BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 4062

By: Harris, Cody

Juvenile Justice & Family Issues

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is a lack of transparency during the interview conducted between a child custody evaluator and a child who is the subject of a suit seeking conservatorship of, possession of, or access to the child. Often times, a child may answer an interview question differently than they would in front of a family judge due to pressure from the evaluator or interested parties. This can hinder a family court's ability to reach a fair decision that is not influenced by other actors. C.S.H.B. 4062 seeks to resolve this issue by requiring a child custody evaluator to create an audiovisual recording of each interview the evaluator conducts with a child who is the subject of a suit seeking conservatorship of, possession of, or access to the child.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 4062 amends the Family Code to require a child custody evaluator to create an audiovisual recording of each interview the evaluator conducts with a child who is the subject of a suit seeking conservatorship of, possession of, or access to the child. The bill makes such a recording confidential and prohibits the release of the recording after the completion of the suit in which the evaluator conducted the evaluation, except by court order for good cause shown. The bill applies only to an interview conducted on or after the bill's effective date.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2023.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 4062 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

Whereas the introduced required the recording created by the evaluator to be either an audio or video recording, the substitute requires the recording to be an audiovisual recording.

The substitute omits the provision from the introduced establishing an exception to the requirement to create a recording for an interview that is conducted in the presence of all parties to the suit.

The substitute includes a provision absent from the introduced making the recording confidential and prohibiting the release of the recording after the completion of the suit, except by court order for good cause shown.