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

HB5394

HB5394 bars child-placing agencies and the child-welfare contractors called “single source continuum contractors” from imposing requirements on relative or designated caregivers beyond those provided by law, Department of Family …

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to prohibiting single source continuum contractors and child-placing agencies from imposing certain requirements on or adopting certain policies and procedures related to relative and designated caregivers.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Rose. 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?

HB5394 bars child-placing agencies and the child-welfare contractors called “single source continuum contractors” from imposing requirements on relative or designated caregivers beyond those provided by law, Department of Family and Protective Services rules or Health and Human Services Commission rules. It also bars those providers from adopting caregiver-related policies or procedures unless authorized by those laws or rules. The new restriction is Family Code 264.752(d). Final law, Section 1.

This limits providers’ additional requirements; it does not repeal requirements already established by law or either agency’s rules. It does not automatically approve a particular caregiver or guarantee a child placement or payment. The act took effect September 1, 2025, after the governor signed it June 20. Final law, Section 2; official history.

What changed along the way?

The introduced version covered only child-placing agencies and only the imposition of extra requirements. The House committee substitute broadened the provision to cover single source continuum contractors too and added the separate ban on unauthorized caregiver-related policies and procedures. Both additions survived unchanged in the House-passed, Senate-report and final texts. These were committee-substitute changes, not floor amendments. Introduced; House substitute; House-passed; Senate report.

The official amendment index lists no floor amendments, and the history records no floor amendment adoption. The final certificates show House passage 144–0 and Senate passage 31–0. Amendment index; text-version index; final certificates.

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?

Relative and designated caregivers may face fewer provider-created hurdles that lack a basis in law or agency rules. Covered agencies and contractors must keep their requirements, policies and procedures within that authority. Children could benefit if unnecessary placement obstacles are reduced, but the bill does not establish a measured reduction in placement delays or relax the underlying legal safeguards.

The latest indexed fiscal note, dated May 20 for the engrossed bill, anticipates no significant state fiscal implication and assumes the Department of Family and Protective Services can absorb costs within existing resources. It anticipates no local-government fiscal implication. The April 20 introduced and April 27 House-substitute notes reach the same fiscal conclusions. None supplies a dollar estimate, multi-year cost table or quantified private-provider compliance cost; the act makes no appropriation. Applicable fiscal note; introduced note; House-substitute note.

Review boundary: both final sections, history, all five indexed text versions, the empty floor-amendment index and all three indexed fiscal notes were read and compared. This explains the new restriction, not every existing caregiver qualification rule or the legality of a particular provider’s policy.

Official sources

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