In the Interest of A.K.B., a Child v. ., 04-25-00338-CV

Maternal grandparents sought court-ordered possession of and access to their grandchild after the child’s mother died and the father later ended all contact with them. 1
Grandparents alleged they had long served as caregivers, transporting the child, attending medical appointments, arranging therapy, and helping with schooling and activities. 2
They also alleged concerns about Father’s mental health, corporal punishment, name-calling, and the child’s living conditions with Father’s girlfriend and her children. 3
Father moved to dismiss, arguing the affidavits failed to satisfy the Family Code’s statutory standing requirements. 4
The trial court held the affidavits, even if true, did not show denial of access would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being. 5
The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Grandparents plead statutory standing for grandparent access? 7	Affidavits showed significant impairment from denial of access.	Affidavits lacked facts meeting section 153.432.	No; the affidavits were legally insufficient. 8
Does the fit-parent presumption apply at the standing stage? 9	Presumption applies only at the merits stage.	Standing under section 153.432 incorporates section 153.433’s presumption.	Yes; the presumption frames standing. 10
Were the affidavits factually sufficient to show significant impairment? 11	Child was distressed and Father’s conduct was harmful.	Allegations were generalized, past-oriented, and noncontemporaneous.	No; they did not show present significant impairment. 12
Did the trial court err by not ruling on discovery? 13	Dismissal came before discovery was resolved.	Lack of standing deprived the court of authority to proceed.	No; without standing, discovery was unavailable. 14

In re H.S., 550 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2018) (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo 15)
Hobbs v. Van Stavern, 249 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (courts accept pleaded facts as true when testing sufficiency under the statute 16)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (fit parents receive special weight in third-party visitation decisions 17)
In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2007) (Texas incorporated the fit-parent presumption and significant-impairment standard 18)
In re C.J.C., 603 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. 2020) (fit-parent presumption is fundamental and affidavits must allege facts capable of overcoming it 19)
In re H.G., 267 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (lack of standing deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction 20)
In re Scheller, 325 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2010 (orig. proceeding)) (overcoming the fit-parent presumption is a hefty burden 21)