2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB116
HB116 removes failure to comply with a particular court-ordered reunification plan as a separate ground for permanently ending a parent-child relationship.
Official caption: Relating to grounds for the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship.
Official report lists House author(s): Dutton, Jones, Jolanda. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB116 removes failure to comply with a particular court-ordered reunification plan as a separate ground for permanently ending a parent-child relationship.
- The deleted provision applied when a parent failed to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to obtain the child’s return, after the child had been in the Department of Family and Protective Services’ temporary or permanent managing conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect.
- Other grounds remain, including endangering a child and specified forms of abandonment.
- The bill also updates cross-references in the existing child-support provision for certain people whose parental rights have been terminated.
- The change applies to suits affecting the parent-child relationship pending in a trial court on September 1, 2025, or filed on or after that date.
What does it do?
HB116 removes failure to comply with a particular court-ordered reunification plan as a separate ground for permanently ending a parent-child relationship. It does not eliminate other grounds, make court orders optional or require an automatic return of a child. Signed May 28, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025. Final law; official history.
The deleted provision applied when a parent failed to comply with a court order specifying the actions needed to obtain the child’s return, after the child had been in the Department of Family and Protective Services’ temporary or permanent managing conservatorship for at least nine months following removal for abuse or neglect. That was former Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(O). Removing it prevents that particular failure from serving as a standalone statutory ground; conduct that also proves another remaining ground is not immunized. Final law, Section 2, deleted text.
Other grounds remain, including endangering a child and specified forms of abandonment. The separate substance-use ground also remains: it involves endangering the child through controlled-substance use together with failure to complete court-ordered treatment or continued abuse after treatment. HB116 renumbers that ground from paragraph (P) to (O). A court proceeding under this provision still requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground and that termination is in the child’s best interest, together with other applicable safeguards. Final law, Section 2; current Family Code, Section 161.001.
The bill also updates cross-references in the existing child-support provision for certain people whose parental rights have been terminated. It does not itself cancel those support obligations or create a new support amount. Final law, Section 1.
The change applies to suits affecting the parent-child relationship pending in a trial court on September 1, 2025, or filed on or after that date. The bill does not say that every older final termination order must be reopened. Final law, Sections 3–4.
What changed along the way?
The filed, House committee, House-passed, Senate committee and enrolled versions contain the same substantive change. The official amendment index lists no amendments, and the history records passage without Senate changes or a conference report. The House passed it 136–0 with one present but not voting; the Senate passed it 31–0. Filed text; all versions; amendment index; enrolled certifications.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Parents and children may benefit by avoiding permanent legal separation based on the deleted plan-compliance ground when no other ground is established. Child-protection agencies and lawyers must rely on and prove remaining grounds when seeking termination. How that affects a particular child’s safety, time in care or family reunification depends on the evidence and the other applicable law; HB116 does not establish those outcomes.
The latest posted fiscal note, on the House-passed version whose substance remained unchanged, anticipates no significant state or local fiscal impact. It assumes the Department of Family and Protective Services and the Office of Court Administration can absorb costs within existing appropriations. That is a budget forecast, not a finding that families or courts face no practical consequences. Fiscal note.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.