According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 4656 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state of Texas. The LBB determined that any costs associated with the implementation of the bill could be absorbed within existing resources. This suggests that the procedural and evidentiary changes outlined in the bill, such as the new affidavit requirement and strengthened rebuttable presumption in parent versus non-parent custody cases, do not necessitate additional appropriations, staff expansions, or new infrastructure for courts or agencies.

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to result in significant costs to local governments. County and district courts, which typically handle suits affecting the parent-child relationship, are not expected to experience increased case volume or resource strain as a result of the bill. The procedural requirements it imposes may slightly affect how nonparents initiate or intervene in suits, but these changes are procedural rather than structural and are unlikely to cause substantial delays or litigation costs at the local level.

In sum, HB 4656 is considered fiscally neutral, with no projected impact on state or local budgets. It focuses on legal thresholds and procedural standards in custody disputes rather than creating new programs or mandates that would require financial outlays.

HB 4656 advances a constitutionally grounded and policy-consistent effort to codify the parental rights framework established by the Texas Supreme Court in In re C.J.C., Relator. The bill strengthens the legal presumption that fit parents act in the best interest of their children and ensures that any attempt by a non-parent to override that presumption must meet a high evidentiary burden. This statutory clarity serves to reinforce the fundamental liberty interest of parents and brings Texas law into stronger alignment with both federal constitutional doctrine and sound family policy.

The bill’s procedural innovations, particularly the requirement that nonparents submit a sworn affidavit with their initial filing and demonstrate that the denial of their request would significantly impair a child’s health or emotional development, introduce a rational gatekeeping function. This mechanism reduces frivolous or unsupported claims from proceeding to litigation, ultimately safeguarding the time and resources of courts and protecting families from unnecessary legal entanglement.

Furthermore, the bill provides important transparency by requiring courts to issue written findings whenever relief is granted to a non-parent. These procedural and evidentiary requirements not only restrain government interference in family matters but also enhance the fairness and consistency of judicial decision-making. The Legislative Budget Board has confirmed that HB 4656 will not impose significant fiscal burdens on the state or local governments, as its provisions can be implemented within existing court resources.

Given its constitutional integrity, its bolstering of parental liberty, its procedural safeguards, and its lack of fiscal cost, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 4656.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly strengthens the constitutional liberty interest of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, an interest firmly recognized by both the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)) and the Texas Supreme Court (e.g., In re C.J.C., Relator). By codifying a rebuttable presumption that parents act in the best interest of their children and elevating the standard for non-parents to overcome that presumption, the bill safeguards a fundamental zone of personal autonomy. The procedural requirement for non-parents to submit a fact-based affidavit further protects families from unwarranted or speculative legal interference, preserving parental authority from state overreach.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill affirms that parents, not courts, the government, or unrelated third parties, bear primary responsibility for their children. This principle reinforces the societal expectation that parents are the best stewards of their children’s well-being and that their decisions should be respected unless clear evidence shows otherwise. By imposing a high burden on nonparents to justify overriding that presumption, the bill discourages third-party custody challenges unless absolutely necessary, reinforcing the primacy of the parent-child bond.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not have a direct or material impact on the principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: Although not involving tangible property, the bill upholds a parent’s authority over their child as a form of protected personal interest, akin to a private domain free from outside interference. In this sense, the parent-child relationship is treated as a form of individual sovereignty that cannot be disrupted without compelling and well-substantiated evidence. The bill thus affirms the broader spirit of private property rights, applied here to the relational authority of the family unit.
• Limited Government: The bill places critical limits on judicial discretion and state involvement in family life. It requires courts to summarily dismiss non-parental suits that lack adequate factual grounding and mandates that courts provide written findings of fact when granting custody or access to a non-parent. These provisions promote judicial accountability and ensure that government intrusion into family matters only occurs when clearly justified. In doing so, the bill embodies the principle of limited government by restricting the conditions under which the state can interfere with a family’s internal decisions.

• SB 2052 (Same As)