Transcript Highlights:

• Is there, does this change penalties for parents when it comes to, okay. So it also...
• The parents are contacted or attempted to be contacted. At five days, the same thing occurs.
• They'll give the parent an improvement period.
• The parents are just asked to support them.
• I don't know what it would look like if we had no ability to say to a parent, because I've had parents

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee met, established a quorum, and approved the minutes from the prior meeting. It then took up House Bill 5537, a repeal bill that removes several obsolete code sections related to professional development, a behavioral interventionist pilot program, child daycare facility lists, and high school graduation rates, and also adds another outdated section to the repeal list. After adopting the committee amendment, the committee voted to report HB 5537 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass as amended. The committee then spent most of its time on House Bill 4656, which would replace the current truancy status-offense framework with a chronic absenteeism and child-in-need-of-supervision model. Counsel explained that the bill shifts the focus toward earlier, preventative intervention, including wraparound services, student support specialists, and a new definition of chronic absenteeism tied to failed interventions, lack of meaningful contact, grade-level impact, or absences reaching 10% of instructional days. Senators questioned how the new process would work, how it would affect court authority, prosecutors, juvenile drug courts, and whether it would change the role of schools and DHHS. Witnesses from Fayette, Greenbrier, and Taylor counties testified. School attendance and juvenile justice officials generally said the current truancy process and court involvement help secure family participation and services, and they warned that removing the status offense could weaken enforcement and reduce the ability to compel participation in interventions. They described existing diversion programs, improvement periods, and court-supervised services as effective tools, with Greenbrier reporting that most diversions do not result in petitions. The committee ultimately voted to report HB 4656 to the full Senate without recommendation and with a further recommendation that it be re-referred to the Committee on Education. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• a parent failed to comply... ...termination of parental rights if a parent failed to comply with the
• Chief Justice Blacklock asked, why would the state terminate parental rights because parents didn't check
• DFPS couldn't terminate parental rights because of anything that the parents had done to the children
• But that's, when a parent is being, with teenage kids, it's taking a parenting class.
• But that's, when a parent is being, with teenage kids is taking a parenting class on how to change diapers

Bills: HB18, HB37, HB 116, HB388, HB879, HB913, HB 1151, HB2216, HB2358, HB2809, SB577, SB1590, SB1782, SB1887, SB2744

Keywords: rural health, hospital funding, healthcare access, mental health services, financial stability, perinatal bereavement, healthcare, hospital training, bereavement support, maternal care, fetal demise, stillbirth, neonatal death, parent-child relationship, involuntary termination, family law, child welfare, child protection, HB 388, HB388

Summary: The committee first reopened testimony on House Bill 2216, which would strengthen child welfare requirements by expanding “active efforts” to help families avoid removal and support reunification, while also raising standards related to removals and terminations. Supporters from child welfare and family defense groups said the bill would better protect families and align Texas more closely with ICWA-style principles, but several warned it would require significant new funding, staffing, and community services such as mental health care, housing, child care, and substance use treatment. The committee then left HB 2216 pending. The committee next heard Senate Bill 1782, aimed at boarding and group homes. Senator Miles said the bill closes enforcement gaps left by prior law by requiring retention of background-check records and creating misdemeanor penalties for failing to conduct or keep them, or for knowingly hiring people with serious convictions. Harris County sheriff’s investigators testified in support, describing illegal boarding homes, operators who evade permits and background checks, and exploitation of vulnerable residents; the bill was left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 481 on emergency preparedness for nursing facilities and assisted living facilities, adopted a new committee substitute that softened some requirements and removed the fiscal note, and left the bill pending. The committee then heard House Bill 388, which would require the Texas Department of Insurance to create a single standardized coordination-of-benefits form for dual health plans to reduce errors and surprise bills; it was left pending. Senate Bill 1590 would move paternity registry searches for adoptions to an electronic process with a 10-day target, and House Bill 2809 would track child suicide attempts in managing conservatorship and require related reporting and parental notice; both were left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1887, which would prohibit administering mRNA-containing products for immunization for 10 years, with exceptions for cancer and genetic disorders. Supporters argued the bill was needed for safety, informed consent, and medical freedom, while opponents from the medical, research, and public health communities said mRNA vaccines are well-studied, save lives, and that the bill would harm access, research, and Texas’s biotech economy. The bill remained under discussion as testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when talking to parents and when I’m doing education, many parents would tell me, like, “Oh, I could
• But as a parent, I was like, I don’t know what to do.
• It wasn't their parents.
• And can you talk a little bit more about the parents, what you did with the parents?”
• And can you talk a little bit more about the parents, what you did with the parents?

