Texas Parental Rights and CPS Investigations: What Changed in 2026

What Happened in June 2026?

Three separate rulings landed within weeks of each other, and the Texas Tribune reported on July 24, 2026 that together they mark a shift in how Texas courts scrutinize the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS).

Two Supreme Court of Texas decisions, both issued June 5, 2026. In In the Interest of H.S., B.S., and M.S., No. 24-0307, the Court reversed the termination of a mother’s parental rights and rendered judgment in her favor, holding the evidence legally insufficient; it affirmed as to the father. In In the Interest of K.N., K.L., K.L., and K.L., No. 24-0881, the Court held the evidence legally insufficient to support the endangerment grounds in Texas Family Code Sec. 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) as to the father and remanded, while affirming the mother’s termination as to the eldest child. It is worth being precise about these: in each case the Court found the evidence insufficient as to one parent. Neither decision was a wholesale rejection of the agency.

A Travis County ruling in the Jackson case. In late June 2026, Travis County District Judge Catherine A. Mauzy ruled that two DFPS rules — 40 Texas Administrative Code Sec. 707.495(a) and Sec. 707.495(b)(4) — interfere with the due process rights of Rodney and Temecia Jackson, who sued through the ACLU of Texas in April 2025. Their newborn daughter was removed in DeSoto in March 2023 after a dispute with a pediatrician over how to treat jaundice, and was returned about 24 days later. DFPS later downgraded its finding against them from “reason to believe” to “unable to determine” — a category with no way to appeal it, as explained below.

What the Parental Rights Amendment Actually Says — and What It Does Not

On November 4, 2025, Texas voters approved Proposition 15. Unofficial returns published by the Texas Secretary of State show it passing by roughly 70% to 30%; as of July 2026 the state has not published a certified canvass for that election. The proposition came from Senate Joint Resolution 34 of the 89th Legislature and added a new Section 37 to Article I of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Bill of Rights. In full, it reads:

“To enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”

Here is the part that most coverage leaves out, and it matters if you are trying to understand your own case. Earlier versions of SJR 34 contained a strict scrutiny clause — language providing that the state could not interfere with parental rights unless the interference was “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and “narrowly tailored” to it. That subsection appeared in the resolution as introduced and as engrossed. The House committee substitute deleted it, and the version voters approved is the declaratory text quoted above. It contains no standard of review, no compelling-interest test, and no burden of proof.

So the amendment did not change what DFPS has to prove. The standard for terminating parental rights remains clear and convincing evidence under Texas Family Code Sec. 161.001(b) — a standard the United States Supreme Court set as the constitutional floor in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). In In re H.S., the Supreme Court of Texas cited Article I, Section 37 as reinforcing that existing framework rather than replacing it. Anyone who tells you Texans voted to impose strict scrutiny on CPS is describing a draft that did not pass.

What Section 37 will ultimately mean is genuinely unsettled, and the Court said so directly. In In re K.N. the justices ordered supplemental briefing on the new section and then declined to interpret it, writing that “there is to date almost no developed jurisprudence on this newly minted Section 37, and we decline to become among the first to chart its parameters.” The Court said only that its decision did not conflict with Section 37, and left “a more robust discussion…for another day, following appropriate percolation in the lower courts.” For now, the standards that decide Texas cases are the ones in the Family Code.

The Statutes Behind the Shift

The 2026 rulings sit on top of nearly a decade of legislation. The bill numbers matter, because several widely circulated summaries get them wrong:

• 2017 — House Bill 7 (85th Legislature) added Texas Family Code Sec. 262.116, “Limits on Removal,” barring DFPS from taking possession of a child based on evidence that the parent homeschooled the child, is economically disadvantaged, was charged with certain nonviolent misdemeanors, provided prescribed low-THC cannabis, or declined immunization for reasons of conscience. A parallel provision, Sec. 161.001(c), bars termination on those same grounds. Note the limit: Sec. 262.116(d) still permits DFPS to gather and offer that evidence — it is barred as the basis for removal, not excluded from the case.
• 2017 — Senate Bill 11 (85th Legislature), not House Bill 11, created Community-Based Care in Subchapter B-1, Chapter 264, transferring case management and placement to a single source continuum contractor in each community area. House Bill 11 of that session was a school mental-health bill that never passed.
• 2021 — House Bill 567 (87th Legislature) rewrote the definition of “neglect” in Sec. 261.001(4), effective September 1, 2021. The operative words are now “immediate danger” — not “immediate harm,” as it is often paraphrased. The definition now requires an act or failure to act “evidencing the person’s blatant disregard for the consequences” that “results in harm to the child or that creates an immediate danger to the child’s physical health or safety.” The prior version required only a “substantial risk” of harm, with no blatant-disregard threshold at all.
• 2021 — Senate Bill 1578 (87th Legislature), not Senate Bill 1896, added Sec. 262.104(c) and Sec. 262.102(b-1), barring removal based solely on the opinion of “a medical professional under contract with the Department of Family and Protective Services who did not conduct a physical examination of the child.” The bar is narrower than it is usually described: a contracted physician who did examine the child is not covered by it.
• 2023 — House Bill 730 (88th Legislature) rewrote Sec. 261.307, creating the rights notification described in the next section. It applies to investigations of reports made on or after September 1, 2023. A companion bill, HB 63, added the requirement that the investigator identify themselves and give the parent a reasonable amount of time to read the written summary.

