in Re: David E. Martin, 523 S.W.3d 165

Background

Father (David Martin) and mother divorced in 2007; they were joint managing conservators of two minor children. Mother died in 2012.
In an agreed November 5, 2012 judgment, Father was named sole managing conservator; maternal grandparents (Jerry and Diane Byron) were awarded at least 35 hours of unsupervised visitation per month and notice of extracurricular activities, “to be scheduled subject to the discretion and agreement of all parties.”
Grandparents filed in June 2015 to modify conservatorship (seeking joint managing conservatorship and primary residence designation for grandparents) and filed a motion for enforcement alleging Father violated the 2012 visitation and notice provisions.
Trial court (Jan. 11, 2016) entered an enforcement order finding Father in contempt and awarded grandparents additional possession (first and third weekends each month) to compensate for denied visitation; it also denied Father’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Father sought direct appellate review; contempt order was not appealable, so he pursued mandamus. He argued the 2012 judgment was too ambiguous for contempt, the additional possession exceeded statutory parameters, grandparents lacked standing to seek modification, and he had no adequate remedy by appeal.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Grandparents’ Argument	Held
Enforceability of 2012 judgment by contempt	2012 order is ambiguous because visitation times require parties’ agreement and thus cannot support contempt	Judgment grants a specific monthly quantum (35 hours) and notice rights—enforcement appropriate	Judgment unenforceable by contempt because it leaves timing to mutual agreement; enforcement order vacated
Trial court’s award of additional possession	Court exceeded Family Code possession parameters by awarding first/third weekends as compensation	Award compensates for denied possession due to Father’s violations	Court need not decide because enforcement order itself was vacated as invalid for contempt
Standing to file modification under Tex. Fam. Code §156.002	Grandparents lack standing because they have no enforceable rights under the 2012 order and Father has sole managing conservatorship	Grandparents were parties to the 2012 judgment and that order "affects" them (35 hours + notice), so they have standing to seek modification	Grandparents have standing; denial of motion to dismiss was not overturned (mandamus denied on this point)
Parental presumption challenge	Allowing grandparents to pursue modification improperly burdens Father’s parental presumption	Grandparents invoked modification of an existing order and alleged material and substantial change; parental presumption not dispositive in modification context	Not ripe: modification not yet decided and parental-presumption arguments relate to merits, not to standing; court did not resolve on mandamus

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (order must enforce court’s specific requirements, not party agreements, to support contempt)
Ex parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. 1978) (contempt requires an unequivocal command of duty)
Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1995) (order must be clear enough that reasonable persons will not differ about duties imposed)
Roosth v. Roosth, 889 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994) (visitation conditioned on parties’ agreement is not enforceable by contempt)
In re Braden, 483 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (contempt orders are not appealable; mandamus/habeas corpus proper remedies)
In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus requires clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy)
In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (standard for clear abuse of discretion)
In re M.P.B., 257 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (parental presumption does not apply in modification proceedings)