in the Interest of D.L.D., a Child, 05-16-00523-CV

D.L.D., an infant, was removed after her 40-day-old brother died while in Mother’s custody; Mother and other adults tested positive for drugs; D.L.D. was placed with paternal grandparents.
Father acknowledged paternity; Mother and Father later relinquished parental rights and the Department sought conservatorship pending adoption.
Maternal grandmother Vickie Davis intervened, sought genetic testing of potential fathers and sought custody/rehabilitation for herself and her husband Maxey.
The trial court denied Vickie’s motion for genetic testing for lack of standing and approved a partial mediated settlement agreement (MSA) naming the Department managing conservator pending adoption by the paternal grandparents.
The MSA provided that if adoption failed the paternal grandparents would be permanent managing conservators, and granted visitation to the maternal grandparents; the MSA contained the required bolded nonrevocation language and was signed by parties and counsel.
Vickie appealed, arguing (1) error in denying genetic testing and (2) trial court’s failure to provide a rehabilitation “roadmap” or award custody to her.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vickie had standing to obtain genetic testing of potential fathers	Vickie argued she had standing (relying on grandparent statute §102.004) to order genetic testing	The Department and parties argued standing to adjudicate parentage is governed by §160.602 and Vickie does not fall within those enumerated categories	Court held Vickie lacked standing to request genetic testing; denial affirmed
Whether the trial court erred by not providing a rehabilitation plan or awarding custody to Vickie	Vickie argued the court should have offered a roadmap to rehabilitate her and Maxey or awarded custody	The Department argued the MSA was binding, complied with §153.0071, and Vickie offered no domestic-violence-based exception to block entry of judgment on the MSA	Court held MSA met statutory requirements; trial court correctly entered judgment per MSA and did not err

Coons–Andersen v. Andersen, 104 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Everett v. TK–Taito, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (statutory text governs standing when conferred by statute)
In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (party must be entitled under family code before court can order genetic testing)
In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013) (mediated settlement agreements are binding and courts must enter judgment on compliant MSAs)