On November 4, 2025, Texans will cast their votes on Proposition 15 (Senate Joint Resolution 34)—a proposed constitutional amendment that could permanently shape the landscape of Texas family law. The measure, if approved, would add Article I, Section 37 to the Texas Constitution, affirming 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.”

For parents in Galveston County, League City, Friendswood, La Porte, and across Texas, Proposition 15 represents more than a symbolic gesture—it’s an assertion of parental sovereignty at the constitutional level.

🏛️ The History Behind Proposition 15
The roots of Proposition 15 trace back to long-standing debates over parental rights versus government intervention. While Texas courts have long recognized parents as having a fundamental right to raise their children (most notably in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)), this right has existed primarily through case law and statutory interpretation—not constitutional text.

• Senate Joint Resolution 34, authored in the 88th Texas Legislature (2023), sought to codify these judicial principles directly into the state’s constitution.
• Early drafts of the bill included a strict scrutiny clause, meaning any government action infringing on parental rights would have to serve a compelling state interest and use the least restrictive means.
• However, during debate in the Texas House of Representatives, lawmakers removed the strict-scrutiny language, opting for broader, more flexible wording that still affirms parental primacy without binding courts to the highest level of judicial review.

Supporters, including family advocacy organizations and constitutional scholars, saw the amendment as a proactive safeguard—ensuring that future legislatures or agencies cannot erode parental rights through regulation or judicial reinterpretation.

Opponents expressed concern that elevating parental authority to constitutional status could complicate state intervention in cases of abuse, neglect, or medical disputes.

Despite the controversy, the measure gained strong bipartisan support and advanced to the 2025 ballot as Proposition 15.

🧩 The Purpose of the Amendment
Proposition 15 is designed to constitutionalize existing parental rights rather than create new ones. Its purpose is to provide a clear and enduring legal foundation that recognizes parents—not the state—as the primary decision-makers in their children’s lives.
This means:

• Parents’ authority over education, medical care, and moral upbringing gains explicit constitutional protection.
• Future legislation or agency rules that interfere with parental choices could face heightened judicial scrutiny.
• Courts may be guided by a renewed presumption that fit parents act in their child’s best interests, reducing opportunities for overreach by government entities.

In essence, Proposition 15 would give constitutional permanence to what family lawyers and courts already treat as the “default rule” in Texas: that parents know best—unless proven otherwise.

⚖️ Impact on Family Law Jurisprudence
If approved, Proposition 15 will not rewrite the Texas Family Code, but it will influence how judges interpret it.
Key areas of impact include:

1. Conservatorship and Custody Determinations
Texas Family Code §§153.002–.131 already presume joint managing conservatorship unless evidence shows otherwise. Proposition 15 could strengthen that presumption by anchoring it in constitutional language—potentially making it harder to restrict a parent’s decision-making authority without substantial justification.

2. State Intervention and CPS Proceedings
In cases involving Child Protective Services, the amendment could raise the bar for state intervention. Courts may require more robust proof before removing a child from parental custody, reaffirming that removal should be a last resort, not a default reaction.

3. Medical and Educational Disputes Between Parents
When parents disagree over issues such as vaccinations, schooling, or therapy, courts often apply a “best interest of the child” standard. Proposition 15 may encourage judges to defer more heavily to the primary managing conservator’s constitutional right to decide these matters, particularly where both parents are otherwise fit.

4. Grandparent and Third-Party Access Cases
Cases like In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2007), and Troxel already limit third-party access rights. Proposition 15 may further narrow those rights by embedding parental primacy in the state constitution, requiring extraordinary proof before courts override a parent’s decision to deny visitation.

📚 Long-Term Jurisprudential Effects
In the long run, Proposition 15 could signal a philosophical shift in Texas family law—away from a best interest balancing test alone and toward a dual standard that also emphasizes constitutional parental authority.
​
Judges may increasingly frame opinions around two core principles:

1. The best interest of the child, and
2. The fundamental rights of fit parents.

Balancing these two principles will likely generate new case law and appeals in the coming years, as courts clarify how to apply the amendment in complex custody and modification cases.

🧭 The Palmer Law Firm’s Take
At The Palmer Law Firm, we see Proposition 15 as a reaffirmation of a principle deeply rooted in both law and common sense: parents, not bureaucracies, should guide the upbringing of their children.

If passed, this amendment will give parents additional constitutional tools to defend their role in court—particularly in contested custody cases, disputes with government agencies, or disagreements over educational and medical choices.
​
Whether you’re currently involved in a divorce, custody, or modification case, understanding these evolving standards is critical to protecting your parental rights.

A. Introduction
In family law, few issues cause more confusion than what happens to marital assets overlooked in a divorce decree. When community property is accidentally omitted, parties often wonder: Which court has the authority to resolve it? The Texas Legislature addressed this very problem in House Bill 1916 (2025), which amends Section 9.201 of the Texas Family Code to make jurisdictional authority unmistakably clear .

B. Changes in Family Law in Context
Under prior law, jurisdictional questions over omitted community property sometimes triggered disputes between courts of different counties—or even different districts within the same county. The absence of explicit statutory guidance left open the risk of conflicting rulings or strategic forum shopping.

HB 1916 closes this gap. The new statute specifies that the court which rendered the divorce decree, annulment, or prior property division order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate division of any undivided community property . By codifying this rule, the Legislature has reinforced judicial efficiency and consistency in post-divorce property cases.

C. Practical Implications for Family Lawyers
For practitioners, this amendment eliminates uncertainty. Attorneys now know that any dispute about omitted property must return to the original court of record. This reduces:

• Jurisdictional challenges: No more jockeying between counties or courts.
• Inconsistent outcomes: The same judge who issued the decree has the authority to finish dividing the estate.
• Litigation costs: Clients avoid unnecessary procedural fights before substantive issues are ever reached.

D. Hypothetical Use Scenarios
Consider two common examples:

• Forgotten Retirement Account: A 401(k) was inadvertently left out of the divorce decree. Rather than filing a new action in another county, the parties must go back to the original divorce court for adjudication.
• Unaddressed Real Estate: A jointly owned parcel of land was omitted from the decree. Under HB 1916, the same court that finalized the divorce retains jurisdiction to divide that property, regardless of where the land is located.

E. Guidance for Practitioners
Attorneys should take the following steps in light of HB 1916:

1. File in the Correct Court: Always return to the original divorce court when seeking division of omitted assets.
2. Advise Clients Early: Explain to clients that jurisdictional disputes are no longer a viable tactic—reducing both cost and delay.
3. Draft Decrees Carefully: While HB 1916 provides clarity after the fact, the best practice remains to ensure that all community property is identified and divided at the time of divorce.

F. Looking Ahead
Because HB 1916 applies to cases filed on or after its effective date as well as those already pending, its impact is immediate . Judges and practitioners alike can rely on a statutory rule that enhances predictability in post-divorce litigation. This reform also reflects a broader legislative trend in Texas: streamlining family law procedures to reduce gamesmanship and emphasize fairness.

G. Conclusion: Why This Change Matters
HB 1916 may appear procedural, but its implications are significant. By ensuring that unresolved property issues return to the original court, the Legislature has strengthened judicial economy, protected litigants from conflicting rulings, and reinforced the integrity of divorce decrees. For lawyers—whether family law specialists or those in adjacent practice areas—the statute provides clarity that is both immediate and enduring.
​
For non-family lawyers who encounter clients with unresolved divorce property issues, knowing about HB 1916 is invaluable. And for those clients, having a trusted family law practitioner who understands these nuances can make all the difference.