BILL ANALYSIS

 

 

 

C.S.H.B. 3282

By: Dutton

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Substituted)

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 requires states to file a parental rights termination petition in cases where a child has been in the care of the state for 15 out of the previous 22 months, with certain exceptions. However, the bill author has informed the committee that in Texas, petitions to terminate are filed at the time of removal, and that this timing is contrary to the goal of reunifying families. C.S.H.B. 3282 addresses this issue by establishing limits on the authority of the Department of Family and Protective Services to file a petition for termination of the parent-child relationship.

 

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. 3282 amends the Family Code to prohibit the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) from filing a petition for the termination of the parent-child relationship unless one of the following conditions applies:

·         the child has been in the temporary managing conservatorship of DFPS for at least 12 of the previous 22 months;

·         the child is under two years of age and the court has previously determined that the child was abandoned; or

·         the DFPS petition alleges aggravated circumstances under applicable statute against the parent and the court has previously determined by clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances exist.

 

C.S.H.B. 3282 also prohibits DFPS from filing a petition for the termination of the parent-child relationship if any of the following conditions apply:

·         the child is being cared for by a relative;

·         DFPS finds a compelling reason why termination of the parent-child relationship is not in the child's best interests and documents that reason in the family service plan;

·         the court made a finding during the preceding 12 months that DFPS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite the child and family; or

·         the parent is incarcerated, or the parent's previous incarceration is a significant factor in the duration of DFPS's conservatorship of the child, and the parent maintains a meaningful role in the child's life, and DFPS has not documented another reason why it would otherwise be appropriate to terminate parental rights.

The bill establishes that the assessment of whether a parent maintains a meaningful role in the child's life may include consideration of the following:

·         the child's best interests;

·         the parent's concern for the child, demonstrated in letters, telephone calls, visits, and other forms of communication and the impact of the communication with the child;

·         the parent's efforts to repair, maintain, or build the parent-child relationship and to communicate with and work with DFPS for the purpose of complying with the family service plan;

·         limitations on the parent's access to family support programs, therapeutic services, visiting opportunities, and telephone and mail services; and

·         limitations on the parent's ability to meaningfully participate in court proceedings.

 

C.S.H.B. 3282 makes the following changes to statutory provisions that provide for a court's jurisdiction over a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that is filed by DFPS and in which the court renders a temporary order appointing DFPS as temporary managing conservator to be terminated on the first Monday after the first anniversary of the date that temporary order was rendered, unless the court has commenced a trial on the merits or granted an extension:

·         removes language limiting that provision to a suit that requests termination of the parent-child relationship or requests that DFPS be named conservator of the child;

·         replaces the specification that the suit is automatically dismissed on that date without a court order with the specification that all pleadings filed by a party are automatically dismissed without a court order; and

·         revises the exceptions to the prohibition against the court retaining the suit on its docket after that date unless the court has commenced the trial on the merits, as follows:

o   includes as a circumstance triggering an exception the court finding that DFPS has filed a petition to terminate parental rights in accordance with the bill's provisions; and

o   adds as a condition of any exception that a parent files a written motion or makes an oral request in open court to extend time.

 

C.S.H.B. 3282 applies to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that is pending in a trial court on the bill's effective date or that is filed on or after that date.

 

EFFECTIVE DATE

 

September 1, 2025.

 

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

 

While C.S.H.B. 3282 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.

 

With respect to the circumstances under which DFPS may file a petition for the termination of the parent-child relationship, the introduced and substitute differ as follows:

·         the substitute replaces the circumstance of the child having been in the temporary managing conservatorship of DFPS for at least 15 of the previous 22 months, as in the introduced, with the circumstance of the child having been in such conservatorship for at least 12 of the previous 22 months; and

·         while both versions include the circumstance that a DFPS petition alleges aggravated circumstances against a parent, the substitute includes the condition that the court previously determined by clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances exist, which the introduced did not include.

 

Both the introduced and the substitute revise statutory provisions that provide for a court's jurisdiction over a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that is filed by DFPS and in which the court renders a temporary order appointing DFPS as temporary managing conservator to be terminated on the first Monday after the first anniversary of the date that temporary order was rendered, unless the court has commenced a trial on the merits or granted an extension. However, the versions differ in the following ways:

·         the introduced changed the date of termination to the first Monday after the second anniversary of the date the temporary order was rendered, whereas the substitute does not;

·         the substitute removes language limiting that provision to a suit that requests termination of the parent-child relationship or requests that DFPS be named conservator of the child, whereas the introduced did not; and

·         with respect to the exceptions to the prohibition against the court retaining the suit on its docket after the applicable date unless the court has commenced the trial on the merits:

o   the substitute includes as a circumstance triggering an exception the court finding that DFPS has filed a petition to terminate parental rights in accordance with the bill's provisions, whereas the introduced did not; and

o   whereas the introduced conditioned an exception on a parent filing a motion to extend time or a motion pursuant to statutory provisions relating to the monitored return of a child to a parent, the substitute conditions an exception on a parent filing a written motion or making an oral request in open court to extend time.