Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Standing Child Parent Lawsuits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears proposal to expand who can sue over child custody to fourth-degree relatives
Summary
House Bill 2350 would expand legal standing in suits affecting the parent-child relationship to relatives through the fourth degree of consanguinity and refine foster/kinship parent rights; testimony from legal experts urged swift passage.
Get email alerts on the Standing Child Parent Lawsuits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Committee on Jurisprudence received an explanation and proponent testimony on House Bill 2350, which would expand and clarify who has legal standing to file suits affecting the parent-child relationship.
Senator Johnson, who explained the measure to the committee, said the bill would expand standing for certain relatives to the fourth degree of consanguinity, refine criteria for foster and kinship caregivers, and remove standing for nonrelatives based solely on past contact unless specific conditions are met.
Celia Wood, a regular testifier on family-law issues, told the committee she supports the proposal and said broadening standing appropriately limits litigation that she said can unnecessarily traumatize children. "Being dragged through a lawsuit where the... petitioner cannot possibly win in the end if the law is followed helps no one," Wood said.
Julia Hatcher, president of the Texas Association of Family Defense Attorneys, also testified in support and noted the Legislature previously directed Child Protective Services to notify relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity when removing a child; she urged consistency throughout the code. Hatcher cited past litigation in which a nonrelative was able to get into a custody case under current law and noted the legal and financial toll on parents.
Witnesses told the committee the bill had passed unanimously in the House and had no organized opposition in committee. The committee opened and closed public testimony during the hearing and left the bill pending.
No committee vote or amendment was taken during the hearing. Further scheduling, including any committee substitute or floor action, was not decided at that time.
