2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB2340

HB2340 adds a qualification for child-custody evaluators: at least three hours of initial or continuing training during the two years before the evaluation, related to caring for a child with an intellectual or developmental disa…

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the qualifications, communications, and recordkeeping of a child custody evaluator and the admissibility of a child custody evaluation under certain circumstances.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Metcalf. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

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.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB2340 adds a qualification for child-custody evaluators: at least three hours of initial or continuing training during the two years before the evaluation, related to caring for a child with an intellectual or developmental disability. Topics may include education, therapy, preparation for independent living or addressing physical or mental health challenges. The qualification is not written as applying only when the child being evaluated has a disability. The law adopts the existing Health and Safety Code definitions of those disabilities rather than covering every diagnosis automatically. Final law, Sections 1–2; developmental-disability definition; intellectual-disability definition.

If the report concerns a child with one of those disabilities and the evaluator had not met the training requirement on the date of the evaluation, the court may not admit the report into evidence. An existing exception remains for evaluators appointed under Family Code 107.106: in specified counties, a court may appoint an otherwise-qualified person when a person meeting the usual qualifications is not available locally in time, after notice and hearing or agreement of the parties. Both the new training requirement and the new evidence restriction apply only when the evaluator was appointed by a court on or after January 1, 2026. Earlier appointments remain under former law. Final law, Sections 4–5; limited appointment exception.

The act also aligns access to evaluation records with the existing report procedure: after completing the evaluation, the evaluator files a notice that the report is complete, not the report itself as the trigger. On a written request, records must be made available to a party’s lawyer, an unrepresented party or a person appointed under the relevant chapter in the case, subject to court disclosure restrictions and applicable domestic-relations-office rules. The law preserves the exception for child-protection investigative records and adds an express exception for confidential records obtained from other government entities under Section 107.1111. It requires social security numbers and children’s birth dates to be redacted before disclosure. This is not public access to everyone’s custody file. Final law, Section 3; report-completion notice; protected government records.

For private evaluators, the licensing authority’s retention period is measured from filing that notice; the act does not set a single statewide number of retention years. The disclosure and redaction changes apply to disclosures on or after September 1, 2025. The retention change applies to all records the evaluator possesses on or after that date, including older records. Existing protections for audiovisual child interviews and the ability to charge a reasonable copying fee are not repealed. Final law, Sections 3 and 6–8; recordkeeping rules; official history.

What changed along the way?

The House committee substitute made two material changes to the introduced bill. It changed the list of training topics from “and” to “or,” rather than requiring the listed examples collectively, and clarified that the evidence restriction tests the evaluator’s training status when the evaluation was made, not simply when the report is offered in court. Both changes survived in the engrossed, Senate committee and enrolled versions. Those later versions have the same substantive text, aside from printing and certification material. Introduced text; House substitute; final law.

The official amendment index lists no amendments. The changes above were made in a committee substitute, not adopted floor amendments; the Senate reported the bill without amendments. Amendment index; text versions; history.

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?

Children with intellectual or developmental disabilities and their families may benefit from evaluators better prepared to consider their needs. Parties gain clearer record-access procedures, while redaction protects sensitive identifiers. Evaluators must obtain the training, check their qualification dates and comply with disclosure and retention duties. A report excluded for missing training may affect the evidence available to the court, but the law does not decide which parent receives custody or guarantee a particular result. Final law.

The Legislative Budget Board’s May 6, 2025 engrossed fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal implication, assumes court-administration costs can be absorbed using existing resources, and assumes no fiscal impact to the Department of Family and Protective Services. It anticipates no local-government fiscal implication. The March 22 introduced and April 10 House-substitute notes reach the same conclusions. These notes do not estimate individual evaluators’ course fees, professional time or families’ litigation costs. Engrossed fiscal note; introduced fiscal note; House-substitute fiscal note.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.