in the Interest of H.S., a Minor Child
550 S.W.3d 151 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas Family Code § 102.003(a)(9), a nonparent has standing to file a suit affecting the parent-child relationship if they have exercised actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months by serving in a parent-like role. This standard does not require that the child's legal parents have abdicated their parental rights or that the nonparent have ultimate legal authority over the child.
Facts:
- Upon her birth in January 2013, Heather and her mother moved into her maternal grandparents' (Grandparents) home.
- Heather's parents were unmarried and did not live together.
- On March 30, 2014, Heather's mother (Mother), who struggled with alcohol addiction, moved into a sober-living facility.
- Mother, Father, and Grandparents mutually agreed that Heather would continue living with the Grandparents while Mother was in recovery.
- From March to October 2014, Grandparents were Heather's primary caregivers, directing her day-to-day activities, providing her home, food, and clothing, and paying for her daycare.
- During this period, Father had possession of Heather approximately every other weekend, and Mother visited her at the Grandparents' home in the evenings.
- Both parents remained involved in Heather's life, were consulted on decisions, and retained authority for certain medical matters.
- On October 6, 2014, after this arrangement had been in place for over six months, the Grandparents filed a petition seeking to be named Heather's managing conservators.
Procedural Posture:
- The Grandparents filed a petition to modify a prior Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) order in a Texas trial court, seeking managing conservatorship of Heather.
- Father filed a plea to the jurisdiction, seeking dismissal on the grounds that the Grandparents lacked standing.
- The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the Grandparents' petition.
- The Grandparents, as appellants, appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that standing required a showing that the parents had abdicated their parental roles.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted the Grandparents' petition for review.
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 a nonparent who, with parental consent, serves as a child's primary day-to-day caregiver for over six months have 'actual care, control, and possession' of the child sufficient for standing under Texas Family Code § 102.003(a)(9), even if the child's legal parents remain involved in the child's life and did not intend to permanently relinquish control?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Unsigned)
Yes. A nonparent has 'actual care, control, and possession' of a child for standing purposes if they served in a parent-like role for the statutory period, regardless of whether the legal parents abdicated their rights. The statute's use of the word 'actual' refers to care that exists in fact, not in law, and does not require the nonparent's control to be exclusive or legally authorized. The statutory focus is on the relationship developed between the nonparent and the child, not on the parents' conduct or intent. Requiring parents to have wholly relinquished their rights would improperly add an exclusivity requirement that is absent from the statute's plain language. This interpretation does not violate the parents' constitutional rights under Troxel v. Granville because the Texas standing statute is narrowly tailored to a small class of nonparents who have already established a significant, parent-like relationship with the child, unlike the 'breathtakingly broad' statute at issue in Troxel.
Dissenting - Justice Blacklock
No. A nonparent cannot gain 'actual control' of a child for standing purposes unless the child's parents first abdicate or relinquish that control. The majority's interpretation fails to give independent meaning to the word 'control,' rendering it superfluous with 'care' and 'possession.' 'Control' must mean something more than day-to-day supervision; it entails the ultimate authority to make important decisions for the child, which presumptively remains with the parents unless they walk away from that role. Here, the parents delegated daily care but retained ultimate control, meaning the Grandparents never had the 'actual control' required by the statute. The majority's expansive reading creates serious constitutional problems by allowing judges to interfere with the fundamental right of fit parents to raise their children.
Dissenting - Justice Guzman
No. The Grandparents did not have standing because they were acting under and subject to the parents' control, rather than exercising 'actual control' themselves. The parents continued to fulfill their parental obligations and did not treat the Grandparents as substitute parents. This dissent joins Justice Blacklock's reasoning on the statutory interpretation and further clarifies that it was procedurally proper for the trial court to make findings of fact on the standing issue, as standing in this case is not intertwined with the merits of the underlying custody dispute.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and arguably lowers the threshold for nonparent standing in Texas child custody disputes. By rejecting the 'parental abdication' requirement, the court shifts the focus from the parents' intent and legal status to the de facto reality of the child's daily life and the relationships they have formed. The ruling empowers nonparents who serve as primary caregivers, such as grandparents or stepparents, to seek legal protection for their relationship with a child, even over the objection of fit, involved parents. This may lead to an increase in litigation by such caregivers and forces courts to more frequently balance the constitutional rights of parents against the state's interest in the stability of established, parent-like bonds.
Unlock the full brief for in the Interest of H.S., a Minor Child