In Re RTK, 2010 WL 4312765

Heidi Blunt, the biological mother, sought sole managing conservatorship of R.T.K. in a custody dispute; Dean Kelly was apportioned sole managing conservator and Heidi possessed supervised visitation.
Dean and Heidi separated in 1999 amid accusations of cruelty; Heidi worked as an escort and was later charged; custody proceedings reflected instability in Heidi's life.
Dean married Stacie Kelly in 2001; R.T.K. lived with them and bonded with Stacie as a maternal figure.
Dean died in 2006; Stacie sought to be named managing conservator; Heidi counterclaimed for modification and sole managing conservatorship.
The trial court appointed Stacie sole managing conservator and kept Heidi as possessory conservator, finding Heidi's appointment would significantly impair R.T.K.'s health and development.
On appeal, Heidi argues the trial court abused discretion and violated parental rights by not appointing her sole managing conservator.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parental presumption was properly applied	Heidi argues 153.131(a) requires reversal if not met.	Stacie contends modification/appointment not governed by parental presumption.	Court held no abuse; presumption overcame or was inapplicable under modification standard.
Whether the trial court properly applied the relevant standard to appoint Stacie	Heidi claims evidence failed to overcome presumption.	Stacie asserts the record supports appointment as sole managing conservator.	Record supports appointment, either under §153.131(a) or §156.101 modification standard.
Whether removal of R.T.K. from Stacie would significantly impair emotional development	Heidi contends no significant impairment shown.	Stacie presents evidence of stability and bond with R.T.K.	Trial court findings adequately supported significant impairment if moved from Stacie's home.
Whether modification standards were satisfied	Heidi argues insufficiency to modify previous order.	Stacie demonstrates best interests and material change post-death of Dean.	Record shows modification would be in best interests and there was a material change.
Whether constitutional rights of the parent were violated	Heidi asserts parent rights violated by not applying the standard.	Stacie maintains best interests govern regardless of presumption.	No constitutional violation found; outcomes supported by statutory framework.

In re A.L.E., 279 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (custody review standard; deference to trial court)
In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (modification standard; stability considerations)
V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2000) (parental presumption and best interests framework)
C.A.M.M., 243 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (distinction between original suit and modification; policy concerns)
De La Pena, 999 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. App. El Paso 1999) (custody implications; stability and development)
Rodriguez, 940 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997) (nonparent custody; stability concerns)
K.R.P., 80 S.W.3d 669 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (overcoming parental presumption; evidence of abuse)