Summary: The committee met to discuss domestic violence with a focus on teen dating violence, healthy relationships, and the impact of technology on abuse. Chair Blanca Rubio opened by describing the urgency of the issue, including a recent teen murder in her district tied to domestic violence, and emphasized that restraining orders alone do not prevent abuse. The first panel featured Janica Morin Pasquale and Taylor Stone Mill, who described warning signs in teens such as constant monitoring through phones and social media, isolation from friends, jealousy normalized by online content, and control through gifts, food delivery, and access to passwords or tracking apps. They stressed that many teens do not tell parents, that parents often miss the signs, and that prevention should begin early and be reinforced in schools, homes, and youth activities. They also cited resources such as Love Is Respect, One Love, and Take It Down, and urged consistent funding and implementation of the California Healthy Youth Act rather than one-time lessons. The second panel shifted to the effects of domestic violence on children and the systems that respond to them. Joyce Blue of the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center described the center’s wraparound services, including forensic interviews, legal help, housing support, child therapy, and high-risk response, and highlighted the prevalence and danger of strangulation, including cases with no visible injury. She explained that domestic violence is about power and control, that children often normalize abuse, and that safety planning must accompany restraining orders. Susie Flores of Inner Circle Children’s Advocacy Center explained the multidisciplinary forensic interview model used for child abuse cases, gave examples of severe abuse involving children exposed to domestic violence, and noted that many centers are overwhelmed by caseloads. She stressed the need for immediate trauma-informed services and more front-end intervention rather than waiting until long-term harm develops. Dr. Pamela Tate of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence and other members discussed the need to support not only victims but also the systems and educators who are expected to respond. Several members shared personal experiences with domestic violence, sexual assault, and family trauma, and raised concerns about school implementation, immigrant families’ fear of reporting, and the need to address abusers’ behavior and trauma as well. The discussion also touched on statute of limitations issues, with panelists saying memory and trauma can delay disclosure for years and that rigid deadlines can prevent justice. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and ended with members expressing support for continued collaboration, prevention funding, and stronger implementation of existing law.

Transcript Highlights:

• doing as home schooling parents. doing as home schooling parents.
• Once a parent exercises their rights as a parent, the state can't say, 'No, no, parent, you got to send
• to ask a parent, to require a parent to ask a parent, to require a parent to<02:05:36.400> fulfill
• fundamental parental rights. fundamental parental rights.
• It's us as parents.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So definition of parent is different.
• It is my hope that as we increase opportunities for parents and choices for parents, that public schools
• <00:25:59.039> that parents and choices for parents that parents and choices for parents that
• — we had one parent come in, but I did see one parent at a budget hearing come in and talk about, you
• <02:17:48.880> So, parents, that would be fine. Right. So, parents, that would be fine.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My next point is parental choice. We talk about parental choice.
• We talk about parental choice.
• If we are really about parental choice, my amendment is parental choice.
• If we are really about parental choice, my amendment is parental choice.
• First of all, parental choice.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, moments of silence for former member Terry Fields and the Parkland victims, the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognition of guests and visitors. The chamber then adopted the Rules and Ethics Committee’s special order report setting the day’s calendar and debate times. The main measure taken up was HB 1119, relating to materials harmful to minors in public schools and charter schools, which the sponsor described as a clarification of existing law to keep pornographic or sexually explicit material away from minors and to give districts clearer standards for review and objection processes. The bill drew extensive debate over constitutional concerns, local control, litigation risk, and the scope of the definition of “harmful to minors.” Members supporting the bill argued it was needed to close loopholes and protect children, while opponents warned it could lead to overbroad book removals, conflict with federal court rulings, and costly lawsuits. A series of amendments sought to narrow or redirect the bill: proposals by Gant, Aristide, Bartleman, Eskamani, Nixon, Rainer, Woodson, and Harris would have preserved literary value review, protected educational and abuse-prevention materials, exempted LGBTQ-inclusive books, limited objections, preserved funding for districts, or delayed enforcement during ongoing litigation. Supporters of the amendments framed them as protecting parental choice, academic value, student safety, and district finances; opponents said they would weaken the bill’s child-protection purpose. All of the amendments failed. After the amendment process, the House waived rules, read HB 1119 a third time by title, and entered structured debate on final passage. Debate continued along the same lines, with opponents emphasizing book removals, First Amendment concerns, and the impact on students and schools, and supporters reiterating that the bill was intended to prevent minors from accessing obscene material. The transcript provided ends during structured debate and does not include the final vote on HB 1119.

