Tennessee House Bill HB1131

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 3/4/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Failed: 4/9/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8; Title 33; Title 34; Title 36; Title 37; Title 41; Title 49; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to children.

Summary

HB1131 makes a narrow change to Tennessee law governing a required annual report under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-712. The bill replaces a fixed date reference—"on January 31, 1998, and annually thereafter"—with the more general requirement that the report be submitted "on or before January 31 of each year." In practical terms, the measure appears to update outdated statutory language and clarify the ongoing annual deadline without changing the underlying reporting obligation. Because the bill amends only one sentence in Title 36, its legal effect is limited and administrative rather than substantive. It does not create a new program, benefit, or penalty; instead, it modernizes the statute so the deadline is expressed in a current, evergreen form. The bill is framed within a broader caption concerning children, but the operative change is specifically to a reporting provision in the family-law code.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-5-712, affecting the timing language for an annual filing or report required under that section. Its impact on state law is limited to clarifying that the report must be filed on or before January 31 each year, removing obsolete date language and reducing the need for future statutory updates. The measure would primarily affect the agency, office, or parties responsible for complying with that annual reporting requirement.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests mixed but ultimately unfavorable committee sentiment. The House Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee recommended passage with amendment, indicating some support for the technical update, but the House Judiciary Committee later failed the bill by a wide margin. No transcript discussion is available, so the record reflects procedural support in one committee and clear opposition or lack of support in the next.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to have been whether the bill was necessary or appropriate to advance beyond a technical cleanup. Supporters likely viewed it as a simple modernization of outdated statutory language, while opponents in Judiciary may have questioned the need for legislation that changes only deadline wording or may have had concerns unrelated to the narrow text. Because there are no committee transcripts, the specific objections are not stated, but the failed Judiciary vote indicates that the bill did not command broad support.