Texas HB 2216 (2025): 'Active Efforts' and Higher Proof for CPS Removal and Termination (Did Not Pass)

This bill is not law. It did not pass. It passed the Texas House, but its last official action was "Left pending in committee" in the Senate on May 7, 2025 Texas Legislature Online, History for 89(R) HB 2216.

The short answer

HB 2216 would have raised the proof required, and added duties for DFPS, before a child could be kept from home or parental rights ended. It would have required proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" in most termination cases, replaced DFPS's "reasonable efforts" duty with a stronger "active efforts" duty, raised the proof needed to keep a child out of the home after removal, and given relatives a stronger claim to placement. It passed the House, but a Senate committee left it pending, so it died when the 2025 session ended Legislative Reference Library of Texas, What's Next? Post-Session FAQ, 89th R.S..

The author's statement of intent discusses the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, H.B. 2216 (89R), Engrossed, 5/5/2025; see Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA): Federal Rules for Custody Cases Involving Indian Children.

How far it got

• Filed: January 29, 2025.
• House: The House Human Services Committee approved a substitute on April 8, 2025. The full House passed the bill on April 24, 2025.
• Senate: It went to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on April 28, 2025. The committee heard it on May 7, 2025 and left it pending. The official history shows nothing after that.

What it would have changed

These points come from the Senate Research Center's analysis of the version the House passed Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, H.B. 2216 (89R), Engrossed, 5/5/2025. The bill was long; this is a summary of its main parts.

Ending parental rights (termination).

• The court could have ordered termination only if it found the grounds beyond a reasonable doubt. The analysis describes the current standard as clear and convincing evidence.
• In DFPS cases under the main list of grounds, the court would have had to find beyond a reasonable doubt, and explain in writing, that DFPS made active efforts to return the child before trial and that a continuing danger in the home still kept the child from going back.
• The order would have had to describe evidence of a causal link between specific conditions in the home and a likelihood of serious emotional or physical injury to the child.
• A petition to end parental rights would have had to state the facts behind the ground and behind the claim that termination is in the child's best interest.

What "active efforts" would mean. DFPS would have had to help parents work through the steps of their service plan and get or develop the resources needed to complete it. DFPS would have had to use, but not go beyond, its available resources.

Removal and the early hearings.

• An order letting the state take a child would have had to describe, in its own section, the active efforts made to prevent or end the need for removal.
• After an emergency removal without a court order, the court could have kept the child out of the home only on clear and convincing evidence of certain circumstances, plus evidence of a causal link between home conditions and likely serious injury.
• At the full adversary hearing, the standard would have risen to clear and convincing evidence, instead of "sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution."
• For good cause, the court would have had to postpone the full adversary hearing up to 30 days (instead of 7) so a newly appointed attorney could prepare. If the hearing was postponed, DFPS would have had to increase visits between the parent and child right away.
• DFPS would have had to send the parent, the parent's attorney, and the child's attorney certain records, including medical, psychological, and school records and records that could help the parent, as soon as practicable but at least seven days before the full adversary hearing.

Placement with relatives.

• DFPS would have been required, not just allowed, to place a child with a relative or other designated caregiver named on the placement form when that placement is in the child's best interest.
• When deciding whether to depart from the preferred order of placements, DFPS could not have considered a caregiver's socioeconomic status.
• A relative with placement preference could have asked the court to let them join the case if DFPS did not place the child with them.

Aggravated circumstances. The court could no longer have waived the service plan and active-efforts requirements in these cases.

Which laws it affects

Because the bill did not pass, none of these changes took effect. It would have amended, among others Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, H.B. 2216 (89R), Engrossed, 5/5/2025:

• Texas Family Code §161.001 (grounds for involuntary termination) and §161.101 (petition requirements);
• new §262.0001 (definition of active efforts);
• §262.014 (disclosure of evidence), §262.102 (temporary orders), §262.107 (initial hearing after emergency removal), §262.114 (placement), new §262.1141 (right to intervene), §262.201 (full adversary hearing), and §262.2015 (aggravated circumstances).

Related

• Court-Ordered Services in Texas CPS Cases (Family Code §264.203)
• Your Right to a Lawyer in a Texas CPS Case
• Family-Based Safety Services (FBSS) in Texas: What Families Should Know
• Santosky v. Kramer (1982): The Proof Needed to End Parental Rights
• Texas HB 1087 (2023): Removal Papers Must Spell Out 'Reasonable Efforts'
• Texas HB 567 (2021): Neglect Definition, Removals and Court-Ordered Services
• Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA): Federal Rules for Custody Cases Involving Indian Children
• The 2027 Texas Legislature (90th): When CPS Bills Can Be Filed