Transcript Highlights:

• Parents are afforded an incredible amount of rights, and a district is required to notify parents at
• Parents are afforded an incredible amount of rights, and a district is required to notify parents at
• district is required to notify parents district is required to notify parents at<00:13:14.320>
• first parents are that I listed parents first parents are a<00:24:50.480> critical<00:24:50.919
• the IEP with the parents.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• by the Senate was that before a parent by the Senate was that before a parent or<00:12:44.720>
• <00:13:26.959> or the objection of a child's parent or the objection of a child's parent or
• Is there something specific with parent rights or parent advocacy or education or the consent that we
• Is there something specific with parent rights or parent advocacy or education or the consent that we
• Is there something specific with parent rights or parent advocacy or education or the consent that we

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the prior meeting minutes and then spent most of the meeting discussing draft recommendations and a Senate amendment, 007-7, related to seclusion in schools. The chair explained the history of the issue, including Minnesota’s 2023 ban on seclusion from birth through grade 3, and described 007-7 as a compromise developed with stakeholders that would extend the ban through grade 6 unless strict conditions are met. Those conditions include explicit written informed consent from all parents or guardians in their primary language, oral translation of safeguards, showing the seclusion room before consent, mandatory follow-up IEP meetings after repeated use, outreach and education for families, and data reporting on use of seclusion. The chair also said the amendment would prevent judges or other officials from ordering seclusion over a parent’s objection. Members then reviewed the draft recommendations line by line. They agreed to revise language to add “and fund” after “mandate” in the first section, and discussed changing references from “level three and level four” to “level three and higher,” though several members ultimately preferred keeping the focus on school settings and not expanding into medical or correctional settings. They also discussed replacing the word “subjected” with more neutral language such as “experience” or “whose IEP includes seclusion.” Another issue was whether the recommendations should distinguish between students whose IEP already includes seclusion and students who experience seclusion in an emergency but do not have it in their IEP; members suggested splitting that into separate recommendations and possibly adding a new item for the latter situation. A final discussion focused on whether the working group should recommend a mandated alternative-to-seclusion program and whether such a mandate should be tied to funding. School district representatives said many districts already use programs such as CPI, but others, especially outstate districts, charter schools, hospitals, and residential settings, may face significant costs if required to adopt new programs like Ukeru. Members generally agreed that if the legislature is asked to require implementation of new alternatives, funding should accompany the mandate. The chair also noted that existing law already requires an IEP team meeting after restrictive procedures are used twice in 30 days, and encouraged members to compare that with the 007-7 language before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Could you walk through what that parent would do?
• As well as their parents and caregivers.
• Because I see parents doing that.
• The reason I would ask you to reconsider is because you're all parents.
• And this is a parental issue, not a partisan issue.

