In the Interest of K.S., 492 S.W.3d 419

Esther, maternal grandmother, seeks sole managing conservatorship of her grandchildren; Michael and Diana are the parents and possessory conservators.
Esther previously cared for the children at her home from 1990 until a 2011 dispute prompted her removal and a safety plan restricting contact.
Esther filed suit on September 19, 2011, seeking sole managing conservatorship with supervised visitation for Michael and Diana; temporary orders granted Esther sole managing conservator and limited, supervised or no contact for the parents.
Rule 11 agreement and a second hearing produced a modified order: Diana supervised visitation; Michael had no contact due to alleged abuse and risk concerns.
After a bench trial, the final order appointed Esther as sole managing conservator and the parents as possessory conservators with restricted or no access as determined by the court.
On appeal, Michael and Diana challenge Esther’s standing, the lack of joint conservatorship, and deviation from the standard possession order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing under the Family Code	Esther had statutory standing under 102.003(a)(9).	Esther lacked standing under the relevant provisions at filing.	Esther had standing under 102.003(a)(9).
Joint managing conservatorship vs. sole	Presumption favors joint custody; Esther must rebut it; evidence supports joint as best.	Trial court erred by not awarding joint conservatorship; abuse/neglect findings undermine joint award.	Court did not abuse discretion; some evidence supported sole managing conservator for Esther.
Deviation from standard possession order	Deviation was improper; standard order should apply absent compelling reasons.	Trial court properly deviated due to history of neglect/abuse; supervised access appropriate.	Court did not abuse discretion in deviating from the standard possession order.

Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990) (best-interest presumption governs original custody; rebuttal required to award sole custody)
In re M.P.B., 257 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (grandmother standing; actual care, control, and possession can establish standing)
In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (standing analysis; focus on statutory framework and implied fact findings)
Jasek v. Tex. Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 348 S.W.3d 523 (Tex.App.-Austin 2011) (statutory standing framework governs who may sue)
In re H.G., 267 S.W.3d 120 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (statutory standing; six-month care requirement discussed)
In re Crumbley, 404 S.W.3d 156 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2013) (standing where grandmother shared custody; nonexclusive control permitted)
In re S.A.H., 420 S.W.3d 911 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (credibility and weighing of testimony on abuse findings)
Ohendalski v. Ohendalski, 203 S.W.3d 910 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2006) (deviation from standard possession order permissible for best interest)
In re Walters, 39 S.W.3d 280 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001) (deviation when standard order not in child’s best interest)