However, it does raise minimum standards for court-ordered counselors by requiring training in family violence dynamics (when relevant). These standards are minimal and consistent with public safety goals, and they do not interfere with or inhibit private enterprise. They do, however, promote a higher quality of service and reduce the risk of unethical or fringe practices being imposed through state authority.
• Private Property Rights: While not directly altering property rights, the bill supports the rights of parents and guardians to maintain contact with their children unless a court has found otherwise through due process. It prohibits court-ordered counseling from undermining possession or access rights without legal justification, thereby indirectly supporting parental authority and the sanctity of the family unit.
• Limited Government: The bill narrows the discretion of courts to impose controversial or extreme forms of counseling. Rather than expanding judicial power, it curtails state overreach by barring practices that infringe on individual liberty, such as forced family separation or coercive transportation of children. This restraint of government authority is a clear affirmation of the principle of limited government and reinforces the rule of law by anchoring decisions in objective safety standards and established due process protections.