Bills: SCR17, SB2104, SB2155, SB1428, SB1250, SB1651, SB1794, SB444, SB1061, SB1327, SB1425, SB1455, SB1458, SB1460, SB1480, SB1530, SB1543, SB1555, SB1593, SB1209, SB1730, SB1733, SB1769, SB1805, SB2069, SB2095, SB1503

Keywords: trusts, Oklahoma Uniform Trust Code, trust administration, trustee, beneficiary, qualified beneficiary, nonjudicial settlement agreement, trust accounting, fiduciary duty, forfeiture clause, no-contest clause, in terrorem clause, certification of trust, trust property, district court jurisdiction, venue, surcharge trustee, trust protector, trust advisor, principal distribution

Transcript Highlights:

• So you've got, you know, first, we're going back to parental choice and parental empowerment.
• Parents have the right and the obligation to ask that question.
• I am a parent.
• This bill is essential for parent choice. This is informed parent choice.
• We agree that parents ought to be informed and the parents ought to be able to ask whatever questions

Summary: The committee first heard the Pre-K-12 education budget proposal for fiscal year 2025-26 and voted to adopt it as the committee’s recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The proposed $34.7 billion budget includes increases for the FEFP, Family Empowerment Scholarships, VPK, school safety, the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, school hardening, Jewish day school security, and an education enrollment stabilization fund. Members asked no questions on the budget before it was advanced, and staff was authorized to make technical corrections. The committee then passed CS/SB 1402, which expands eligibility for dropout retrieval services to any individual who has withdrawn from high school and clarifies how school grades are calculated for virtual instruction providers that offer only dropout retrieval services. An amendment to clarify the grading calculation was adopted without objection, and the bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote. The committee also took up SPB 7030, a comprehensive scholarship-program bill sponsored by Senator Gates, which would separate Family Empowerment Scholarship funding as its own categorical, expand the education stabilization fund, create fall and spring application windows, require a single scholarship application and more documentation, assign student IDs, change payments to a monthly schedule, require background checks for paid instructional providers, mandate annual FTE audits by the Auditor General, and standardize reimbursement and eligibility procedures. After extensive discussion and public testimony, the bill was adopted as a committee bill and reported favorably, with Senator Osgood voting no. Finally, the committee considered CS/SB 508, which requires private schools participating in the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program to disclose in writing what accommodations, modifications, and services they will provide for students with existing plans such as IEPs, 504 plans, or ELL plans. An amendment was adopted to require public schools to consult with private schools about equitable services, and the bill was reported favorably. Public testimony included support from parent-choice advocates and concerns from private-school representatives about administrative burden and the scope of the required disclosures. The meeting concluded after the final roll call votes and adjournment motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This parent perception highlights the importance of parent notification and reading improvement plans
• Here's the key component right there: working with the parents.
• And I don't know how we go about mandating parents.
• Parents need to know how to help their children.
• Parents don't know how to teach children how to read.

Bills: SB29, SB37

Keywords: SB29, math requirements for teaching license, teacher licensure, teacher endorsement, mathematics methods, elementary education, secondary education, special education, early childhood education, reciprocity, Public Education Department, Mathematics and Science Education Act, mathematics instructional leadership framework, professional learning plan, K-3 screening, mathematics screening assessment, mathematics difficulty, support plan, multilevel support, intervention

Transcript Highlights:

• And so what happens is sometimes the school is trying to settle with the parent, and the parent is actually
• Our rights as parents were stripped away.
• Parents of children with disabilities.
• Parents of children with disabilities.
• Our parents. Both good and bad.

Bills: SB205, SB582, SB625, SB1884, SB1903, SB2600, SB2617, SB2751, SB111, SB3061, SB1908

Keywords: fetal development, health curriculum, public schools, middle school health education, grade 7, grade 8, State Board of Education, school health advisory council, Texas Education Code, pregnancy, reproductive health, infertility, birth defects, prenatal development, unborn child, trimester, medically accurate instruction, age-appropriate instruction, drug and alcohol effects, lead exposure

Transcript Highlights:

• Many parents.
• and parents have the ultimate say about that parents can vote their feet.
• . parents making $40,000 or one parent make it $80,000.
• Bourbon parents, homeschool parents, role coaches.
• Our parents are involved.

