BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 1160 |
By: Davis, Sarah |
Human Services |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Concerned parties assert that judges ordering health care for children in the conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services often fail to consult with appropriate health professionals. C.S.H.B. 1160 seeks to address this issue by establishing certain consultation requirements that must be met before a court renders an order requiring or prohibiting specific health care services, procedures, or treatments for such a 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. 1160 amends the Family Code to prohibit a court from rendering an order requiring or prohibiting specific health care services, procedures, or treatments, including mental health care services, procedures, or treatments, for a child in the conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) unless the court verifies that a health professional providing services, procedures, or treatments within the scope of practice of the health professional's occupation has been consulted regarding the proposed care and has recommended the proposed care. The bill excludes from this prohibition a court order for emergency medical care, including mental health care, for a child in DFPS conservatorship.
|
||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2017.
|
||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 1160 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||
|