in the Interest of K.D.H., a Child
426 S.W.3d 879
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Grandmother (Zoe Higgins) filed an original petition on Feb 2, 2012 seeking sole managing conservatorship of her granddaughter after the child had lived with Grandmother from shortly after birth until returned to the mother that day.
- Grandmother invoked Texas Family Code §102.004(a)(1), alleging "satisfactory proof to the court" that the child’s present circumstances would significantly impair physical health or emotional development; she submitted an affidavit and certified criminal-judgment copies (mother: DWIs and a child-endangerment conviction).
- The Department of Family and Protective Services had been involved earlier, arranged initial placement with Grandmother, and later recommended continued placement with the mother; the Department did not file suit or become conservator.
- Mother filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting Grandmother lacked standing; at the hearing Grandmother testified and the parents (pro se) argued but offered no testimony or documentary evidence.
- Trial court sustained the plea and dismissed for lack of standing; Grandmother appealed. The majority reverses and remands, holding Grandmother met the statutory standing threshold under §102.004(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Grandmother's Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs §102.004(a)(1) "satisfactory proof to the court" for standing? | §102.004(a)(1) requires the court to deny dismissal where evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner, would allow reasonable fair‑minded people to find the requested order necessary because the child’s present circumstances would significantly impair health or emotional development. | Trial court should act as factfinder; "satisfactory proof to the court" permits the trial judge to evaluate credibility and make the threshold determination (legal-sufficiency/deferential review). | Majority: apply a de novo gatekeeper test — ask whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner, would enable reasonable, fair‑minded people to find the required showing; if so, standing exists and the plea must be denied. Dissent: would apply deferential review and treat trial court as factfinder (preponderance standard). |
| Whether invoking a jury demand prevents the trial court from resolving standing as a preliminary gatekeeping question | Grandmother: jury demand does not negate the court’s gatekeeper role on standing; but if evidence raises a fact issue, the issue goes to the jury. | Mother: trial court may resolve standing as a factual matter; jury demand should not force the court to cede threshold evaluation. | Majority: respects jury right on merits but holds threshold standing review is legal and de novo — if a fact issue exists, it proceeds to the jury; but the court should preliminarily assess whether evidence creates that fact issue. |
| Did Grandmother present "satisfactory proof" under §102.004(a)(1) as of filing date? | Grandmother: affidavit + criminal records + testimony about parental drug use, neglectful behavior, volatile incidents, limited contact & bonding establish a fact issue that the child’s circumstances would significantly impair health or emotional development. | Mother: challenged standing; offered no evidence to contradict but argued Grandmother's proof was insufficient and Department’s actions/support weighed against finding impairment. | Held: Majority — yes. Under de novo review, evidence, when viewed favorably to Grandmother, would enable reasonable, fair‑minded people to find standing; trial court erred in dismissing. Dissent — would uphold dismissal under deferential review. |
| Scope of appellate review of trial court’s standing determination under §102.004(a)(1) | Grandmother: appellate review should be de novo (consistent with Miranda and other standing plea jurisprudence). | Mother: appellate review should defer to trial court’s factual gatekeeping and credibility assessments (legal-sufficiency/abuse-of-discretion framing). | Held: Majority: de novo review of whether submitted evidence, in light most favorable to petitioner, creates a fact issue. Dissent: advocate for legal-sufficiency/deferential review and implied findings supporting dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (framework for pleading/evidence when jurisdictional facts are challenged; if evidence raises fact issue, case proceeds)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental due‑process right to make decisions concerning care, custody, and control of children)
- In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (discussing standing under §102.004 and that standing is measured as of petition filing date)
- Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (statutory interpretation: when language is unambiguous, give effect to plain meaning)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (standard for viewing evidence to determine whether it would enable reasonable and fair‑minded people to find a fact)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (deference to trial‑level factfinder on credibility; guidance for reviewing evidence supporting findings)