in Re William Michael McDaniel and Autumn Melissa McDaniel
408 S.W.3d 389
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Halls filed an original petition for managing conservatorship of J.M. and R.M. against the McDaniels, alleging standing under Family Code § 102.004(a)(1).
- Trial court denied the McDaniels’ motion to dismiss and issued temporary orders granting the Halls managing conservatorship; McDaniels received limited possessory access.
- Petition filed May 25, 2011; past alleged abuse by Michael toward J.M. is central to standing analysis.
- Halls presented evidence of multiple abusive incidents, including a 2010 incident witnessed by the Halls and other prior conduct; CPS investigated but could not confirm abuse.
- McDaniels argued lack of present impairment, contending last abuse was in August 2010 and too remote to show present circumstances.
- Trial court again denied the motion to dismiss at an August 19, 2011 hearing; mandamus petition followed seeking vacatur of temporary orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Halls had standing to seek managing conservatorship | McDaniel | McDaniel | Halls had standing; evidence showed present impairment valid under §102.004(a)(1). |
| Standard of review for standing and mandamus relief | Halls | McDaniel | Standing è a question of law; mandamus proper when trial court errs in standing; abuse of discretion reviewed; no adequate appellate remedy for temporary orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus and standard of abuse of discretion; standards of review)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (abuse of discretion; de novo review of law)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (deference limits; legal standards in reviewing discretion)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (standard of review for trial court decisions)
- In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. 2004) (adequacy of appellate remedies; interlocutory review)
- In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (standing in SAPCRs; de novo standing review)
- In re N.L.D., 344 S.W.3d 33 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (standing essential to court jurisdiction; dismissal if lacking)