Texas SB 2501 (2025): Letting Indigent Parents Choose Their Own CPS Lawyer (Vetoed)

This bill is not law. It was vetoed. The Texas House and Senate both passed it, but the governor vetoed it on June 22, 2025 Texas Legislature Online, History for 89(R) SB 2501 Governor's veto proclamation for SB 2501 (89R), June 22, 2025 (Legislative Reference Library scan).

The short answer

SB 2501 would have let a parent whom the court found indigent (unable to afford a lawyer) in a DFPS case choose their own qualified attorney, instead of taking the lawyer the court appoints. The county would have paid that attorney the same as a court-appointed one. The Legislature passed it, but the governor vetoed it, so it did not become law.

An "attorney ad litem" for a parent is the lawyer a court appoints to represent the parent's interests in the case Tex. Fam. Code §107.013(a).

How far it got

• Filed: March 13, 2025.
• Senate: The full Senate passed it on May 9, 2025.
• House: The full House passed it on May 28, 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 2501.

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. 2501 (89R), Enrolled, 6/11/2025.

Choosing a lawyer. A parent whom the court found indigent could have picked an attorney to represent them in a suit filed by a government agency, such as DFPS, asking to end parental rights or name a conservator. The attorney would have had to be licensed in Texas, in good standing with the State Bar, and meet the continuing education rules for parents' attorneys.

Limits on the court. The parent's choice would have been separate from the court's appointment system. The court could not have taken any action that influences, directs, or interferes with the parent's choice. The chosen attorney would have become the parent's lawyer by filing a notice of appearance, plus a motion to substitute if the parent already had a lawyer. The court's review would have been limited to checking that the attorney met the requirements. The court would still have been able to remove an attorney for good cause.

Pay. The chosen attorney would have been paid the same as a court-appointed attorney for an indigent parent, from the county's general funds.

Telling parents. At a parent's first court appearance without a lawyer, the court would have told an indigent parent of the right to either a court-appointed attorney or an attorney the parent selects. The Office of Court Administration could have adopted rules to carry out the change.

Why it was vetoed

The governor's veto proclamation describes the bill as seeking "to give indigent parents greater freedom to select legal counsel" and says, "But it goes too far" Governor's veto proclamation for SB 2501 (89R), June 22, 2025 (Legislative Reference Library scan). It raised a concern that parents could change counsel repeatedly, which it called a possible "stall tactic," and it said the bill "may create conflicts of interests." It closed by saying the governor looks forward to future legislation "that includes reasonable safeguards against abuse."

Which laws it affects

• Texas Family Code §107.013 (attorney ad litem for a parent). The bill would have amended Subsections (a) and (a-1) Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, S.B. 2501 (89R), Enrolled, 6/11/2025. Because it was vetoed, current Tex. Fam. Code §107.013(a-1) does not mention a parent-selected, county-paid attorney. For an indigent parent who appears in opposition to the suit, it describes the right to an attorney ad litem appointed by the court.
• New Family Code §107.01301. The bill would have added this section on a parent's selection of an attorney Senate Research Center, Bill Analysis, S.B. 2501 (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
• Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981): Is There a Right to a Free Lawyer in a Termination Case?
• In re B.L.D. (2003): One Lawyer for Two Parents, and Objecting at Trial
• Texas SB 1838 (2025): Fee Schedules and Pay Appeals for CPS Court-Appointed Lawyers (Vetoed)
• Texas SB 2120 (2023): Standards and Funding for Parents' CPS Lawyers
• The 2027 Texas Legislature (90th): When CPS Bills Can Be Filed