501 S.W.3d 646
Tex. App.2016Background
- Parties divorced in 1998; they have two children. The appeal concerns support for adult daughter C.J.N.-S., born April 8, 1993.
- C.J.N.-S. turned 18 in 2011, developed ongoing medical problems (diagnosed with gastroparesis in 2013), and lived apart from parents since 2013.
- Appellee (mother) filed suit in March 2014 seeking child and medical support from appellant (father) for the adult disabled child; neither parent claimed physical custody or guardianship.
- Trial court found C.J.N.-S. an adult disabled child and ordered father to pay monthly child support and medical support to mother; father appealed on standing/subject-matter jurisdiction grounds.
- The appellate court considered whether Texas Family Code §154.303 grants a parent standing to sue for an adult disabled child absent physical custody or court-ordered guardianship.
- Court held mother lacked standing because she neither had physical custody nor a court-ordered guardianship; reversed and remanded for judgment for father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent has standing under Tex. Fam. Code §154.303(a)(1) to sue for support of an adult disabled child without physical custody or court-ordered guardianship | Narciso: statute does not require physical custody or guardianship; parentage alone suffices | Spear: §154.303(a)(1) requires parent to have physical custody or guardianship to have standing | Court: Parent must have either physical custody or court-ordered guardianship to have standing; Narciso lacked both, so no standing |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2008) (standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing may be raised on appeal; review standard for jurisdiction)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- City of Lorena v. BMTP Holdings, 409 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2013) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Mid-Century Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2007) (plain meaning rule for statutory interpretation)
- Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001) (factors to consider when discerning legislative intent)
- State ex rel. State Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2002) (interpret statute as whole to give effect to every part)
- Ken Petroleum Corp. v. Questor Drilling Corp., 24 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. 2000) (legislative history and context relevant in statutory construction)