Substance-use allegations in private custody cases create unique challenges for families across Texas. Unlike CPS cases, which follow structured timelines and recovery plans, private cases have no statewide standards, no consistent expectations, and no clear guidance for parents who are actively rebuilding their lives. This FAQ addresses the most common questions about the Act and clarifies what the legislation does—and does not—change.
No. This Act does not loosen child-safety standards or reduce accountability. It simply ensures that courts use clear, consistent, evidence-based expectations when evaluating recovery. Judges retain full discretion to order treatment, testing, restrictions, and supervision. Unsafe parents do not benefit.
No. Parents who remain unsafe, noncompliant, or in active addiction will not meet the standards for expanded access. The Act supports recovery, not avoidance of consequences. Child safety remains the highest priority in all cases.
No. The Act does not remove rights from any parent or interfere with court authority. Both parents keep all rights currently provided under Texas law. The Act simply ensures that recovery is evaluated using fair, transparent, statewide criteria.
No. CPS and private custody cases operate under entirely different statutes. This Act does not affect CPS cases at all. It simply provides structure in private cases, where currently no guidelines or statewide expectations exist.
Judges maintain full decision-making authority. This Act provides consistency and clarity—not mandates. Judges still tailor decisions to each case’s circumstances but will now have uniform statewide recovery guidelines, similar to what CPS uses.
Children are protected by:
predictable timelines
clear explanations for restrictions
reduced confusion
consistency across counties
structured, safe reunification processes
When courts use evidence-based standards, children experience more stability and less emotional harm.
Texas currently treats identical substance-use concerns differently depending on whether the case is private or handled by CPS.
CPS cases receive plans, timelines, attorneys, oversight, and milestones.
Private cases receive none of these.
This gap harms children and creates inconsistent, unpredictable outcomes for families statewide.
The Act complements current law by mirroring CPS best practices:
child safety
treatment compliance
drug testing standards
judicial review timelines
recovery milestones
It aligns with existing principles while filling the gap in private custody cases.
No. Reunification is never automatic. Judges still decide all possession and access issues. This Act simply ensures that when a parent is actively in recovery, there is a transparent, structured way for progress to be evaluated.
No. Both parents retain all existing rights. The Act prevents situations where a parent is indefinitely restricted without clear criteria or timelines.
No. It is designed to reduce unnecessary litigation by giving judges and families predictable expectations. Clear standards create smoother cases, reduce repeat filings, and streamline hearings.
It creates standardized drug testing expectations to ensure fairness and prevent inconsistent or unnecessary testing. Judges still choose the type, frequency, and duration of testing.
No. It does not create programs, agencies, or new state obligations. In fact, it may reduce costs by decreasing litigation and improving case efficiency.
Children
Parents who are actively in recovery
Judges and attorneys
Rural and urban counties
Extended families
Communities seeking safer, healthier outcomes
This Act improves fairness and emotional stability for families statewide.