In November 2025, Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment declaring that parents hold a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children. It passed with roughly 70 percent of the vote and carried all but one of the state’s 254 counties. Since then, we have heard a steady stream of questions from parents who believe it rewrote custody law, ended CPS investigations, or created a presumption of equal parenting time.
It did none of those things. The Texas parental rights amendment is real, it is now part of the state constitution, and it may matter over time. But it is narrower than the conversation around it suggests, and understanding the difference protects you from making decisions based on a right you do not actually have. Our Montgomery County family law attorneys have been tracking how courts are treating it. Here is an accurate account.
What the Amendment Says
Proposition 15 came from Senate Joint Resolution 34 of the 89th Texas Legislature, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 112 to 22. Voters approved it on November 4, 2025.
It added Section 37 to Article I of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Bill of Rights. The full text 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.
That is the entire provision. One sentence.
What It Does Not Contain
This is where most of the confusion originates. Read the text again and notice what is absent.
There is no standard of review. The amendment does not say that government interference with parental rights must survive strict scrutiny, or a compelling interest test, or any other level of judicial review.
There is no burden of proof. It does not alter what the State must prove to remove a child, terminate parental rights, or restrict access.
There is no remedy provision. It does not create a cause of action or specify what happens when the right is violated.
There is no reference to custody between parents. The provision addresses the relationship between parents and the government. It says nothing about how two parents divide time and decision-making with each other.
It did not create an equal parenting presumption
We want to be direct about this, because the misinformation is widespread. Texas does not have a presumption of equal or 50-50 parenting time. A bill proposing one, Senate Bill 849, was introduced in the 89th Legislature, referred to committee in February 2025, and never advanced. It received no hearing and no vote.
The Standard Possession Order under Chapter 153 remains the default framework, and the Expanded Standard Possession Order applies in the circumstances the Family Code specifies. Any content claiming Texas now presumes equal parenting time is describing a bill that failed, not law.
What It Means for CPS and DFPS Cases
The amendment did not change the standard for terminating parental rights. That standard remains clear and convincing evidence under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b), which is the constitutional floor the United States Supreme Court established in Santosky v. Kramer in 1982.
Nor did it change the grounds for emergency removal or the timelines governing a Department of Family and Protective Services case.
Texas courts have so far treated Article I, Section 37 as reinforcing the existing constitutional framework rather than displacing it. The Supreme Court of Texas has cited the provision as consistent with the protections already recognized under federal law, particularly the fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of children that Troxel v. Granville confirmed in 2000.
In practical terms, if you are facing a CPS investigation, the amendment gives your attorney another authority to cite. It does not give you a defense you did not previously have.
Where It May Actually Matter
Constitutional provisions accumulate meaning through litigation, and this one is barely a year old. Several areas seem most likely to develop.
Third-party access cases. Suits by grandparents, stepparents, or other nonparents seeking possession or access already face a demanding standard rooted in the presumption that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interest. Section 37 strengthens the constitutional footing of that presumption. Anyone pursuing or defending a grandparent access matter should expect the provision to be argued.
Medical and educational decision-making. The amendment expressly references the right to make decisions concerning upbringing. Disputes involving school placement, medical treatment, and similar decisions may draw on it, particularly where a governmental entity is on the other side.
Statutory interpretation. Where a Family Code provision is genuinely ambiguous, courts may read it in the manner most consistent with Section 37.
What is unlikely to change is the day-to-day resolution of custody disputes between two parents. Best interest under Section 153.002 remains the governing standard, and both parents hold the same constitutional right, which means the provision does not favor either of them.
The Related 2025 Change Worth Knowing
Separately from the amendment, the 89th Legislature narrowed the statutory definition of neglect so that parents do not lose custody merely for making reasonable medical decisions for their children. That is a statutory change with concrete effect in DFPS practice, and in some respects it does more practical work than the constitutional provision that received far more attention.
How to Tell Real Legal Changes From Noise
The 89th Legislature produced a great deal of family law commentary, and a meaningful share of what circulated online was wrong. Two errors we correct routinely are worth naming.
The first is the equal parenting claim addressed above. Senate Bill 849 failed, but articles describing it as enacted law continue to circulate.
The second involves the child support cap. The maximum monthly net resources figure used in the guideline calculation rose from $9,200 to $11,700 effective September 1, 2025. That change did not come from a bill. It came from an administrative adjustment by the Texas Office of the Attorney General under Family Code Section 154.125(a-1), which requires a periodic review tied to the consumer price index. Several published articles attribute it to legislation that does not exist. The figure is correct even where the explanation is not, but the distinction matters if you are trying to understand whether your own order is affected. Existing orders do not adjust automatically, and changing one requires a child support modification.
Before acting on any reported change in Texas family law, check three things: the bill number, whether the bill actually passed, and the effective date. All three are publicly verifiable through the Texas Legislature Online system, and any of the three being wrong usually means the summary is unreliable.
What This Means for Your Case
If you are in a custody dispute with the other parent, Proposition 15 is not a strategy. Your case still turns on the best interest factors Texas courts have applied for decades: the child’s needs, each parent’s abilities and stability, the parenting each has actually provided, and the plans each proposes.
If you are facing state action, whether a CPS investigation or another governmental intrusion into a parenting decision, the amendment is a genuine addition to the arguments available. It is one authority among several, not a trump card.
And if you have been told that the law changed in a way that makes your modification easier or your position stronger, verify the source before you act on it. In our experience, the gap between what people believe recent legislation did and what it actually did is where avoidable mistakes get made.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Proposition 15 change custody law in Texas?
Not in any direct way. It added a constitutional statement of parental rights against government interference. Custody between two parents is still decided under the best interest standard in the Family Code.
Does Texas now have 50-50 custody by default?
No. The bill that would have created an equal parenting presumption, Senate Bill 849, did not pass. It never received a committee hearing. The Standard Possession Order remains the default framework.
Can I use Proposition 15 to stop a CPS investigation?
No. The amendment did not change the grounds for investigation or removal, and it did not alter the clear and convincing evidence standard for termination under Section 161.001(b).
What is Article I, Section 37?
It is the new provision Proposition 15 added to the Texas Bill of Rights, affirming that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the child and the fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control, including decisions about upbringing.
Does the amendment help grandparents seeking visitation?
Generally the opposite. By strengthening the constitutional standing of parental decision-making, it reinforces the already demanding standard a nonparent must meet to obtain court-ordered access over a fit parent’s objection.
Will courts interpret this differently over time?
Very possibly. The provision contains no standard of review, so its practical force will be shaped by appellate decisions over the coming years. Anyone relying on it should expect the landscape to develop.
Your Next Step
A constitutional amendment makes headlines. What decides your case is the record you build, the evidence you present, and the standard the court actually applies. Getting an accurate read on which is which is the first useful step.
Griffin & Cain, Attorneys at Law represents parents in custody, modification, and child protective services matters throughout Montgomery and Walker Counties. Schedule your consultation with family law attorney Marissa Garcia to discuss how current law applies to your situation. Contact our Conroe office today. We serve families in Conroe, The Woodlands, Montgomery, Magnolia, and Huntsville.
