Texas Senate Bill SB56

Texas 2025 - 89th 1st C.S.

• Filed: 7/31/25

Caption

Relating to the appointment of attorneys ad litem and the compensation of certain attorneys ad litem in suits affecting the parent-child relationship filed by a governmental entity.

Summary

SB 56 revises Texas Family Code provisions governing when courts must appoint attorneys ad litem in suits filed by a governmental entity seeking termination of parental rights or appointment of a conservator. It expands and clarifies the categories of parents and alleged fathers who must be represented, including indigent parents opposing the action, parents served by publication, and certain alleged fathers whose identity or location is unknown or who cannot be personally served despite registry information. The bill also changes how attorneys ad litem in these cases are compensated. It requires reasonable fees and expenses to be paid by the parents unless they are indigent, and when indigency is shown, it generally shifts payment to county general funds rather than the state or a political subdivision, subject to the bill’s limits. It further creates a county-level fee schedule process for courts hearing governmental-entity cases, specifying compensable in-court and out-of-court work, appellate preparation, travel, and expert-witness costs, and it adds procedures for challenging delayed, denied, or reduced payment claims.

Impact

SB 56 would amend Chapter 107 of the Family Code and related provisions to standardize appointment and compensation rules for attorneys ad litem in child-protection and other governmental-entity suits affecting the parent-child relationship. It creates new county court obligations to adopt fee schedules by March 1, 2026, establishes payment standards for appointed counsel, and authorizes judicial review and enforcement of disputed vouchers. The bill also allows courts to remove attorneys from appointment lists if they submit claims for work not performed, affecting both court administration and the pool of eligible ad litems.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a procedural and administrative reform rather than a highly partisan policy change. Its stated focus on ensuring representation for parents and alleged fathers, while also clarifying compensation and payment procedures for appointed attorneys, suggests a generally practical and professional-services-oriented purpose. No formal vote history or transcript evidence indicates opposition or support levels in the provided record.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are fiscal responsibility and administrative burden. Counties may object to the requirement that general county funds pay certain ad litem fees and to the mandate that local courts jointly develop and adopt fee schedules, especially where qualified attorneys are scarce or costs are difficult to predict. Attorneys and advocates for indigent parents may favor the bill’s clearer payment rules and appeal process, while counties or state entities may be concerned about expanded obligations, enforcement of voucher disputes, and the removal of attorneys from appointment lists for improper billing.