BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 3109 |
By: Giddings |
Human Services |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties contend that an attorney ad litem is often an important advocate for a child during the pendency of a child protective services case but note that the duration of appointment of an attorney ad litem is inconsistent across the state. C.S.H.B. 3109 seeks to ensure that a child for whom the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is appointed as managing conservator continues to have an attorney ad litem for as long as the child remains in the conservatorship of DFPS, with certain exceptions.
|
||||||||||||
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. 3109 amends the Family Code to specify that the time period for which a court order appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) as a child's managing conservator may provide for the continuation of the appointment of the guardian ad litem for the child is any period during the time the child remains in the conservatorship of DFPS, as set by the court. The bill replaces an authorization for a court order appointing DFPS as a child's managing conservator to provide for the continuation of the appointment of the attorney ad litem for the child with a requirement that such an order provide for that continuation and specifies that the duration of that continuation is required to be as long as the child remains in the conservatorship of DFPS, subject to the bill's provisions.
C.S.H.B. 3109 authorizes the court to discharge the attorney ad litem appointed for a child on the entry of a final order terminating the parent-child relationship and naming DFPS as the child's managing conservator on finding that the child has a representative authorized by the court to represent the legal interests of the child and discharge of the attorney ad litem is in the child's best interest or if the court finds that the child resides in the home identified in the child's permanency plan as the child's permanent home, has an attorney ad litem or guardian ad litem who does not object to the child's permanency plan, and has resided in such home for at least three months. The bill requires a court that renders an order discharging a child's attorney ad litem, at each permanency hearing following the final order naming DFPS as the child's managing conservator, to make the findings a court is required by law to make at such a permanency hearing.
C.S.H.B. 3109 requires a court at each permanency hearing held after the court renders a final order naming DFPS the managing conservator of a child who is not represented by an attorney ad litem to determine whether the child requires representation by an attorney ad litem and, if the court declines to appoint an attorney ad litem for the child, to state the reason for declining to appoint an attorney ad litem. The bill requires a court at such a hearing for a child who is represented by an attorney ad litem to consider the need for continued appointment of the attorney ad litem for the child and authorizes the court to discharge the attorney ad litem appointed for the child if the court finds that the child is eligible for adoption and living in the home identified in the permanency plan as the child's permanent home, the child's attorney ad litem or guardian ad litem does not object to the child's permanency plan, and the child has resided in such home for at least three months.
C.S.H.B. 3109 applies to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship filed before, on, or after the bill's effective date.
|
||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2017.
|
||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 3109 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.
|
||||||||||||
|