What a Texas CPS Investigator Is Required to Tell You

This is the most concrete change on the list, and the one most parents have never heard of. Under Texas Family Code Sec. 261.307, at first contact after an investigation is initiated, DFPS must give the parent a written summary of the known allegations and the parent’s rights, and must also state those rights out loud. Sec. 261.307(a)(2) lists them. The statute requires a verbal notification of the right to:

• not speak with any agent of the department without legal counsel present;
• receive assistance from an attorney;
• have a court-appointed attorney if the person is indigent, is the parent of the child, and the department seeks a court order under Sec. 262.101 or 262.105 or an order requiring participation in services under Sec. 264.203;
• record any interaction or interview, subject to the understanding that the recording may be disclosed under a court order;
• refuse to allow the investigator to enter the home or interview the child without a court order;
• have legal counsel present before allowing the investigator to enter the home or interview the child;
• withhold consent to the release of any medical or mental health records;
• withhold consent to any medical or psychological examination of the child;
• refuse to submit to a drug test; and
• consult with legal counsel prior to agreeing to any proposed voluntary safety plan.

There is a consequence when that notice is not given. Sec. 261.307(e) provides that if a person under investigation does not receive both the verbal notification and the written summary, “any information obtained from the person, and any other information that would not have been discovered without that information, is not admissible for use against the person in any civil proceeding.” Sec. 261.307(c) requires the investigator to document that the verbal notification was given, and Sec. 261.307(d) entitles the parent or the parent’s attorney to a true and correct copy of the signed verification form.

Whether that notice was actually given, and whether it was documented, is a checkable fact in a specific case. It is one of the first things many parents bring to a lawyer.

The Deadlines That Drive a Texas CPS Case

Texas child protection cases run on statutory clocks. These are the ones that most often decide outcomes:

• Removal without a court order is authorized by Sec. 262.104, and only when there is no time to obtain an order first. Sections 262.101 and 262.102 govern the opposite situation — removal under a prior emergency court order.
• The initial hearing after a removal without a court order must be held “on or before the first business day after the date the child is taken into possession” under Sec. 262.106(a), and in no event later than the third business day. Sec. 262.106(c) is unusually direct: if the hearing is not held in time, “the child shall be returned” to the person entitled to possession.
• The full adversary hearing must be held no later than the 14th day after the child was taken into possession (Sec. 262.201(a)), subject to two seven-day postponements — one to let appointed counsel prepare, one to let a non-indigent parent hire and prepare counsel. At the end of that hearing the court must order the child returned unless it makes all three findings listed in Sec. 262.201(g).
• A court-appointed attorney is mandatory, not discretionary, for an indigent parent who responds in opposition (Sec. 107.013(a)(1)). The parent must appear in opposition and file an affidavit of indigence under Rule 145(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The court must advise an unrepresented parent of this right at the parent’s first appearance.
• The automatic dismissal deadline is the one most often miscounted. Under Sec. 263.401(a), it is the first Monday after the first anniversary of the date the court rendered the temporary order appointing DFPS as temporary managing conservator — it does not run from the date of removal. One extension of up to 180 days is available on a finding of extraordinary circumstances; if trial does not begin by the new date, the case is dismissed by operation of law and no further extension may be granted.
• An appeal of a termination order is accelerated. Sec. 263.405(a) routes it into the accelerated track, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.4(a)(1) confirms that, and TRAP 26.1(b) sets the notice of appeal at 20 days after the order is signed. TRAP 28.1(b) is the trap: filing a motion for new trial does not extend that deadline the way it would in an ordinary civil appeal.

A lawyer can calculate these dates against the actual orders in a specific case, file the affidavit of indigence, request appointed counsel, and preserve the record for an accelerated appeal.