Bills: SB2, HB2, HB2000, HB2196, HB213, HB222, HB645, HB1458, HB 1022, HB141, HB502, HB643, HB3093, HB1700, HB 117, SB503, SB2, HB 120, HB20, HB150, HB6, HB 100, HB210, HB215, HB1393, HB 1151, HB 1268, HB142, HB451, HB 124, HB2, HB2000, HB2196, HB213, HB222, HB645, HB1458, HB 1022, HB141, HB502, HB643, HB3093, HB1700, HB 117

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, child grooming, sex offender registration, criminal justice, reportable conviction, law enforcement, virtual education, hybrid learning, school funding, average daily attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• But we also have parents services and then those parents services.
• We open the gate for parents to have access to the dentist.
• You can also access a lot of parent training and my colleagues recognized and discussed parent education
• and parent training.
• So I'm I'm I'm just a firm believer in parent mediated interventions, parent engagement.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Normally, the parents or somebody because we're parents or somebody because we're parents or somebody
• Parents have the freedom of choice. Parents have the freedom of choice. Parents have the choice.
• And then the parents can choose whether or then the parents can choose whether or then the parents can
• because parents who want their children because parents who want their children because parents who want
• The la the the parent will the parent be the one that has to will the parent be the one that has to will

Bills: SJR 39, SJR 68, SCR 29, SCR 42, SB 30, SB 33, SB 37, SB 217, SB 240, SB 331, SB 393, SB 505, SB 530, SB 546, SB 552, SB 584, SB 586, SB 618, SB 619, SB 636, SB 732, SB 769, SB 801, SB 825, SB 826, SB 844, SB 847, SB 870, SB 884, SB 957, SB 1065, SB 1150, SB 1184, SB 1257, SB 1261, SB 1262, SB 1299, SB 1314, SB 1325, SB 1398, SB 1413, SB 1455, SB 1539, SB 1577, SB 1583, SB 1596, SB 1620, SB 1624, SB 1642, SB 1643, SB 1667, SB 1717, SB 1727, SB 1760, SB 1789, SB 1791, SB 1804, SB 1868, SB 1870, SB 1883, SB 1901, SB 1923, SB 1924, SB 1927, SB 1951, SB 1960, SB 1962, SB 1963, SB 2010, SB 2018, SB 2023, SB 2024, SB 2037, SB 2051, SB 2052, SB 2056, SB 2066, SB 2073, SB 2127, SB 2129, SB 2161, SB 2183, SB 2185, SB 2207, SB 2252, SB 2323, SB 2332, SB 2368, SB 2405, SB 2439, SB 2626, SB 2717, SB 2743, SB 2774, SB 2949, SB 1, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 63, SJR 68, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SCR 42, SCR 29, SB 2023, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 957, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 264, SB 1364, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 1877, SB 732, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1436, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 393, SB 2243, SB 1919, SB 1791, SB 651, SB 826, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 1401, SB 