in the Interest of C. Z. H.-O. and C. N. H.-O., 03-17-00016-CV

In 2013 Hernandez and Dulce Ocampo‑Aguirre were named joint managing conservators of two children; Ocampo‑Aguirre had the right to designate the children’s primary residence.
The children began living with Hernandez’s mother, Nellie Reese, in late 2014.
In 2016 Hernandez (pro se) filed a petition to modify conservatorship seeking to be sole managing conservator; the petition named Ocampo‑Aguirre and included certificate of service on the Attorney General.
At the hearing Hernandez, Ocampo‑Aguirre, and the Attorney General appeared; Reese testified as a witness called by Hernandez but did not intervene or seek relief.
The trial court sua sponte appointed Reese sole managing conservator, made the parents possessory conservators, and entered a medical support judgment against Hernandez.
On appeal the court affirmed the medical support judgment but held the appointment of Reese (a nonparty who never intervened) was an abuse of discretion and violated due process; it reversed the conservatorship appointment and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could appoint a nonparty (Reese) as sole managing conservator when she never intervened or sought relief	Hernandez argued the court exceeded its jurisdiction and awarded relief to a nonparty without notice or opportunity to contest	Trial court/Respondents relied on broad decretal powers in custody proceedings to justify conservatorship disposition	Court held appointment of Reese was an abuse of discretion and violated parents’ due process; reversed portion appointing Reese and related possessory/conservator provisions
Whether the judgment could grant relief not requested in pleadings (pleading sufficiency)	Hernandez argued the order granted relief not pleaded	Respondents did not argue on appeal; trial court relied on custody powers	Court did not reach this issue as first issue was dispositive

Leithold v. Plass, 413 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. 1967) (courts have wide decretal powers in custody proceedings)
Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990) (Legislature limited appointment of nonparents as managing conservators)
University of Tex. Med. Sch. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995) (due process requires reasonable notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Landry v. Nauls, 831 S.W.2d 603 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (grandparent must intervene and meet statutory standard to obtain conservatorship in ongoing proceeding)
In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (standard of review for appointing nonparent managing conservator: abuse of discretion)