in the Interest of J.A.T., a Minor Child
502 S.W.3d 834
Tex. App.2016Background
- In October 2013, Zarena Allen (not related to the child J.A.T.) filed an original SAPCR claiming she had actual care, control, and possession of J.A.T. for at least six months ending within 90 days before filing, seeking joint managing conservatorship with the father.
- An associate judge entered temporary orders naming Allen sole managing conservator; the father (A.T.) moved to vacate those orders, arguing Allen lacked standing.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the presiding judge dismissed Allen’s original petition for lack of standing; Allen’s mandamus petition was denied by the First Court of Appeals.
- While her mandamus was pending, Allen filed a petition in intervention (June 25, 2014) and sought leave to intervene; the trial court denied leave after a contested three-day hearing and de novo review by the presiding judge.
- Allen appealed both the dismissal for lack of standing on the original petition and the denial of leave to intervene; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen had standing to file an original SAPCR under Tex. Fam. Code §102.003(a)(9) | Allen: She had actual care, control, and possession for the statutory period before filing. | Father: Allen did not satisfy the statutory time/possession requirement; thus no standing. | Court: Affirmed dismissal; record presumed to support trial court’s finding she lacked the requisite six months of possession. |
| Whether Allen acquired standing to intervene after temporary orders named her managing conservator | Allen: Temporary orders made her sole managing conservator and she had possession for eight months before intervening, so she could intervene. | Father: Because Allen lacked standing when she filed the suit, she cannot later intervene in a suit not filed by an authorized person. | Court: Denied; intervention under §102.004(b) applies only in suits filed by persons authorized under the subchapter—Allen lacked such authorization when she filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (standing is essential to subject-matter jurisdiction and courts must consider evidence when necessary to determine jurisdiction)
- Mason v. Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church, 154 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (when reporter’s record portions are omitted, appellate court presumes omitted portions support the judgment)
- Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2002) (failure to provide required statement of issues/partial record mandates affirmance under Rule 34.6)
- In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (standing to file suit is determined as of the time the suit was filed)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing and similar jurisdictional determinations considered as of the time of filing)