1728, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 510, SB 1860, SB 1314, SB 1398, SB 855, SB 2037, SB 1759, SB 1924, SB 1818, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2321, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 2252, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 1261, SB 2180, SB 1804, SB 1937, SB 1936, SB 2569, SB 1372, SB 1868, SB 2314, SB 769, SB 1409, SB 434, SB 1214, SB 1951, SB 2183, SB 2046, SB 1667, SB 1870, SB 1727, SB 2405, SB 2127, SB 1975, SB 1760, SB 1734, SB 1335, SB 2066, SB 2129, SB 2246, SB 2439, SB 1624, SB 1244, SB 1468, SB 2717, SB 1612, SB 1262, SB 604, SB 2395, SB 2185, SB 1832, SB 1745, SB 1746, SB 2207, SB 1784, SB 1524, SB 528, SB 437, SB 269, SB 1137, SB 968, SB 636, SB 747, SB 1325, SB 1789, SB 1455, SB 2056, SB 1940, SB 2052, SB 2010, SB 1579, SB 2068, SB 3034, SB 844, SB 1920, SB 1558, SB 1236, SB 1044, SB 884, SB 463, SB 331, SB 227, SB 240, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1410, SB 1626, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2216, SB 2681, SB 1717, SB 2053, SB 546, SB 2141, SB 2949, SB 2323, SB 2200, SB 2332, SB 2199, SB 1642, SB 1150, SB 1757, SB 2050, SB 1138, SB 2051, SB 2626, SB 2458, SB 1864, SB 2201, SB 1862, SB 1583, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 1898, SB 2662, SB 2161, SB 2964, SB 2881, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2743, SB 2533, SB 1413, SB 2073, SB 3014, SB 3013, SB 2774, SB 2702, SB 2629, SB 2443, SB 2349, SB 2167, SB 2145, SB 2121, SB 758, SB 648, SB 647, SB 512, SB 438, SB 1721, SB 2268, SB 1495, SB 2705, SB 2366, SB 1422, SB 1369, SB 1013, SB 682, SB 2692, SB 2570, SB 2797, SB 2111, SB 1896, SB 1164, SB 1020, SB 663, SB 2371, SB 1152, SB 2196, SB 2383, SB 2581, SB 2798, SB 330, SB 646, SB 843, SB 1998, SB 1418, SB 2788, SB 1169, SB 2873, SB 1754, SB 1534, SB 1718, SB 2779, SB 2004, SB 1143, SB 1756, SB 912, SB 2119, SB 2032, SB 527, SB 1580, SB 1952, SB 2601, HJR 4, SJR 85, SJR 84, SCR 4, SCR 18, SCR 43, SCR 46, SB 2322, SB 2448, SB 1777, SB 1283, SB 407, SB 2392, SB 2076, SB 2786, SB 3031, SB 2877, SB 2876, SB 2284, SB 2225, SB 1540, SB 2920, SB 2929, SB 1395, SB 1972, SB 2540, SB 1183, SB 2742, SB 2595, SB 2217, SB 2117, SB 715, SB 2330, SB 1964, SB 1383, SB 500, SB 1640, SB 39, SB 2001, SB 2080, SB 2722, SB 506, SB 2514, SB 2623, SB 2658, SB 1574, SB 2900, SB 23, SB 2753, SB 2398, SB 401, SB 1241, SB 2927, SB 2173, SB 2538, SB 898, SB 467, SB 1449, SB 2529, SB 1531, SB 2846, SB 2476, SB 2031, SB 986, SB 1181, SB 2075, SB 2154, SB 2864, SB 2, SB 260, SJR 68, SB 217, SB 331, SB 530, SB 546, SB 586, SB 1150, SB 1184, SB 1261, SB 1398, SB 1620, SB 1923, SB 1951, SB 1960, SB 2051, SB 2129, SB 2183, SB 2185, SB 2252, SB 2368, SB 2405, SB 2949, SB 825, SB 1870, SB 2010, SR 434, SB 3048, SB 3049, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3055, SB 3048, SB 3049, SB 3050, SB 3051, SB 3052, SB 3053, SB 3055

