BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 3758

By: Schatzline

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The bill author has informed the committee that in suits involving allegations of child abuse or neglect, parents or guardians may face severe legal consequences based on evidence they have limited ability to challenge, that current practices can lead to the use of uncorroborated statements, compelled testimony, undisclosed evidence in court, or even statements made during treatments for mental health or substance use, and that evidentiary disclosure practices by governmental entities can be inconsistent. The author further informed the committee that, as a result, these cases may not receive all relevant materials in a timely manner, disadvantaging the defense and limiting the court's ability to fairly assess a case.

C.S.H.B. 3758 strengthens due process protections and ensures a more just legal process in child welfare cases by prohibiting alleged perpetrators of abuse or neglect from being compelled to testify, mandating the comprehensive disclosure of relevant evidence by governmental entities, and prohibiting the use of applicable statements made during a treatment for substance use or mental health. By reforming evidentiary standards and transparency obligations, the bill aims to promote fairness, protect constitutional rights, and increase public trust in the handling of child abuse and neglect cases.

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. 3758 amends the Family Code to set out provisions establishing the following in a civil suit filed by a governmental entity concerning a child who is alleged in the suit to have been abused or neglected or to be at risk of abuse or neglect:

· a statement made by an individual undergoing voluntary or court-ordered treatment for a substance use disorder, or undergoing an evaluation for admission to treatment for a substance use disorder that is court-ordered or required under an applicable service plan, is not admissible in any civil proceeding for use against the individual if the statement was made to any person involved in the individual's treatment or evaluation;

· a statement made by an individual undergoing voluntary or court-ordered therapeutic treatment for a mental illness, or undergoing a psychological, psychosocial, or psychiatric evaluation for that treatment that is court-ordered or required under an applicable service plan, is not admissible for use against the individual in any civil proceeding if the statement was made to any person involved in the individual's treatment or evaluation;

· an out-of-court statement regarding any alleged abuse or neglect made to an appropriate agency, as established under statutory provisions relating to the investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect, is not admissible into evidence in any civil proceeding unless the statement can be independently corroborated by other evidence;

· the alleged perpetrator of any abuse or neglect may not be compelled to testify at any civil proceeding or make a statement during an investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect; and

· neither the court nor the counsel may comment on the previously specified alleged perpetrator's refusal to testify or make a statement, and the trier of fact may not draw any adverse inference from the alleged perpetrator's refusal to testify or make a statement.

C.S.H.B. 3758 replaces the requirement for the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), before a full adversary hearing and on the request of an attorney for a parent who is a party in a civil suit filed by a governmental entity to protect the health and safety of a child or an attorney ad litem for the parent's child, to provide certain specified evidence with a requirement for a governmental entity, in a civil suit filed by a governmental entity concerning a child who is alleged in the suit to have been abused or neglected or to be at risk of abuse or neglect, to provide the specified evidence to each party. The bill revises provisions setting out the evidence a governmental entity is required to disclose as follows:

· replaces references to DFPS with references to a governmental entity in those provisions;

· includes in the evidence any witness statement provided by a person whom the governmental entity will call as a witness to any of the allegations contained in the petition filed by the governmental entity;

· revises the required disclosure of a copy of any offense report relating to the allegations contained in the petition filed by the governmental entity by removing the specification that the copy must be used in court to refresh a witness's memory;

· changes the required disclosure of a copy of any photograph, video, or recording that will be presented as evidence to the disclosure of such media relating to the allegations contained in the petition;

· includes in the evidence a copy of any medical record or report submitted to the governmental entity by a medical provider, including a provider with the forensic assessment center network regarding a child who is the subject of the suit;

· includes in the evidence all exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating evidence in the possession, custody, or control of the governmental entity or its agent that is relevant to a parent who is a party in the suit and tends to negate any claim of abuse or neglect of a child by the parent; and

· includes in the evidence a true and correct copy of any investigative file under an investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect, including any intake report, with only the identifying information of a reporting party redacted.

The bill requires the specified governmental entity to provide the information required to be disclosed not later than the fifth business day before the date of the full adversary hearing or the initial hearing in an applicable suit.

C.S.H.B. 3758 requires a governmental entity, if at any time before, during, or after a hearing or before the end of a trial, the governmental entity or its agents discover any additional document, item, or information required to be disclosed under the bill's provisions, to immediately provide the document, item, or information to each party. The bill requires a governmental entity, if after a trial the governmental entity or its agents discover any additional document, item, or information under the bill's provisions regarding exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating evidence, to immediately provide the document, item, or information to each party. In a civil suit filed by a governmental entity concerning a child who is alleged to have been abused or neglected or to be at risk of abuse or neglect, any document, item, or information not timely disclosed in accordance with the bill's provisions is not admissible in any civil proceeding if submitted by the governmental entity.

C.S.H.B. 3758 expressly does not prohibit the parties in a civil suit concerning a child who is alleged to have been abused or neglected or to be at risk of abuse or neglect filed by a governmental entity from requesting discovery and documentation under the bill's provisions or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent of any conflict, the bill's provisions relating to the disclosure of evidence prevail over state public information law.

C.S.H.B. 3758 applies to a civil suit filed by a governmental entity that is pending on the bill's effective date or filed on or after that date.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2025.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 3758 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.

Both the introduced and the substitute set out provisions relating to the admissibility and disclosure of certain evidence in a suit concerning a child alleged to have been abused or neglected or to be at risk of abuse or neglect filed by a governmental entity. However, the substitute specifies that the suit is a civil suit, whereas the introduced does not. With respect to those civil suits, the substitute replaces references to a judicial proceeding, as in the introduced, with references to a civil proceeding.

The substitute revises the provision of the introduced establishing that an applicable statement made by an individual undergoing an evaluation for admission to treatment for a substance use disorder is not admissible in any civil proceeding for use against the individual by specifying that the evaluation must be court-ordered or required under an applicable service plan for the provision to apply. Similarly, the substitute revises the provision of the introduced establishing that an applicable statement made by an individual undergoing a psychological, psychosocial, or psychiatric evaluation for therapeutic treatment is not admissible in any civil proceeding for use against the individual by making the same specification in regards to the evaluation.

Both the substitute and the introduced revise statutory provisions that set out the evidence a governmental entity is required to disclose in a civil suit concerning a child who is alleged to have been abused or neglected or to be at risk of abuse or neglect filed by a governmental entity. However, relating to the requirement that such disclosure cover copies of any offense report relating to the allegations contained in a petition filed by the governmental entity, the substitute removes the specification that the copy must be used in court to refresh a witness's memory, whereas the introduced did not.

Whereas the introduced required an applicable governmental entity to provide the information required to be disclosed under the bill not later than the seventh day before the date of the full adversary hearing or the initial hearing in an applicable suit, the substitute instead requires the information to be provided not later than the fifth business day before that date.

Whereas the introduced established that the bill's provisions relating to the disclosure of evidence did not prohibit the applicable parties from agreeing to discovery and documentation requirements equal to or greater than those required under the bill's provisions, the substitute establishes that such provisions do not prohibit the applicable parties from requesting discovery and documentation under the bill's provisions or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Whereas the introduced establishes that its provisions apply to a suit filed by a governmental entity on or after the bill's effective date, that a suit filed by a governmental entity before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the suit was filed, and that the former law is continued in effect for that purpose, the substitute establishes that its provisions apply to a civil suit filed by a governmental entity that is pending on the bill's effective date or filed on or after that date.