Relating to grounds for the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship.
LowStandard timeline
Low Cost
Effective:2025-05-28
Enforcing Agencies
Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) • Texas Family Courts
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date: September 1, 2025.
Compliance Deadline:Immediate. The law applies to all suits *pending* in trial court on the effective date. If you have an active case that will not result in a final order before September 1, 2025, you must adjust your legal strategy and pleadings immediately.
Agency Rulemaking: While no formal rulemaking period is mandated, DFPS is expected to revise internal policy handbooks regarding termination thresholds. Expect "soft" regulatory changes in DFPS enforcement guidelines by Q3 2025.
Immediate Action Plan
1.Audit Active Litigation: Review every open termination suit. If Ground O is the primary ground, file amended pleadings immediately.
2.Update Caseworker Protocols: Issue a directive to social services staff: Documentation must link non-compliance to specific safety risks, not just rule violations.
3.Renegotiate Timelines: If your organization is a DFPS contractor, initiate discussions regarding "Time to Permanency" metrics to account for longer litigation timelines.
4.Revise Service Contracts: Behavioral health providers should adjust revenue forecasts and engagement strategies for court-ordered clients.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
DFPS Vendor Agreements: Agencies with performance-based contracts tied to "Time to Permanency" must review terms. The removal of the "fast track" termination ground will likely extend case durations, potentially causing vendors to miss existing contract metrics.
Service Provider Agreements: Contracts with behavioral health and counseling providers should be reviewed. Anticipate a potential drop in utilization/revenue, as parents may be less motivated to complete court-ordered services without the immediate threat of termination based on non-compliance.
Hiring/Training
Legal Staff: Attorneys must be retrained to stop pleading Ground O as a primary strategy. Litigation training must focus on gathering evidence for Grounds D (Endangerment), E (Conduct Endangerment), and N (Constructive Abandonment).
Caseworkers: Staff must be trained to document the *clinical impact* of missed services rather than just the *absence*. Training must shift from "checklist compliance" to "safety assessment."
Reporting & Record-Keeping
Evidence Documentation: Shift record-keeping from attendance logs to qualitative assessments. A log showing "Parent missed 3 classes" is now legally weak. Records must explicitly state: "Parent missed 3 classes, resulting in a continued inability to manage anger triggers, posing a direct safety risk to the child."
Pleading Audits: All open case files must be audited. Any petition relying solely on Ground O must be amended immediately to include alternative statutory grounds.
Fees & Costs
Litigation Costs: Budget for increased legal spend. Proving endangerment requires more witness testimony, expert analysis, and court time than proving a missed drug test, leading to longer, more expensive trials.
Insurance Premiums: Foster care agencies should anticipate potential premium adjustments due to longer average lengths of stay for children in custody, which increases liability exposure.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
The law removes the objective standard (compliance with a court order) but does not define how non-compliance interacts with the remaining subjective standards (Best Interest of the Child).
The "Endangerment" Nexus: It is currently unclear if appellate courts will accept "substantial non-compliance" with a service plan as circumstantial evidence of "Endangerment" (Ground E).
Judicial Discretion: Expect significant variance between jurisdictions until appellate case law stabilizes. Rural courts may treat non-compliance differently than urban courts during this transition.
Need Help Understanding Implementation?
Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.
Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.
Under current law, there are numerous circumstances under which a parent-child relationship may be involuntarily terminated, particularly in cases involving abuse, neglect, or endangerment. In the 2025 State of the Judiciary Address, Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock recommended eliminating the statutory provision that allows a parent's rights to be terminated forever if the parent fails to check every box on a long list of things the state wants them to do to get their child back, while noting that there is already another provision that allows termination of rights if the parent endangers the child. H.B. 116 implements that recommendation.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
H.B. 116 amends the Family Code to remove as grounds for a court to terminate a parent-child relationship in the child's best interest the court finding by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal from the parent in a suit for the abuse or neglect of the child.
H.B. 116 applies to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship that is pending in a trial court on the bill's effective date or that is filed on or after that date.
Honorable Jeff Leach, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence
FROM:
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
HB116 by Dutton (Relating to grounds for the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship.), As Introduced
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would prohibit a court from ordering the terminalization of a parent-child relationship if the parent fails to comply with the provisions of certain court orders.
It is assumed any costs to the Department of Family and Protective Services and the Office of Court Administration could be absorbed within existing appropriations.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source Agencies: b > td >
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 530 Family and Protective Services, Department of
LBB Staff: b > td >
JMc, KDw, ER, AN
Related Legislation
Explore more bills from this author and on related topics
The Texas Legislature has enacted HB116, removing Section 161. 001(b)(1)(O) ("Ground O") from the Family Code, meaning parental rights can no longer be terminated solely for failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan. This change fundamentally alters litigation strategy for family law firms and operational metrics for child welfare agencies, requiring a shift from proving technical non-compliance to proving actual endangerment.
Q
Who authored HB116?
HB116 was authored by Texas Representative Harold Dutton during the Regular Session.
Q
When was HB116 signed into law?
HB116 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 28, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce HB116?
HB116 is enforced by Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and Texas Family Courts.
Q
How urgent is compliance with HB116?
The compliance urgency for HB116 is rated as "low". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of HB116?
The cost impact of HB116 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does HB116 address?
HB116 addresses topics including family, family--child protection and family--parent & child.
Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025
Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?
Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.