in the Interest of B.F. and P.F., Children, 07-16-00282-CV

Father died in July 2012; paternal grandparents (Debbie and Keith Finch) sought court-ordered grandparental access to grandchildren (B.F., P.F.).
Grandmother had provided substantial caretaking and regular contact pre-death; contact diminished after father’s death amid a post-death property dispute between mother and grandparents.
Last intentional visits occurred Jan/Feb 2013; a few unplanned public encounters followed, during which grandparents testified the children appeared anxious or distressed.
Grandparents presented a counselor who testified generally about harms from lost grandparent contact but conceded she had not evaluated these children and could not offer opinions specific to them.
Mother and her new husband, plus daycare and afterschool staff, testified both children were doing well academically and emotionally; mother testified she limited access due to feeling attacked after the financial disputes.
Trial court denied grandparents’ petition, concluding they failed to prove by a preponderance that denial of access would significantly impair the children’s physical health or emotional well-being; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grandparents rebutted the statutory presumption that a fit parent acts in child’s best interest by proving denial of access would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well‑being	Grandparents: prior substantial contact, observed child distress during public encounters, and expert testimony about general harms show significant impairment or risk of future harm	Mother: children are doing well now; expert gave only general, non‑specific testimony and did not evaluate the children; presumption stands unless impairment shown by preponderance	Court: grandparents failed to meet preponderance standard; evidence did not conclusively show present or prospective significant impairment — issue overruled
Whether trial court misapplied the legal standard by focusing on parental fitness or present condition rather than prospective harm	Grandparents: court improperly weighed parental fitness and present well‑being over evidence of future harm from loss of grandparental contact	Mother: court applied correct legal standard and appropriately assessed credibility and weight of the evidence	Court: no legal error; court applied §153.433(a)(2) correctly and as factfinder permissibly weighed testimony and credibility — issue overruled

In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2007) (recognizing presumption that a fit parent acts in child’s best interest and standard for grandparents to overcome it)
In re Sheller, 325 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2010) (evidence of normal sadness and limited behavioral signs insufficient to show significant impairment)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality) (parental rights presumption and limits on third‑party visitation)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review and crediting evidence in light most favorable to the factfinder)