392 S.W.3d 261
Tex. App.2012Background
- Estrada is the paternal grandmother; the Martinezes are the maternal grandparents.
- Bio mother and father had their parental rights terminated prior to adoption.
- Estrada and the Martinezes each petitioned to adopt; Estrada also sought possession/access if adoption failed.
- At trial, Martinezes’ motion to dismiss Estrada’s petition was denied and trial proceeded on adoption petitions; the court granted the Martinezes’ adoption petition and signed an order granting Estrada grandparent possession/access contemporaneous to adoption.
- Martinezes appeal contending the court lacked standing and jurisdiction to grant grandparent access; the court ultimately reverses and renders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to pursue adoption. | Estrada asserts standing under §102.005/§102.006. | Martinezes contend Estrada lacked standing to adopt. | Court declines to decide adoption standing; adoption was not awarded. |
| Standing for grandparent access. | Estrada claims standing under grandparent access framework. | Martinezes argue statutory standing requirements apply. | Estrada lacks standing under §153.434; trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant access. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.G., 267 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (standing for parental-child matters; jurisdiction concerns)
- In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2007) (grandparent-access standing governs when relief is under grandparent-access statute)
- Jasek v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Servs., 348 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.) (burden to plead and prove jurisdiction for standing)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing as component of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Moran v. City of Houston, 58 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (statutory interpretation may yield harsh results)