The “Unable to Determine” Problem

DFPS assigns every allegation a disposition. Under 40 Texas Administrative Code Sec. 707.495(b), the options include reason-to-believe, ruled-out, and unable-to-determine, which is defined simply as a conclusion that none of the other dispositions fits. It is a middle category: the parent is neither found to have abused a child nor cleared.

A parent found to be a perpetrator can request an Administrative Review of Investigation Findings, in writing, within 45 days of receiving notice of the findings (40 TAC Sec. 707.505(b); Texas Family Code Sec. 261.309(c)). But eligibility is limited to people designated as a perpetrator or victim/perpetrator — and the “unknown (unable-to-determine)” designation sits outside that list. That gap is what Judge Mauzy’s June 2026 ruling addressed.

One correction worth making, because it circulates widely: an “unable to determine” finding does not place a parent on the Texas central registry. Sec. 261.002(a) limits the registry to individuals “found by the department to have abused or neglected a child,” and DFPS’s own background-check guidance confirms that only reason-to-believe findings appear. The practical harm is different: a confidential DFPS case record that persists with no route to contest it. Where a person is cleared, Sec. 261.315 requires DFPS to notify them of the right to ask that the information be removed, and to remove it on request.

Removals Are Down — but Not in the Way It Sounds

Texas recorded 19,079 child removals in fiscal year 2016 and 10,011 in fiscal year 2025, according to DFPS data published on the Texas Open Data Portal — a decline of roughly 47%. Texas fiscal years run September 1 through August 31, so FY2025 ended August 31, 2025.

The shape of that decline is not a steady slide. Removals rose to a peak of 20,685 in FY2018, drifted down to 16,028 by FY2021, then fell about 40% in a single year to 9,623 in FY2022 — the fiscal year that began September 1, 2021, the day HB 567’s narrowed neglect definition took effect. Since then the number has been roughly flat, and FY2025 is up about 8.6% over FY2024, the highest count since FY2021.

Who Can Be Affected?

• Parents contacted by a DFPS investigator about a report of abuse or neglect
• Families whose child has been removed, or who have been asked to sign a voluntary safety plan
• Parents facing a termination suit, or the deadline to appeal an order already signed
• Relatives and kinship caregivers asked to take placement of a child
• People carrying a DFPS finding — including “unable to determine” — that is affecting their work, licensing, or volunteering
• Parents whose case is managed by a private single source continuum contractor under Community-Based Care

Why Acting Quickly Can Matter

The 14-day adversary hearing under Sec. 262.201(a) is often the single most consequential setting in the case, and it arrives fast. The affidavit of indigence that unlocks appointed counsel has to be filed. The 20-day accelerated appeal deadline under TRAP 26.1(b) runs whether or not a parent knows it exists. A lot of parents talk to a lawyer before their first interview rather than after it, precisely because Sec. 261.307 gives them the right to have counsel present for it.

Sources

1. Texas Tribune — How a push to protect parental rights is reshaping Texas foster care system (July 24, 2026)
2. Supreme Court of Texas — In the Interest of H.S., B.S., and M.S., No. 24-0307 (June 5, 2026)
3. Supreme Court of Texas — In the Interest of K.N., K.L., K.L., and K.L., No. 24-0881 (June 5, 2026)
4. Texas Legislature — SJR 34, 89th Legislature (Proposition 15, Tex. Const. art. I, Sec. 37)
5. Texas Legislature — House Bill 567, 87th Legislature (2021)
6. Texas Legislature — Senate Bill 1578, 87th Legislature (2021)
7. Texas Legislature — House Bill 730, 88th Legislature (2023)
8. Texas Legislature — House Bill 7, 85th Legislature (2017)
9. Texas Family Code, Chapter 261 (Investigation of Report of Child Abuse or Neglect)
10. Texas Family Code, Chapter 262 (Procedures in Suit by Governmental Entity)
11. Texas Family Code, Chapter 263 (Review of Placement of Children Under Care of DFPS)
12. Texas Family Code, Chapter 107 (Special Appointments and Attorneys)
13. Texas Family Code, Chapter 161 (Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship)
14. Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rules 26.1, 28.1, 28.4)
15. 40 Texas Administrative Code Sec. 707.495 (Investigation Dispositions)
16. 40 Texas Administrative Code Sec. 707.505 (Administrative Review of Investigation Findings)
17. DFPS — Central Registry background check FAQ
18. Texas Open Data Portal — DFPS CPS Removals by Region with Child Demographics, FY2016-2025
19. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
20. KERA News — Coverage of the Jackson family ruling (July 7, 2026)