540 S.W.3d 589
Tex.2018Background
- Karen Narciso and Kenneth Spear divorced in 1998; their adult daughter C.J.N.-S. has a disability (gastroparesis) that the trial court found existed before her 18th birthday and requires substantial care.
- After turning 18 in 2011, C.J.N.-S. lived apart from her parents, was unable to maintain employment, and Narciso paid her living and medical expenses and provided regular assistance.
- Narciso sued under Tex. Fam. Code § 154.302 seeking an order requiring Spear to pay support for the adult disabled child; the trial court awarded monthly support to Narciso.
- Spear appealed, arguing Narciso lacked statutory standing because she neither had physical custody nor court-ordered guardianship of the adult child; the court of appeals agreed and reversed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review, considered statutory interpretation of Tex. Fam. Code § 154.303(a)(1), concluded a parent has standing by virtue of parentage alone, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for consideration of the remaining evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Narciso) | Defendant's Argument (Spear) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent has standing under Tex. Fam. Code § 154.303(a)(1) to sue for support of an adult disabled child when the parent does not have physical custody or court-ordered guardianship | Parentage alone confers standing; the qualifying phrase applies only to "another person," not to parents; statute should not force parents to obtain guardianship or custody to seek support | The entire phrase is modified: both parents and nonparents must have physical custody or court-ordered guardianship to have standing; the 1997 amendment intended to limit standing to those with a legal custodial role | Parentage alone is sufficient; the custody/guardianship qualifier applies only to "another person." |
| Whether the court of appeals should reach Spear's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on disability and amount of support | (Implied) Trial court findings supported by evidence; issues are for appellate review on remand | Court of appeals previously did not reach these due to jurisdictional disposition; it should consider them if standing exists | Court reversed on standing and remanded to the court of appeals to decide the sufficiency-of-evidence issues it had not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sommers for Ala. & Dunlavy, Ltd. v. Sandcastle Homes, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2017) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and courts give statutory words their fair meaning)
- Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 34 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2000) (presumption that the Legislature intended each word in a statute to have effect)
- Spear v. Narciso, 501 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2016) (court of appeals held lack of standing; reversed by Texas Supreme Court)