in the Interest of N.L.D., a Child
412 S.W.3d 810
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- N.L.D. (born 2008) lived with Haines until 2010; Jimmy and Angela (paternal great uncle/aunt) sought managing conservatorship with Geraldine Black in 2010 for alleged neglect/abuse.
- A 2010 hearing resulted in temporary managing conservatorship to Jimmy, Angela, and Geraldine with restricted visitation for Haines.
- Haines was served but did not respond; a default/notice issue led to an order naming Jimmy, Angela, and Geraldine as sole managing conservators in 2010.
- On appeal, this Court reversed for lack of standing and notice, remanding for a new hearing.
- In 2011, Haines answered the petition; Jimmy and Angela sought to intervene asserting standing from past possession of N.L.D. over six months.
- A jury later resolved termination and conservatorship in favor of Jimmy and Angela; trial court entered corresponding orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to intervene in conservatorship case | Haines: Jimmy/Angela lacked standing; proxy/consent invalid. | Section 102.004(b) permits intervention with substantial past contact. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; standing exists under 102.004(b). |
| Termination and conservatorship evidence standards | Insufficient evidence that termination is in N.L.D.’s best interest; sole ground not adequate. | Some grounds supported; best interest shown; conservatorship appointment warranted. | Termination reversed for legal sufficiency; conservatorship upheld; remand for managing/visitation orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.L.D., 344 S.W.3d 33 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2011) (reversed for standing/notice defects; guiding framework for intervention standing)
- J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; appellate review framework for termination)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.1985) (due process and heightened scrutiny in termination contexts)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex.2002) (best-interest standard; different proof standard for termination vs. conservatorship)
- Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.1990) (appointment of parent vs. nonparent; burden of proof)
- In re D.M., 58 S.W.3d 801 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001) (best-interest analysis may rely on multiple factors; termination not required to prove all factors)