Lexplug logoLexplug

In RE C.J.C. v. the State of Texas

Texas Supreme Court
603 S.W.3d 804 (2020)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The constitutional presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interest of their child applies to modification proceedings; therefore, a court cannot grant a nonparent conservatorship or visitation rights over a fit parent's objection unless that presumption is overcome.


Facts:

  • Abigail was born in 2014 to unmarried parents, C.J.C. (Father) and a mother who died in a car accident in July 2018.
  • Following a 2016 court order, the parents shared custody, with the Father having regular possession and the Mother having the right to designate the primary residence.
  • Before her death, the Mother lived with her fiancé, Jason, and Abigail resided with them during the Mother's periods of possession.
  • After the Mother died, Abigail began living exclusively with the Father, who is admittedly a fit parent.
  • Jason petitioned the court to be named a joint managing conservator and requested court-ordered visitation with Abigail.
  • Although the Father allowed Abigail's maternal grandparents and Jason some informal visitation, he objected to Jason having court-ordered legal rights to possession.
  • Jason testified that he had performed parental duties like bathing and feeding Abigail while living with her mother, but he admitted the Father was a fit parent.

Procedural Posture:

  • Father filed an initial suit affecting the parent-child relationship; the trial court entered an order naming both parents joint managing conservators.
  • Mother filed a petition to modify the order, but died while the suit was pending.
  • Father moved to dismiss the modification suit after Mother's death.
  • Maternal grandparents and Jason filed petitions to intervene in the modification suit; Father objected and moved to strike for lack of standing.
  • The trial court denied Father's motion to strike the interventions.
  • Father sought mandamus relief; the Court of Appeals denied relief regarding Jason, finding he had standing based on 'actual care, control, and possession.'
  • The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and issued temporary orders naming Jason a possessory conservator with specific visitation rights over Father's objection.
  • Father filed a second petition for writ of mandamus challenging the temporary orders in the Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals denied the Father's second petition.
  • Father filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Texas.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the constitutional presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interest of their child apply in a suit to modify an existing custody order when a nonparent seeks court-ordered access over the fit parent's objection?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Bland

Yes. The Court held that the fit-parent presumption is deeply embedded in the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. The Court reasoned that under Troxel v. Granville, the Due Process Clause prohibits the state from infringing on a fit parent's child-rearing decisions simply because a judge believes a 'better decision' could be made. Although the Texas Family Code explicitly includes this presumption for original custody suits but is silent regarding modification suits, the Court determined the statute must be interpreted to avoid constitutional violations. Consequently, when a nonparent seeks custody or access, the best interest of the child is legally presumed to be determined by the fit parent, not the court. Since the Father was fit and had not relinquished his rights, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering visitation for Jason without requiring him to overcome this presumption.



Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthens parental rights in Texas by extending the constitutional protections of Troxel v. Granville to modification suits, an area where statutory law was previously ambiguous. It clarifies that the 'best interest of the child' standard cannot be used as a standalone basis for judges to override a fit parent's decisions regarding third-party visitation. The ruling effectively raises the bar for nonparents (such as stepparents or grandparents) seeking court-ordered access, ensuring that a parent's fitness serves as a shield against state interference even after the initial custody determination is made. It aligns Texas common law with federal due process requirements, distinguishing this scenario from cases where parents had voluntarily relinquished custody.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In RE C.J.C. v. the State of Texas (2020)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"