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, impeachment, public officers, removal from office, disqualification, El Paso, Boot Capital, cultural heritage, economic development, Western footwear, gender identity, biological sex, women's rights, immutability, policy, higher education

Transcript Highlights:

• They play a critical role, and it enables true parental choice to allow parents of four-year-olds and
• And that's parents with school-age children.
• And with this today, we have Jennifer Greppie, Director of Parent Policy, Parent Voices California; La
• The parents said, oh, they're going into free TK.
• The parents said, oh, they're going into free TK.

Summary: The California State Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its first hearing to examine the state of child care access, affordability, and provider compensation. Chair Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and other members described child care as essential infrastructure for working families and the economy, noting that costs are unaffordable for many households and that providers are underpaid. Early testimony came from a San Francisco parent, Quinn Chung, who described the difficulty of finding safe care and the financial and career sacrifices caused by lack of child care, and from Tuolumne County provider Anita Viscini, who detailed her monthly costs, low margins, and the need to work weekends and teach CPR classes to make ends meet. Assemblymembers also emphasized the crisis in rural communities and the need for a long-term strategy. The first policy panel featured Jennifer Troia of the California Department of Social Services, Laura Pryor of the California Budget and Policy Center, and Alexa Frankenberg of Child Care Providers United. Troia said the state has nearly doubled child care funding in five years, expanded subsidy slots, and reached a new tentative three-year agreement with providers that includes cost-of-living adjustments, stabilization payments, and continued work on an alternative rate methodology and single rate structure. Pryor argued that despite funding gains, child care remains too expensive, only a fraction of eligible children receive subsidies, and provider wages remain far below comparable jobs, worsening racial and gender inequities. Frankenberg said the tentative agreement is progress but not enough, calling for a true cost-of-care system, fair wages, paid time off, better support for emergency and nontraditional care, and stronger integration of family child care into the mixed-delivery system. Members asked about why the crisis persists, how the alternative methodology will work, how family fees and sliding-scale help are being used, and why middle-income families still struggle. The panel said the problem reflects long-term underinvestment, a broken market, and a system that still leaves many families without access. The committee also heard an economic panel from Ashley Hoffman of the California Chamber of Commerce and Sarah Bone of the Public Policy Institute of California. Hoffman described employer child care benefits and public-private partnership models in other states, including shared-cost programs and local chamber efforts. Bone said child care costs reduce family financial security and labor force participation, especially for mothers of young children, and estimated that if mothers of young children worked at the same rate as mothers of older children, more than 80,000 additional women could be in the workforce each year. In the final panel, parent and provider advocates, including Jennifer Greppie and Black Californians United for Early Care and Education co-founder Keisha Doyle, argued for fully funding child care, ending waiting lists, protecting culturally affirming care, and addressing racial inequities and private equity’s role in the sector.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:31.680> who Children are safest with a parent who Children are safest with a parent
• after the parents separate. after the parents separate.
• co-parenting.
• the parents to improve co-parenting. the parents to improve co-parenting.
• So, if it's one of the parents that is requiring the supervision, a lot of times it's that parent that

Keywords: 00:00 - Call to Order/Roll Call 01:05 - Discussion of 26RS HB 418 21:23 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 418 22:40 - Discussion of 26RS HB 611 26:00 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 611 26:52 - Discussion of 26RS HB 598 51:25 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 598, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Families and Children met to consider three bills. House Bill 418, relating to domestic violence and child custody, was presented by Rep. Neimus with testimony from ZeroV and Greenhouse 17. The bill, as amended by a committee substitute, would require courts to prioritize family violence in custody decisions, create a rebuttable presumption against unsupervised visitation and custody after two or more acts of domestic violence, require certain offenders to complete parenting or intervention programs before unsupervised contact, require training for paid supervised visitation providers and parenting coordinators, and ensure victim advocates are available in protective order hearings. Members discussed the two-incident threshold, the definition of domestic violence under Kentucky law, fiscal impact, and whether the bill adequately addresses severity and context; the bill passed 14-0 with favorable expression. The committee then heard House Bill 611, also on domestic relations, presented by Rep. Dietz with support from ZeroV. The committee substitute would create a 10-year interpersonal protective order upon conviction for certain felony assaults, sexual offenses, and stalking involving family members, unmarried couples, or dating partners, and would expand reporting requirements related to domestic violence data, legal representation in protective order hearings, and child dependency/neglect/family violence data. Testimony emphasized improved tracking of cases and survivor safety. The bill passed the committee 14-0 with favorable expression. Finally, House Bill 598, relating to guardian ad litem and other appointed counsel, was presented by Rep. Dietz with testimony from Kentucky Youth Advocates. The bill, titled the Family Representation and Advocacy Act, would reorganize how legal representation is provided in child welfare cases by creating a Family Representation and Advocacy Commission under the Supreme Court, allowing the department to hire staff attorneys or contract with private attorneys, nonprofits, law school clinics, and social workers, and aiming to improve quality, accountability, compensation, and support. Testimony cited high caseloads, low compensation, attorney turnover, and delays in foster care cases. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed 14-0 with favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• , is it fair to say that people, parents, is it fair to say that people, parents, one<01:00:50.160
• , both sexes of still have both parents, both sexes of parents<02:02:48.719> getting<02:02:49.040
• <03:17:18.080> who<03:17:18.399> chooses it is the parent who chooses it is the parent
• > make<03:17:25.279> that parents could no longer make that parents could no longer make
• <03:20:32.800> hands which takes it out of the parents hands which takes it out of the parents

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe it is in parents, and that leads to parental accountability.
• I believe it is in parents, and that leads to parental accountability.
• parents?
• <02:24:13.600> Choice parents parents then with free Choice parents parents then with free
• <03:12:20.120> business<03:12:21.040> parents that's the parents business parents that's

