Relating to procedures and grounds related to the removal and placement of children, including for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship filed by a governmental entity.
HB 2216 revises Texas Family Code procedures governing child removal, foster care placement, and termination of the parent-child relationship in suits brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services or another governmental entity. The bill replaces many existing “clear and convincing evidence” standards with a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for termination findings and related removal determinations, and it requires courts to make more detailed written findings about the specific facts supporting removal, continued danger in the home, and the department’s efforts to reunify families. It also adds a statutory definition of “active efforts,” describing a more affirmative and individualized set of reunification services than the current “reasonable efforts” framework.
The bill also expands procedural protections for parents and children in child protection cases. It requires earlier and broader disclosure of evidence by DFPS, including witness names, offense reports, photos, recordings, medical and educational records, and consultation records. It lengthens the possible postponement of full adversary hearings to allow counsel to prepare, requires increased visitation when hearings are delayed, and clarifies when parents must be informed of the right to counsel and appointed counsel. In addition, it narrows the grounds on which a court may rely by stating that poverty, crowded housing, single-parent status, parental age, substance use alone, nonconforming social behavior, or child isolation from community contacts are not by themselves sufficient to prove serious injury risk.
HB 2216 also changes placement and permanency rules. It makes relative and other preferred placements more mandatory, creates a right for certain preferred caregivers to intervene when a child is placed with a lower-priority caregiver without good cause, and directs DFPS not to consider socioeconomic status or ordinary bonding from a non-preferred placement when deciding whether to deviate from the placement preference order. The bill further updates permanency hearing requirements, teleconferencing use, and extended foster care review hearings, and it applies the same placement preference structure to children in DFPS conservatorship under a new Section 264.020.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote history appears strongly supportive, with the bill passing the House by wide margins on multiple votes. No committee transcript was provided, but the broad vote totals suggest substantial bipartisan support for the bill’s child-safety and due-process framework. At the same time, the bill’s significant changes to evidentiary standards, removal procedures, and DFPS obligations indicate a major policy shift that likely drew attention from child welfare practitioners and family-law stakeholders.
The main points of contention are likely to be the higher burden of proof, the expanded disclosure obligations, and the tighter limits on what can justify removal or termination. Supporters would likely view these changes as protecting parental rights, improving transparency, and reducing removals based on poverty or other non-abusive conditions. Opponents may argue that the bill makes it harder for DFPS and courts to act quickly in dangerous situations, especially by raising the proof standard and requiring more detailed findings and reunification efforts before termination or removal can be ordered.
HB 2216 would substantially amend multiple provisions of the Family Code governing termination of parental rights, emergency removal of children, adversary hearings, permanency hearings, and placement decisions. It would replace many existing “clear and convincing evidence” references with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” require more specific judicial findings and affidavit support, expand discovery-like disclosures in DFPS cases, and codify a new “active efforts” standard for reunification services. The bill also strengthens relative-placement preferences, creates intervention rights for certain preferred caregivers, and adds new rules for foster care and extended foster care placements.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received and advanced with strong support, including large bipartisan majorities in recorded House votes. Because no committee transcript was provided, there is no direct record of floor or committee debate here, but the vote pattern indicates that the bill’s overall goals—greater procedural protection, more detailed court findings, and stronger placement preferences—were broadly acceptable to lawmakers. The bill was still left pending in Senate committee, showing that while it had momentum, it had not completed the legislative process.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s higher evidentiary burden for termination and removal, the expanded disclosure requirements imposed on DFPS, and the restrictions on what factors may be used to justify a finding of danger to a child. Child welfare advocates concerned about child safety may object that the bill could slow emergency intervention and make it harder to protect children in abusive or neglectful homes. By contrast, family-rights advocates and supporters of due process are likely to favor the bill’s limits on using poverty, housing instability, or family structure as grounds for removal and its stronger requirements for reunification efforts and preferred placements.