House committee reviews substitute on DHR authority to enter homes and interview children

At a House committee meeting, members considered a substitute version of a bill that would change how the Department of Human Resources (DHR) may enter homes and interview children during child-abuse or neglect investigations. Lawmakers and staff debated language that separates a parent’s ability to withhold consent for investigators to enter a home from the ability to withhold consent to interview a child, and they discussed exceptions including court orders, allegations naming a parent or legal guardian, and exigent or extenuating circumstances.

Committee members said Representative Pasco provided a substitute that incorporates two earlier amendments; DHR attorneys had drafted a substitute but were not prepared to provide it to the committee at the meeting. Lawmakers asked staff to have the substitute reviewed by the Legislative Service Agency (LSA) for legal wording and to submit the revised substitute to the committee chair for consideration.

The substitute under discussion removes a blanket ban on interviewing a child from the paragraph that otherwise allows parents to withhold consent for investigators to enter a home. Instead, the draft retains parents’ ability to withhold consent to investigators entering the home except in two exceptions explicitly discussed: (1) where there is a court order and (2) where the parent or legal guardian is the individual alleged to have committed the abuse or neglect. Committee members discussed whether those exceptions should be broadened to include family members, persons with a safety plan, or anyone who has lived in the household within a specified period.

Members and staff repeatedly referenced existing DHR administrative practice, saying current policy allows investigators to interview persons in the household, including children, and that the bill is intended to codify or clarify those practices in statute. Several members urged that the language capture the legal standards used by courts and law enforcement—such as exigent or extenuating circumstances that permit entry or interview without consent—but said the bill should not attempt to redefine long-standing case law. One committee member said a one-page legal analysis from LSA could clarify how those terms are applied.

Lawmakers also compared the draft to policies in other states. Committee members noted that Texas language is stricter in one respect—saying that child welfare staff may need a court order to interview a child in certain settings—though they also acknowledged common exceptions where investigators may proceed without a court order if there is an immediate safety risk or other exigent circumstance.

The committee did not record a formal vote on the substitute. Members agreed to have the substitute revised with clarified exceptions and legal language, to obtain LSA review, and to submit the revised substitute to the committee chair for consideration at a later meeting. No final action on the bill was taken at this session.

Members said the measure is intended to balance parental due-process protections against the state’s ability to act quickly when a child faces imminent danger; committee members asked staff to clarify definitions and to ensure the draft preserves DHR authority to interview children at schools or day care when appropriate.