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 115-FN, which would remove the income cap from New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account eligibility rules. Representative Valerie McDonnell, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to fund students rather than systems and to expand educational choice regardless of income or zip code. She described the change as a small statutory edit but argued it would have significant benefits, including helping families afford alternative education settings and testing costs such as AP exams. She also cited testimony from families who said EFAs helped children with special needs or difficult circumstances, and she argued the program is popular and cost-effective. Committee members questioned McDonnell about the bill’s fiscal impact and administration. One member asked whether removing the income cap would extend vouchers to families above the statewide median income and whether the change could cost more than $100 million annually; McDonnell said she did not agree with that estimate and pointed to Arizona as a comparison. Representative Wendy Thomas asked whether the bill should require stronger data-sharing from the Children’s Scholarship Fund, which administers the program, so the Department of Education and taxpayers could better track spending; McDonnell said the program already uses ClassWallet and regulated expenditures, and that the question was better directed to the administrator. Several members testified in opposition. Representative Wendy Thomas said the bill would increase costs for public schools, raise local property taxes, and worsen oversight problems. Representative Heath Howard argued the proposal would function as a subsidy for wealthy families already paying private tuition and said public education and special education should be funded first. Representative Megan Murray also opposed the bill, emphasizing the lack of a legal reporting requirement for EFA spending and the need for transparency, accountability, and attention to special education needs. Representative Sam Farrington supported expansion, sharing a constituent story about a student who left public school after harassment and benefited from private school placement. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why is the parent being trained for that?
• I run a parent support group called Paid Parent Caregivers of Florida, and you're able to join it.
• I would love to I run a parent support group called Paid Parent Caregivers of Florida, and you're able
• Yes, it is Paid Parent Caregiver, Florida only.
• Like you heard, parents are struggling.

Summary: The subcommittee held its first meeting of the 2025-2026 term, took attendance, confirmed a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from members and staff. Chair Anderson outlined the subcommittee’s jurisdiction over access and affordability issues, including health facility regulation, insurance, Medicaid, CHIP, and state employee health coverage. The main agenda item was an update on implementation of HB 391, which created a family home health aide program for medically fragile children. Representative Tramont, the bill sponsor, explained that the law was intended to let trained family caregivers be paid through Medicaid to care for their children, reduce reliance on private duty nursing, and relieve families. He and several members expressed frustration that implementation had taken nearly two years and that families still faced barriers. Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer of AHCA and Bridget Royce of DCF said the program was implemented October 1, 2024, with billing available, but no home health agencies had yet launched the required 80-hour training program and no claims had been paid. They described the program’s requirements, including agency employment, background screening, training, a $25-per-hour Medicaid rate paid to the agency, and an annual assessment report. A major issue discussed was that income earned by family caregivers counts toward Medicaid eligibility and could cause families to lose coverage. AHCA and DCF outlined two possible fixes that would require CMS approval: disregarding the income for eligibility purposes or treating the child as a family of one. Members and public witnesses strongly urged changes to avoid forcing families to choose between income and coverage. Several providers said they had begun preparing training programs, but asked for clearer approval processes and more patient-specific training requirements. The committee then heard extensive public testimony from parents and caregivers of medically fragile children, who described the financial, emotional, and logistical strain of caring for children with severe disabilities and argued that the bill should be expanded to include Florida KidCare families and others in the coverage gap. They also raised concerns about the eight-hour-per-day limit, low pay, and the need for simpler rules and direct support. Home health providers and associations supported the concept but asked for modifications, including more targeted training and clearer implementation guidance. The meeting then shifted to a second agenda item on the Andrew John Anderson Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing Program, which was funded in the 2023 budget. Deputy Secretary Meyer said the program has been implemented since January 1, 2024, but utilization has been lower than expected, with only about 60 claims paid and many denials occurring through managed care. Public testimony from a lab, a hospital, and a pediatric rare disease expert said the program is clinically valuable and cost-saving, but managed care billing barriers, prior authorization issues, and DRG-related denials are limiting access; they urged direct billing to Medicaid and possible expansion to all newborns.