Relating to the qualifications, communications, and recordkeeping of a child custody evaluator and the admissibility of a child custody evaluation under certain circumstances.
HB 2340 amends the Texas Family Code provisions governing child custody evaluators. It adds definitions for “developmental disability” and “intellectual disability” by cross-reference to the Health and Safety Code, and it requires a custody evaluator to complete at least three hours of recent training related to the care of a child with an intellectual or developmental disability before conducting an evaluation. The training must cover topics such as education, therapy, independent living preparation, and approaches to physical or mental health challenges.
The bill also changes how custody evaluation records are handled. It requires private evaluators and domestic relations offices to make evaluation records available after the evaluation is completed and the required notice is filed, subject to court orders restricting disclosure, and it requires private evaluators to retain records until the end of the applicable licensing-retention period. In addition, evaluators must redact Social Security numbers and a child’s birth date before releasing records. The bill further limits admissibility of a custody evaluation report in court when the child has an intellectual or developmental disability and the evaluator had not completed the required training, unless the evaluator was appointed under a specific statutory provision.
The bill’s practical impact is to tighten professional standards for custody evaluations involving children with disabilities, increase access to evaluator records for parties and counsel, and add privacy protections for sensitive identifying information. It affects child custody evaluators, domestic relations offices, attorneys, parties in family-law cases, and courts deciding whether to admit custody evaluation reports into evidence. The changes apply prospectively to evaluations conducted by court-appointed evaluators on or after January 1, 2026, while the disclosure and retention provisions have their own effective-date rules.
Overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill passed the House unanimously and the Senate with overwhelming support, indicating broad agreement on improving evaluator training, record access, and child privacy protections in custody cases. The available voting history shows only a small amount of Senate opposition on a procedural vote and one final-floor no vote, suggesting limited substantive resistance.
The main point of potential contention is the new training mandate and the evidentiary consequence for noncompliance. Some may view the requirement as a necessary safeguard for children with disabilities, while others could see it as an added burden on evaluators or a basis for excluding otherwise relevant evidence. The record-disclosure provisions may also raise concerns about confidentiality, but the bill addresses that by allowing court-ordered restrictions and requiring redaction of sensitive personal information.
HB 2340 amends Chapter 107 of the Texas Family Code to impose additional qualification, disclosure, retention, and admissibility rules for child custody evaluators. It creates new statutory definitions for intellectual disability and developmental disability, requires specialized recent training for evaluators handling cases involving children with those conditions, expands access to evaluation records after completion of the evaluation, requires record retention tied to licensing rules, and bars admission of certain evaluation reports when the evaluator lacked the required training. The bill primarily affects family courts, custody evaluators, domestic relations offices, and litigants in child custody disputes, especially cases involving children with disabilities.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 140-0 on third reading and the Senate 26-5 on final passage, with the overall record indicating strong agreement that custody evaluators should have disability-related training and that parties should have clearer access to records. The limited negative votes suggest only modest concern, likely more about the procedural or practical effects of the bill than its overall purpose.
The most notable point of contention is the new prerequisite training requirement for evaluators in cases involving children with intellectual or developmental disabilities, along with the rule excluding reports from evidence if the evaluator lacked that training. Supporters would likely view this as a quality-control and child-protection measure, while critics may worry it could reduce the pool of qualified evaluators or create litigation over admissibility. A secondary area of concern is expanded record disclosure, though the bill attempts to balance transparency with privacy by allowing court restrictions and requiring redaction of Social Security numbers and birth dates.