in the Interest of K.R.P.C., a Child, 05-16-00405-CV

James J. Perry (pro se) is the adoptive grandfather of K.R.P.C.; his son William is the child’s father and has not had his parental rights terminated. The child resides with William.
Perry filed an original petition (Jan 2016) seeking grandparent access/possession under Texas Family Code §§153.432–.434 or relief under Chapter 156; he submitted affidavits required by the statute.
William moved to dismiss, arguing Perry failed to allege required statutory facts (including the condition in §153.433(a)(3)) and lacked standing under Chapter 156.
The trial court granted William’s motion and dismissed Perry’s suit with prejudice; Perry appealed pro se.
The court of appeals reviewed whether Perry’s affidavits alleged facts satisfying §153.432/.433 and whether Troxel v. Granville supplied broader rights for grandparents.
The court concluded Perry’s pleadings did not show that William was incarcerated, incompetent, dead, or lacked possession/access to the child as required by §153.433(a)(3), and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perry’s pleadings/affidavits satisfy the statutory prerequisites for grandparent access under Fam. Code §§153.432–153.433	Perry asserted he met statutory requirements and submitted affidavits alleging harm if access denied	William argued the affidavits fail to allege the §153.433(a)(3) condition (incarceration, incompetence, death, or lack of possession/access) and thus suit must be dismissed	Held: Perry’s affidavits did not show §153.433(a)(3) was met; dismissal affirmed (statutory prerequisites not satisfied)
Whether Troxel v. Granville supplies a constitutional or common-law basis to order grandparent visitation despite failure to meet Texas statutory conditions	Perry relied on Troxel to argue courts can order visitation when parental refusal treats child like chattel and prior positive history with third party suggests visitation benefits child	William argued Troxel does not create a grandparent right to visitation or override Texas statutory limits; parents’ fundamental rights control	Held: Troxel was misread by Perry; it does not create a freestanding grandparent right or authorize courts to override parental decisions absent statutory authorization; Troxel does not help Perry

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (Due Process protects parents’ right to make child-rearing decisions; struck down statute allowing courts to grant visitation over parental wishes without giving weight to parents’ determination)
Washington v. Bank of N.Y., 362 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants are held to same standards as attorneys)
Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (pet. denied) (same principle regarding pro se litigants)