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

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB5149

HB5149 requires the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to obtain either written consent from a child's adult primary caregiver or a court order before collecting or using a DNA sample from a child in DFPS's manag…

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to restricting the collection and use of DNA samples from children in the managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Villalobos, Capriglione, Leo Wilson. 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.

HB5149 requires the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to obtain either written consent from a child's adult primary caregiver or a court order before collecting or using a DNA sample from a child in DFPS's managing conservatorship.
The consenting adult must actually have care, control and possession of the child as the primary caregiver.
Sources: final law, new Family Code 264.131; official history.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB5149 requires the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to obtain either written consent from a child’s adult primary caregiver or a court order before collecting or using a DNA sample from a child in DFPS’s managing conservatorship. The restriction applies to any purpose, not just paternity searches. It took effect September 1, 2025.

The consenting adult must actually have care, control and possession of the child as the primary caregiver. The final law does not require consent specifically from the biological mother, and it does not require both caregiver consent and a court order. It regulates DFPS collection or use for this group of children; it is not a general ban on all DNA testing of every child.

Sources: final law, new Family Code 264.131; official history.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill was much narrower: it would have barred DFPS from using a collected sample to search a Department of Public Safety DNA database to determine paternity without the biological mother’s written consent.

The House committee substitute broadened the rule to collecting or using a sample for any purpose, changed the consent source to the adult primary caregiver with actual care/control/possession, and added a court-order alternative. That version became law. The House committee, engrossed, Senate committee and enrolled operative provisions match.

The amendment index lists no floor amendments; the committee substitute is the material version change. The governor signed the bill June 20, 2025; the effective date remained September 1.

Sources: all five text versions; amendment index; introduced proposal; committee substitute.

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 in DFPS conservatorship gain a consent-or-court-order safeguard for their DNA. Primary caregivers gain a role in authorizing collection or use; DFPS must obtain that consent or an order before proceeding. A court order provides an alternative when consent is not obtained. The law does not guarantee a particular paternity, placement or medical outcome.

The May 19, 2025 fiscal note anticipates no state or local fiscal implication and assumes no cost to DFPS to implement the bill. The April 30 committee note reaches the same conclusion for the broader substitute; the April 12 introduced note assessed the narrower proposal. These are estimates, not proof that every case requires no staff time or court work.

Review boundary: the complete final law, official history, all five versions, no-amendment index and all three fiscal notes were read and compared. The explanation does not claim a right to destroy existing samples, regulate every other person’s independent testing, or establish DFPS’s compliance in individual cases; those provisions are not supplied by this bill.

Source: May 19 fiscal note.

Official sources

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