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 and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB2789

HB2789 changes several child-welfare and child-care requirements.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the regulation of child welfare, including licensure, community-based care contractors, family homes, and child-care facilities.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Frank, Hull, Manuel, Noble. 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?

HB2789 changes several child-welfare and child-care requirements. Most changes took effect September 1, 2025; the insurance changes took effect January 1, 2026. It is not a blanket exemption from child-safety regulation. Final law

Community-based foster-care contractors: A “single source continuum contractor”—a contractor managing and overseeing foster care and other child-welfare services for DFPS—no longer needs a child-placing agency license solely to fulfill its departmental contract. It may still choose to obtain one. Other applicable laws, rules and child-safety duties remain, and the exemption does not extend to subcontractors or child-placing agencies working under the contractor. The law required implementing rules by December 1, 2025, including safeguards prioritizing foster children’s safety and well-being.

Liability insurance, from January 1, 2026: The required amount for Chapter 42 license/registration holders and listed family homes drops from $300,000 to $100,000 per occurrence of negligence, covering injury to a child on the premises or in the provider’s care. This is a coverage requirement, not a $100,000 ceiling on damages or legal liability. Existing notice-based exceptions for specified inability to obtain coverage or exhausted policy limits remain; parents and the regulator must receive the required notices. Lack of insurance does not excuse negligent harm.

The act also removes the annual proof-of-insurance filing requirement for listed family homes. It does not remove that filing requirement for other license or registration holders under Section 42.049(b). A listed family home is a regulated home-based child-care category, not a general label for every foster home. Insurance provisions; listed-home provision

Health requirements: The act removes the express tuberculosis-testing requirement in Section 42.043(b), while retaining the listed immunization requirements and existing statutory exceptions. It separately repeals Section 42.0431(b), which required individual vision/hearing/special-senses screening records at licensed day-care centers and group day-care homes and authorized related inspection/coordination. Screening itself is not abolished: subsection (a) remains, and separate Health and Safety Code duties still require screening and records for covered preschools/schools. Providers should not read this repeal as permission to discard every screening record. Remaining screening provision; separate health-law records duty

Facility licensing and signs: An initial Chapter 42 license now lasts 12 months rather than six, with the existing option of a further six-month renewal. Residential treatment centers must still display “No Trespassing” notices. The bill removes detailed statutory placement, size, bilingual-text and content specifications, leaving those details to rules. It retains free notices from the commission and the Class C misdemeanor for failing to display supplied notices by the end of the 30th business day after receipt. It does not abolish the posting requirement or every potentially applicable sign rule.

Administrator qualifications and late renewal: Child-care and child-placing-agency administrator applicants may qualify through an experiential or educational equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in social work, child development or a similar field. This replaces the prior specified management-experience and degree/experience combinations. Fingerprints, criminal-history/background requirements and the relevant examination remain. The act does not itself define how many years of experience establish equivalence. For a license expired more than 90 days but less than a year, the renewal payment drops from twice the usual renewal fee to 1.5 times; the prohibition on practicing while the license is expired remains. Administrator provisions

What changed along the way?

The filed, House committee, House-passed, Senate committee and final texts have identical operative provisions, including the split effective dates. There were no indexed floor amendments, and both committees reported the bill without amendments. Versions; amendment index

The House passed it 141–6, with one present but not voting; the Senate passed it 31–0. The governor signed it June 20, 2025. Those votes did not override the act’s express September 2025/January 2026 commencement dates. Official 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?

Contractors, providers and administrator applicants may face fewer licensing, insurance or paperwork burdens. A lower required policy amount may reduce premiums, but no saving is guaranteed. Children and families could have less required insurance available after negligent injury, even though legal liability remains; actual recovery also depends on the policy and provider’s resources. Reduced formal qualifications and more rule-based administration likewise create implementation and oversight tradeoffs, not a proven safety outcome in either direction.

The May 12 fiscal note, the latest listed for unchanged text, says the insurance-premium-tax revenue effect cannot be determined. It expects no significant revenue effect from the initial-license/late-renewal changes, assumes agency implementation costs fit existing resources, and anticipates no local fiscal effect. The March 31 note reaches the same conclusions. Neither estimates private insurance savings, changes in injury recovery or a quantified multiyear overall cost. “Existing resources” is not a finding that every fiscal effect is zero.

Official sources

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