Summary

During a recent oral argument, the Texas Supreme Court raised the question of whether Texas’s new parental rights constitutional amendment, which was passed by Texas voters just one month ago, should reshape how the court views CPS cases. 

The parental rights amendment was FFP’s top legislative priority this year. When it passed the ballot on November 4, Texas became the first state in the country, and perhaps in the world, to explicitly protect parental rights in our constitution. 

The justices also discussed the Family Freedom Project’s amicus brief in the case. In the brief, FFP urged the court to set a universally high bar that the state must meet before interfering in parental decision-making. In essence, the legal standard advocated for by FFP would prevent the state from interfering unless it was necessary to protect a child from harm, and the state’s method of interference was the least invasive one available to protect the child. 

The justices discussed the brief and also asked whether the argument, plus Texas’s new Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment, could reshape how the boundaries of state power in CPS cases. 

A Case Built on an “Emergency” That Never Existed

The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that reveals the deep flaws in how Child Protective Services exercises its power.

In the case In the Interest of K.N., a mother was accused of disciplining one of her four children too harshly. The other three children, it was determined, were all treated well. In fact, a key argument from CPS was that they believed the oldest child was treated differently from the others, receiving harsher punishments than them. 

There were no accusations against the father regarding any of the children.

CPS investigated and determined there was no emergency, and all four children remained in the home for months. Instead of removing the children, CPS instructed the mother to complete anger-management classes. 

She refused.

Months passed. Then, in an act of retaliation, CPS suddenly removed all four children and claimed an “emergency,” despite the agency’s previous conclusion that the home was safe to leave the children in. 

Although the case originated as a non-emergency accusation against one parent as to one child, the state ultimately terminated the parental rights of both parents. The father (against whom there were no accusations) had his rights terminated as to all four children. 

The case has become a glaring example of how easily narrow allegations can balloon into sweeping government action that permanently destroys a family.

FFP’s Role: Bringing Clarity to an Unclear System

The Family Freedom Project filed an amicus brief urging a clear, uniform constitutional framework for parental rights cases. As FFP explained in its amicus brief:

“Families are forced to fight not a narrow state intervention designed to protect a child from harm, but a sweeping attempt by the state to remake the family into something more to its subjective liking.”

If CPS truly believed that the oldest child was in danger from the mother, the appropriate response would have been a narrow intervention designed to protect that child’s safety. Instead, CPS destroyed the entire family, punishing both parents and all four children. 

FFP explained that the only way to stop these sweeping intrusions is to require courts to use the legal standard known as “strict scrutiny”, the highest level of constitutional protection for fundamental rights.

Without this guidance, lower courts often apply inconsistent standards, sometimes giving enormous weight to parental rights, other times allowing CPS or non-parents to override them with little justification.

A Pattern That Cannot be Ignored

The KN case is not an isolated incident. In recent years, the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed lower courts for violating parents’ constitutional rights:

• In re C.J.C. (2020): A fit father lost partial custody to a non-parent.
• In re R.J.G. (2023): A mother’s rights were terminated because she completed counseling at a different counselor than CPS preferred. 
• Stary v. Ethridge (2025): A lifetime protective order was imposed without due process, blocking a mother from seeing or speaking with her children for the rest of her life.

Each of these cases required the Supreme Court to correct errors that would have been avoided if the lower courts had a proper respect for parental rights. FFP’s brief argues that the solution is not endless appeals—but a clear, constitutionally grounded standard that protects families from the outset.

Why This Case Could Be a Turning Point

If the Court adopts strict scrutiny, or interprets the Parental Rights Amendment in a way that mandates it, Texas families would gain:

• Stronger protections from CPS overreach,
• Clearer expectations for courts and caseworkers,
• More consistent outcomes statewide, and
• Less need for costly, years-long appeals to fix unconstitutional rulings.

Strict scrutiny does not give parents a free pass. It simply ensures that the state “does no harm” and intervenes only to the degree truly necessary to protect children.

This is the balance our Constitution requires. And it is the balance Texas families deserve.

FFP Will Continue Fighting for Texas Families

The Court’s engagement with our brief reflects a growing recognition that Texas needs a coherent framework for parental rights. FFP will continue advocating for that clarity, legislatively, in the courts, and through public awareness and education.

The outcome of the KN case may set the direction of parental rights in Texas for years to come. FFP is currently preparing an additional brief explaining the relevance of Texas’ new Parental Rights Amendment, and we are working to recruit additional organizations that can do the same.

As we await the Court’s ruling, FFP remains committed to defending families and ensuring that government interventions are restrained, justified, and constitutionally sound.