Marca E. Mauldin v. Jerry Clements and Janet Clements, 428 S.W.3d 247

Background

Marca Mauldin and Mark Mauldin were divorced in 2004; Marca had primary residence determination for two children, with Mark paying child support.
In 2006, Mark filed a petition for modification seeking sole managing conservatorship and protection against perceived risks; Marca counter-petitioned for sole managing conservatorship and other relief.
Temporary orders in 2006 and subsequent proceedings led to appointments addressing custody, counseling, and medical decisions; DFPS investigated various abuse allegations during the pendency.
In 2010–2011, Janet and Jerry Clements (grandparents) petitioned to intervene, seeking custody due to concerns about Marca and alleged risks to the children.
After hearings and DFPS input, the court placed the children with Janet and Jerry as temporary managing conservators in 2011 and ultimately awarded them permanent managing conservatorship, with Marca and Mark as possessory conservators and supervised access for Marca.
Marca challenged the temporary orders, standing to intervene, sufficiency of evidence for the custody award, and the lack of written findings; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s final order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the temporary orders appealable and did mootness defeat review?	Marca contends trial court abused discretion in temporary orders issued before pleadings.	Janet/Jerry assert temporary orders are superseded by final order; mootness prevents reversal.	Issues moot; final order controls; affirm.
Did Janet and Jerry have standing to intervene in the modification suit?	Mauldin argues lack of standing under §102.004(b).	Janet/Jerry claim standing based on significant harm to children if parents retain custody.	Standing established; intervention proper.
Does the parental presumption apply in a Chapter 156 modification and was the evidence sufficient to appoint Janet and Jerry as managing conservators?	Section 153.131 presumes parent custody; presumption controls unless rebutted.	Presumption does not apply in modification; evidence shows change and best interests favor Janet/Jerry.	Parental presumption does not apply in modification; evidence supports appointment of Janet/Jerry.
Was Marca’s possession limited to supervised visitation supported by the record?	Marca argues no evidence of harm from unsupervised access.	Record shows emotional/behavioral issues and noncompliance with counseling; supervision warranted.	Supervised visitation to Marca supported; in best interests of children.
Were the trial court’s implied findings and relief properly supported given the record, and were written findings required?	Requests explicit findings; argues lack of written findings procedural error.	Record suffices with implied findings; no preservation of error for lack of written findings.	Implied findings supported; failure to issue written findings not preserved.

Key Cases Cited

In re S.M.D., 329 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010) (establishes standing framework in modification cases)
In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2000) (parental presumption not applicable to modifications)
In re C.A.M.M., 243 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (parens for standing in modification context)
In re M.J.G., 248 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (standing analysis for intervention by nonparents)
City of Keller v. City of Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency in review)