LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 87TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION April 19, 2021 TO: Honorable Lois W. Kolkhorst, Chair, Senate Committee on Health & Human Services FROM: Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE: SB1349 by Eckhardt (Relating to placing a child in the possessory conservatorship of the child's parents in certain situations.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated. The bill would allow a parent to file suit to modify a final order under the subchapter under certain circumstances. The bill would require, if the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is appointed as a child's managing conservator in a final order that does not include a termination of parental rights, or if DFPS is not dismissed from the suit in a final order that appoints a person who is not the child's parent as the child's managing conservator and that does not include termination of parental rights, that a permanency hearing be conducted every six months until the DFPS is no longer the child's managing conservator or until DFPS is dismissed from the suit.The bill would also require DFPS to review a child's placement at each permanency heating after the second anniversary of the date the court rendered the final order appointing a person who is not the child's parent as the child's managing conservator.Based on the analysis of the Office of Court Administration and DFPS, it is assumed that duties and responsibilities associated with implementing the bill could be accomplished utilizing available resources. In addition, no significant fiscal impact to the state court system is anticipated with the implementation of the bill. Local Government ImpactNo significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. Source Agencies: b > td > 212 Office of Court Admin, 530 Family & Protective Services LBB Staff: b > td > JMc, AKI, BH
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 87TH LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
April 19, 2021
TO: Honorable Lois W. Kolkhorst, Chair, Senate Committee on Health & Human Services FROM: Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE: SB1349 by Eckhardt (Relating to placing a child in the possessory conservatorship of the child's parents in certain situations.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
TO: Honorable Lois W. Kolkhorst, Chair, Senate Committee on Health & Human Services
FROM: Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB1349 by Eckhardt (Relating to placing a child in the possessory conservatorship of the child's parents in certain situations.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
Honorable Lois W. Kolkhorst, Chair, Senate Committee on Health & Human Services
Honorable Lois W. Kolkhorst, Chair, Senate Committee on Health & Human Services
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
SB1349 by Eckhardt (Relating to placing a child in the possessory conservatorship of the child's parents in certain situations.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
SB1349 by Eckhardt (Relating to placing a child in the possessory conservatorship of the child's parents in certain situations.), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
The bill would allow a parent to file suit to modify a final order under the subchapter under certain circumstances. The bill would require, if the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is appointed as a child's managing conservator in a final order that does not include a termination of parental rights, or if DFPS is not dismissed from the suit in a final order that appoints a person who is not the child's parent as the child's managing conservator and that does not include termination of parental rights, that a permanency hearing be conducted every six months until the DFPS is no longer the child's managing conservator or until DFPS is dismissed from the suit.The bill would also require DFPS to review a child's placement at each permanency heating after the second anniversary of the date the court rendered the final order appointing a person who is not the child's parent as the child's managing conservator.Based on the analysis of the Office of Court Administration and DFPS, it is assumed that duties and responsibilities associated with implementing the bill could be accomplished utilizing available resources. In addition, no significant fiscal impact to the state court system is anticipated with the implementation of the bill.
The bill would allow a parent to file suit to modify a final order under the subchapter under certain circumstances.
The bill would require, if the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is appointed as a child's managing conservator in a final order that does not include a termination of parental rights, or if DFPS is not dismissed from the suit in a final order that appoints a person who is not the child's parent as the child's managing conservator and that does not include termination of parental rights, that a permanency hearing be conducted every six months until the DFPS is no longer the child's managing conservator or until DFPS is dismissed from the suit.
The bill would also require DFPS to review a child's placement at each permanency heating after the second anniversary of the date the court rendered the final order appointing a person who is not the child's parent as the child's managing conservator.Based on the analysis of the Office of Court Administration and DFPS, it is assumed that duties and responsibilities associated with implementing the bill could be accomplished utilizing available resources. In addition, no significant fiscal impact to the state court system is anticipated with the implementation of the bill.
Based on the analysis of the Office of Court Administration and DFPS, it is assumed that duties and responsibilities associated with implementing the bill could be accomplished utilizing available resources. In addition, no significant fiscal impact to the state court system is anticipated with the implementation of the bill.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source Agencies: b > td > 212 Office of Court Admin, 530 Family & Protective Services
212 Office of Court Admin, 530 Family & Protective Services
LBB Staff: b > td > JMc, AKI, BH
JMc, AKI, BH