According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 1923 are minimal. According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, the bill is not expected to result in any significant costs to the state. Agencies involved in administering child support or overseeing judicial proceedings, such as the Office of Court Administration and the Texas Judicial Council, are assumed to be able to implement the bill’s provisions using their existing resources without requiring additional appropriations.

This is largely because the bill does not impose new mandates on state agencies or create new programs—it modifies existing judicial procedures for reallocating child support payments in specific situations, such as when a child is being cared for under a parental child safety placement or an authorization agreement. These changes are procedural and administrative in nature, and the affected entities already have processes in place that can accommodate the bill’s adjustments.

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to generate significant fiscal effects on local governments. Courts at the county level may see a slight increase in motions for modification of child support orders, but these are not expected to materially affect workloads or budgets. The requirement for expedited hearings within 30 days and the allowance of electronic service may actually streamline some aspects of case management and reduce administrative overhead in the long run. Overall, SB 1923 is considered fiscally neutral at both the state and local levels.

SB 1923 makes a targeted and thoughtful reform to the Texas Family Code to ensure that child support payments follow the child in temporary caregiving situations—specifically when a child is placed with kin or fictive kin under a Parental Child Safety Placement (PCSP) agreement or an authorization agreement with an adult caregiver. The bill addresses a key gap in current law, which allows the original custodial parent to continue receiving child support payments even when they are no longer providing care for the child. By aligning financial support with the reality of who is actually caring for the child, the bill strengthens both fiscal accountability and child welfare policy​.

The Committee Substitute version of SB 1923 adds several procedural safeguards and clarifications to ensure that the court’s discretion is exercised fairly and efficiently. It includes provisions requiring a temporary support modification order to expire within 90 days unless otherwise stated and mandates that the court prioritize these motions and hold a hearing within 30 days of filing. These changes ensure that support modifications are handled promptly, aligning with the short-term nature of most PCSP agreements. Additionally, the bill modernizes service procedures by allowing notice to be provided electronically if the respondent has previously supplied an email address, which improves efficiency and reduces the likelihood of procedural delays.

Importantly, the fiscal note confirms that the bill has no significant fiscal implications for the state or local governments, as courts and agencies can implement the changes with existing resources. The bill aligns with the principles of personal responsibility by ensuring obligors continue to provide for their children and with limited government by facilitating informal, voluntary caregiving arrangements without additional state intervention. It also reflects a cross-partisan commitment to child-centered policymaking, addressing practical caregiving needs while maintaining judicial oversight.

In conclusion, SB 1923 represents a well-calibrated reform that promotes child welfare, administrative efficiency, and family stability. It respects individual liberty by empowering non-parent caregivers, ensures support obligations are fairly enforced, and makes the legal process more responsive and equitable. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1923.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty by ensuring that financial support for a child follows the child to the person actually providing care—often a relative or trusted adult who has stepped in voluntarily. It empowers these individuals, who are not the legal conservators but have assumed parental responsibilities, by giving them legal standing to receive and manage child support. This ensures the child’s rights to care and support are honored, regardless of technical custodial status, and affirms the liberty of caregivers to support children in their homes without unnecessary barriers or legal complexity.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility on multiple levels. For non-custodial parents (obligors), it ensures that their child support payments are directed to the party actually incurring the cost of raising the child, reinforcing the obligation to provide for their child regardless of the child’s location. It also implicitly encourages custodial parents to notify the court when they relinquish care, helping prevent misuse or misdirection of support funds. Furthermore, it supports kinship and fictive kin caregivers who take personal responsibility for children during times of crisis or transition.

• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly regulate or impede private business or commerce, so it has no significant bearing on free enterprise. However, reinforcing the private responsibility of families and caregivers to manage support outside of institutional or foster care systems, it supports broader civil society solutions over government-dependent ones.

• Private Property Rights: The bill respects the financial and property rights of both the paying and receiving parties by ensuring that support payments are allocated correctly and fairly. It prevents a situation where one party (e.g., the former custodial parent) retains funds for a child they are no longer raising and instead transfers the right to manage those funds to the person with actual care responsibilities. This shift recognizes the right of caregivers to receive financial resources owed for the benefit of the child under their care.

• Limited Government: The bill supports limited government by promoting informal, voluntary caregiving arrangements (like PCSPs and authorization agreements) over state-initiated interventions such as foster care. By giving courts the tools to legally recognize these arrangements without requiring full custody modification proceedings, it reduces the need for prolonged litigation or state involvement. It also streamlines procedural requirements—such as allowing notice by email—helping courts operate more efficiently and reducing administrative burdens.