In re Wells
373 S.W.3d 174
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Wells is M.J.'s biological mother and Ruppert previously cohabited with Wells and cared for M.J.
- After separating, Wells and Ruppert divided care of M.J. and created a written schedule for possession in mid-2010.
- Wells and Ruppert alternated major caregiving roles and Wells resumed exclusive control over M.J. in August 2011.
- On November 3, 2011, Ruppert filed suit seeking to be appointed sole managing conservator and to restrict Wells' access.
- The trial court denied Wells's jurisdictional challenge, appointed Wells temporary sole managing conservator, and named Ruppert as temporary possessory conservator with limited weekend and spring-break rights.
- The record shows Wells retained control over education, health-insurance, and medical decisions; Ruppert did not demonstrate legal control over M.J. during the relevant six-month period.
- The court held Ruppert lacked standing under the Family Code and abused its discretion by substituting its judgment for the parent’s decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under family code 102.003(a)(9) | Ruppert contends she has standing under 102.003(a)(9). | Wells contends Ruppert lacks standing as a non-parent without true legal control. | Ruppert lacks standing |
| Whether Ruppert exercised legal control over M.J. | Ruppert asserts actual control through care and possession. | Wells argues Ruppert never exercised legal control; decisions remained with Wells. | No legal control by Ruppert; standing not established |
| Appropriateness of mandamus relief and trial court order | Wells argues trial court erred; mandamus is appropriate to challenge standing decisions. | Dissent, or Wells argues against standing; court should not override parent without proper basis. | Writ conditionally granted; trial court to dismiss Ruppert's SAPCR for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.T.H.S., 311 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (standing analyzed under Troxel framework; parent rights respected)
- In re K.K.C., 292 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (defines 'control' as power to guide and make legal decisions)
- In re Smith, 262 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008) (standing limitations for non-parents)
- In re Herring, 221 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (mandamus to challenge temporary orders affecting parent-child relations)
- In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2007) (mandamus relief appropriate to address SAPCRs)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are fundamental and protected; undue interference is limited)
- Texas Department of Transportation v. Ramirez, 74 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. 2002) (directs dismissal when jurisdiction cannot be invoked)