in Re: H. R. L., 458 S.W.3d 23

Child Support Division (Title IV-D) filed paternity/support suit concerning K.L.; great-aunt Kim Shumate sought to intervene and be named possessory conservator.
Shumate did not seek court leave to intervene under Tex. Fam. Code §102.004(b) before asking for temporary relief; Relator (mother) challenged standing and filed pleas to the jurisdiction.
Trial court heard Shumate’s testimony and a DRO social-worker interview; concluded the child was bonded to Shumate and entered interim orders (DRO services, TRO, standard possession visitation) before resolving standing.
Shumate’s evidence: long history of care, assertions that mother’s instability and limited visits harmed child emotionally; DRO report showed child sad when separated.
Mother argued (1) Shumate lacked statutory standing and court must grant leave before intervention; (2) evidence failed to show appointment of parents would significantly impair child’s emotional development; (3) temporary orders unconstitutionally infringed parent’s Troxel rights.
Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus: trial court abused discretion by entering relief before finding and granting leave to intervene and by lacking adequate evidence of standing/unfitness; ordered the interim orders set aside.

Issue	Shumate's Argument	Relator's Argument	Held
Whether court could grant Shumate relief before granting leave to intervene under §102.004(b)	Not required to seek leave; may obtain temporary relief	Statute requires court to grant leave before intervention; relief before leave is unauthorized	Court: Relief void without first determining and granting leave; abuse of discretion
Whether Shumate presented satisfactory proof that appointing parent(s) would significantly impair child’s physical health or emotional development (standing under §102.004(b))	Mother’s instability, sporadic visits, and child's bonding to Shumate show likely significant emotional impairment	Evidence insufficient: visits occurred, bonding alone does not show significant impairment, assertions are speculative	Court: Preponderance not met; implied finding of standing unsupported; must dismiss intervention absent proof
Whether entry of interim possession/visitation violated parental due process (Troxel)	Child bonded; visitation in child’s interest	Mother fit; no evidence of parental unfitness, harm, or intent to exclude non-parent access	Court: Troxel protects fit parents; Shumate failed to show unfitness or harm; order infringed mother’s fundamental rights
Availability of mandamus / adequacy of appeal	N/A (respondent)	Temporary orders in SAPCR are not appealable; mandamus appropriate to prevent irreparable infringement of parental rights	Court: Mandamus proper; mother lacks adequate remedy by appeal

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in childrearing; courts may not infringe fit parents’ rights absent evidence of harm or unfitness)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standards: clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing is jurisdictional; lack of standing renders court action void)
Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990) (non-parent must do more than show they would be a better custodian; §153.131 presumption favors parents)
In re S.M.D., 329 S.W.3d 8 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2010) (non-parent must show specific parental acts/omissions that will probably cause significant impairment)
In re Lewis, 357 S.W.3d 396 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2011) (mandamus available where trial court’s intervention ruling effectively grants non-parent relief and appeal is inadequate)
In re Herring, 221 S.W.3d 729 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2007) (temporary SAPCR orders are not appealable; mandamus may challenge them)
In re N.L.D., 412 S.W.3d 810 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2013) (standing to intervene mirrors standing to file original suit under §§102.003–.004)