In RE C.J.C. v. the State of Texas, 603 S.W.3d 804

Concurring opinion by Justice Debra H. Lehrmann in In re C.J.C.; Court holds the fit‑parent presumption applies in modification proceedings brought by a nonparent seeking to change a conservatorship that names a parent as managing conservator.
Justice Lehrmann agrees the presumption rests on parents’ constitutional right to make child‑rearing decisions (Troxel), but emphasizes trial courts must still determine whether the presumption has been overcome.
Texas Family Code supplies explicit standards for original SAPCRs and for grandparent possession/access (significant impairment standard), but is silent about how the presumption is to be overcome in modification proceedings by nonparents with §102.003(a)(9) standing.
Nonparents with §102.003(a)(9) standing (the “parent‑like role” test from In re H.S.) may seek conservatorship or, alternatively, possessory conservatorship/access; courts must afford deference to a fit parent even when evaluating access or possession.
The concurring opinion notes the trial court record here does not show consideration of the fit‑parent presumption and that the precise quantum or type of proof required to overcome it in modification/visitation contexts remains unresolved.
Justice Lehrmann endorses looking to post‑Troxel state decisions that weigh both parental deference and the harm of severing a long‑standing parent‑like bond to the child.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the fit‑parent presumption apply in a nonparent modification proceeding?	Relator: presumption applies only in original SAPCRs, not modifications.	Parent: presumption applies and limits nonparent relief absent overcoming it.	Court: Presumption applies in modification proceedings where a fit parent objects.
What showing is required to overcome the fit‑parent presumption in a modification?	Relator: (did not alternatively prove burden overcome).	Parent: presumption requires special weight; burden should be significant.	Court: Left open; Troxel gives guidance but no precise standard defined.
Does the Family Code provide a statutory standard for overcoming the presumption in modifications by §102.003(a)(9) nonparents?	Relator: (argued presumption inapplicable, so statutory gap irrelevant).	Parent: Family Code standards for originals/grandparents show presumption must be honored in modifications.	Court: Family Code sets standards for originals and grandparents but is silent for modifications; gap remains.
Did the trial court properly apply the presumption in this case?	Relator: trial court issued temporary orders without showing the presumption applied.	Parent: trial court should have accorded the presumption and required proof to overcome it.	Court: Trial court record fails to show consideration of the presumption; mandamus relief conditionally granted.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality: fit‑parent decisions must be accorded special weight in third‑party visitation cases)
In re H.S., 550 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2018) (§102.003(a)(9) parent‑like role test for nonparent standing)
Shook v. Gray, 381 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2012) (nonparent who fails to overcome presumption as managing conservator may still obtain possessory conservatorship or access)
In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2000) (modification suits raise additional policy concerns such as stability and preventing constant litigation)
Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (courts may consider trauma from severing contact with a grandparent/parent‑like figure when assessing child's best interest)