In the Interest of N.L.D., a Child, 344 S.W.3d 33

Blacks filed petition seeking managing conservatorship of N.L.D. alleging Haines neglected and abused the child.
Haines was properly served but did not file a written answer; she appeared at the temporary orders hearing and sought a continuance, and was ordered to submit to a drug test.
A temporary order granted the Blacks temporary managing conservatorship and visitation to Haines by agreement; later, after Haines failed to answer, a final order appointed the Blacks as joint managing conservators and the parents as possessory conservators.
Haines timely moved to set aside the default judgment and for a new trial; trial court took no ruling on those motions, and appeal followed.
Haines challenged standing of Jimmy and Angela, lack of notice of the final hearing, insufficient grounds to appoint the Blacks, best interests, and visitation order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Jimmy and Angela have standing to petition for custody?	Jimmy/Angela lack three-degree relation; Geraldine lacks required finding.	102.004 provides standing for third-degree relatives like Jimmy/Angela; Geraldine lacks no such requirement.	Jimmy/Angela lack standing; Geraldine has standing.
Did Haines’ appearance at the preliminary hearing entitle her to notice of the final hearing?	Final order valid despite lack of notice due to default and absence of appearance.	Haines had not appeared; no due process protection.	Haines’ appearance at the preliminary hearing entitles her to notice; final order reversed and remanded.

In re M.T.C., 299 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (standing in parent-child matters; de novo review of standing)
In re SSJ–J, 153 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (standing in conservatorship disputes)
Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing thresholds in statutory schemes)
In re H.G., 267 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (standing in family law; presumption of standing when within statutory scheme)
In re C.M.C., 192 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (standing requirement in family suit; dismissal if absent)
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Com. App. 1939) (default judgments; set aside if not intentional; meritorious defense)
LBL Oil Co. v. Int’l Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1989) (appearance and notice; due process in civil proceedings)
Bradford v. Bradford, 971 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (appearance through participation; temporary orders)
Runberg v. Runberg, 159 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005, no pet.) (appearance and notice; scope of appearance)
Smith v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 672 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1984, no writ.) (interpretation of appearance and participation)
Lopez v. Lopez, 757 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. 1988) (due process and notice standards)
Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (due process in medical and civil contexts)