Texas SB 1838 (2025): Fee Schedules and Pay Appeals for CPS Court-Appointed Lawyers (Vetoed)

This bill is not law. It was vetoed. The Texas Senate and House both passed it, but the governor vetoed it on June 22, 2025 Texas Legislature Online, History for 89(R) SB 1838 Governor's veto proclamation for SB 1838 (89R), June 22, 2025 (Legislative Reference Library scan).

The short answer

SB 1838 dealt with how court-appointed lawyers for children and for parents who cannot afford a lawyer are paid in child protection cases filed by the government. It would have required the courts in each county to adopt a fee schedule for those lawyers, and given a lawyer whose pay claim was denied, cut, or left unapproved a way to appeal to a regional judge. The Legislature passed it, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

How far it got

• Filed: March 3, 2025.
• Senate: The full Senate passed it on April 16, 2025.
• House: The full House passed it, with changes, on May 27, 2025. The Senate agreed to the House changes on May 30, 2025.
• Governor: It was sent to the governor on June 1, 2025, and vetoed on June 22, 2025 Texas Legislature Online, History for 89(R) SB 1838.

What it would have changed

These points come from the Senate Research Center's analysis of the final (enrolled) bill Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, S.B. 1838 (89R), Enrolled, 6/11/2025.

A county fee schedule. The courts in each county that hear these cases would have jointly built a fee schedule and sent it to the county commissioners court. It would have had to spell out which services and expenses are paid, include an hourly or fixed rate, and cover reasonable and necessary expenses such as case-related travel and expert witnesses. The courts would have had to adopt it by January 1, 2026.

Which schedule applies. When the parents are indigent, a lawyer appointed for a child or parent in a government-filed case, other than a lawyer employed by a publicly funded office of child or parent representation, would have been paid from county funds under the new schedule, instead of the schedule used for children's lawyers in juvenile cases.

Appealing a pay decision. If a lawyer's claim for payment was denied or changed, or not approved within 60 days, the lawyer could have petitioned the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. That judge would have decided the amount due and ordered the county to pay within 45 days of the petition.

Billing for work not done. After notice and a hearing, a court could have removed a person from its list of lawyers eligible for appointment if the person billed for services they did not perform.

Which cases. The rule requiring the court to appoint these attorneys would have applied in suits filed by a governmental entity, not only those under the child-protection part of the Family Code.

Why it was vetoed

The governor's veto proclamation said the bill "invites attorneys appointed ad litem to argue with the courts that appointed them" about pay, and that it "incentivizes court-appointed attorneys to inflate their fees" Governor's veto proclamation for SB 1838 (89R), June 22, 2025 (Legislative Reference Library scan). It also objected that the bill "requires the presiding judges of the administrative judicial regions to decide what constitutes reasonable compensation," and said it is "Better to trust the district courts to make that call."

Which laws it affects

• Texas Family Code §107.013 (attorney ad litem for a parent) and §107.015 (attorney fees). The bill would have amended both Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, S.B. 1838 (89R), Enrolled, 6/11/2025. Because it was vetoed, current Tex. Fam. Code §107.015(c) still says that, when indigency is shown, these lawyers are paid from county funds under the fee schedule for children's attorneys in juvenile cases.
• New Family Code §107.0155 (fee schedule). The bill would have added this section Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, S.B. 1838 (89R), Enrolled, 6/11/2025. This bill did not add it, because it was vetoed.

Related

• Your Right to a Lawyer in a Texas CPS Case
• Texas SB 2501 (2025): Letting Indigent Parents Choose Their Own CPS Lawyer (Vetoed)
• Texas SB 2120 (2023): Standards and Funding for Parents' CPS Lawyers
• Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981): Is There a Right to a Free Lawyer in a Termination Case?
• The 2027 Texas Legislature (90th): When CPS Bills Can Be Filed