Sharon Ann Gribble, Individually and in Her Capacity as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Michael Ray Gribble v. Brent Allen Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882

Guardian Sharon Gribble sues Brent Layton, alleged biological father, for paternity and support of her mentally/physically disabled son Michael; filing Feb 2009 when Michael was 36; Layton moved to dismiss on statute of limitations and standing; trial court dismissed under 1983 version of former Fam. Code §13.01; Sharon appealed; Layton conducted trial and presented DNA results; guardian obtained court-ordered guardianship over Michael’s person and estate.
Michael is disabled, with mild mental retardation and seizure disorder; he cannot self-support and requires constant supervision; Sharon’s pleadings assert Michael’s need for support and Layton’s paternity.
Layton argued standing via Fam. Code §160.602(a) and statute-of-limitations defense under §13.01; Sharon asserted guardian standing to pursue Michael’s claims.
Trial court found 1983 §13.01 barred the action; on appeal, the court must address standing first as jurisdictional; the court ultimately held guardian has standing and that 1983 §13.01 does not apply retroactively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of guardian to pursue paternity for adult disabled child	Gribble, as guardian, can seek parentage for Michael	Only the listed categories may sue; guardian not included for an adult child	Gribble has standing to pursue parentage as Michael’s guardian
Retroactivity of 1983 §13.01 to bar Michael’s claim	1983 §13.01 cannot bar as it did not apply to Michael’s pre-existing claim	1983 §13.01 retroactive and bars claims unless tolled	1983 §13.01 cannot apply retroactively to Michael; retroactivity analyzed under Robinson factors
tolling due to unsound mind	Michael’s unsound mind tolled the statute from birth	Tolling cannot extend beyond minority without clear evidence	Four-year limitations period tolled continuously from birth under §16.001; no end date reached within relevant time
Residual limitations vs. §160.606 applicability	Even if §160.606 retroactivity uncertain, four-year residual statute applies	§160.606 retroactivity would apply or residual statute governs	Either §160.606 retroactive or residual four-year statute applies; trial court erred in applying 1983 §13.01 and committed error; reversed and remanded

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1973) (dignity of illegitimate children and support obligations recognized by state)
In re J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1994) (rules on illegitimacy and paternity; state interest in support)
Perry v. Merritte, 643 S.W.2d 496 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982) (application of 1983 §13.01; tolling during minority)
Daurbigny, 702 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985) (retroactivity questions in §13.01 amendments)
Blake v. Blake, 878 S.W.2d 209 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994) (recognizes residual limitations after unconstitutional statutes)
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010) (three-factor test for retroactivity under Texas Constitution)
Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. 1993) ( tolling for unsound mind)
Doe v. Catholic Diocese of El Paso, 362 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (unsound mind tolling guidance)