According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2052 is expected to have no significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The LBB assumes that any administrative costs related to implementing the changes in the bill—such as reviewing affidavits submitted by nonparents or incorporating new findings of fact into court orders—can be managed within existing judicial resources and budgets.

At the local level, the fiscal implications are also projected to be minimal. The bill does not mandate new programs, infrastructure, or personnel, and its procedural changes are not expected to generate significant new litigation or court workloads. Instead, the affidavit requirement and heightened evidentiary threshold for nonparents may actually discourage some nonmeritorious filings, potentially reducing unnecessary judicial proceedings.

Overall, SB 2052 is designed to improve legal clarity and safeguard parental rights without imposing a financial burden on state or local governments. The Office of Court Administration and the Texas Judicial Council reviewed the bill and found no issues with its fiscal manageability, reinforcing the conclusion that it can be implemented efficiently within the existing legal framework and budgetary constraints.

SB 2052 strengthens the statutory framework protecting the fundamental rights of parents in legal disputes over child custody, conservatorship, or access involving nonparents. It codifies the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re C.J.C., Relator, which affirmed that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. While the existing Family Code does not contradict that ruling, it also does not clearly articulate the rebuttable presumption favoring parents in such suits. SB 2052 addresses this gap by embedding that presumption in statute and raising the threshold for nonparental claims.

The bill also enhances procedural protections for parents by requiring nonparents to file a sworn affidavit with specific factual allegations demonstrating that the denial of their request would significantly impair the child’s physical or emotional health. If the affidavit lacks sufficient factual grounding, the court is required to dismiss the suit or intervention. This mechanism ensures that only well-founded claims can proceed, discouraging unwarranted or speculative litigation. Additionally, courts granting relief to nonparents must explicitly state how the presumption favoring parents was overcome and what evidence justified that decision—adding transparency and accountability to judicial proceedings.

Importantly, SB 2052 achieves its policy goals without imposing significant financial costs on the state or local governments, as confirmed by the Legislative Budget Board. All projected implementation expenses can be absorbed using existing court system resources.

The bill aligns strongly with core liberty principles—particularly individual liberty and limited government—by reinforcing the parent’s role as the primary decision-maker in a child’s life and limiting state intrusion unless clearly justified. Given its constitutional grounding and practical benefits, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2052.

• Individual Liberty: The bill safeguards a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their child—a right rooted in both Texas jurisprudence and U.S. constitutional law (e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57). By establishing a statutory rebuttable presumption in favor of parental decision-making and requiring nonparents to meet a clear and convincing evidence standard, the bill ensures that state intervention only occurs when absolutely necessary. This places a high value on personal autonomy and the sanctity of the family unit, reinforcing liberty in one of the most intimate spheres of life.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by affirming that parents are presumed to be the best stewards of their children's welfare. This reinforces the idea that it is primarily the duty of the parent—not the government or unrelated third parties—to raise and care for their child, unless demonstrable harm is occurring. At the same time, it places a burden on nonparents seeking custody or access to demonstrate—with evidence—that their involvement is essential to prevent significant harm, thus discouraging casual or disruptive legal interference
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly relate to business, market competition, or economic regulation, so it does not significantly impact the principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: While the bill does not involve physical property, it relates conceptually to parental rights as a form of protected private interest. By restricting external claims to a parent's authority over their child, it affirms that a parent’s relationship with their child is a protected domain, free from unnecessary intrusion—mirroring principles of property rights in terms of personal sovereignty.
• Limited Government: The bill places clear limits on judicial and governmental authority by establishing strict procedural and evidentiary requirements before a nonparent can intervene in family matters. It curtails judicial discretion by mandating the dismissal of nonparental suits that do not meet affidavit requirements and requires courts to justify in writing any decision that overrides the parental presumption. These provisions ensure that government actors do not override parental rights without compelling justification, reinforcing the value of a restrained and accountable government.

• HB 4656 (Same As)