OPINION
The principal issue presented in this appeal is what constitutes the “actual control” of a child that is required to establish standing to bring a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) under family code section 102.003(a)(9). See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.003(a)(9) (West 2008). Appellants Philip and Lorine Jasek 1 assert that they had “actual control” of the two children affected by this case where appellee, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), placed the children with the Jaseks and the children lived with the Jaseks for more than two years thereafter. DFPS argues that “actual control” turns on whether one has the legal right of control over the children, and the district court was persuaded to render an order predicated on that conclusion. We disagree with that conclusion, hold that the Jaseks satisfied the “actual control” requirement as a matter of law, and will reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
The material facts are undisputed. In February 2007, DFPS filed a SAPCR against the biological parents of two children, K.E. and T.E., seeking to terminate the parent-child relationship. The district court issued an order of termination in *527 January 2008 and named DFPS as K.E. and T.E.’s sole managing conservator.
In April 2007, two months after filing the termination proceeding, DFPS had placed K.E. and T.E. with the Jaseks, who were friends of the children’s family according to the record. The placement was made pursuant to a DFPS “Placement Authorization” agreement that required the Jaseks to “provide for the child[ren’s] daily care, protection, control, and reasonable discipline,” “enroll them in public school,” and “provide routine transportation.” The placement authorization did not allow the Jaseks to travel with the children outside of Texas or for longer than seventy-two hours -without first notifying DFPS, and it required the Jaseks to “give DFPS access to information about the child[ren] at all times.” It also advised that “DFPS, at its sole discretion, may remove the child[ren] from the care giver at any time, subject to applicable court orders.”
In October 2009, Philip Jasek tested positive for marijuana. Not long thereafter, DFPS removed the children from the Jaseks’ home. Before that positive drug test, both the DFPS and the Jaseks had intended to have K.E. and T.E. stay with the Jaseks permanently.
Two months later, the Jaseks filed what they styled as a “Petition in Intervention in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship” in the same cause number as the termination proceedings that had concluded in January 2008. DFPS filed a motion to strike, asserting that the Jaseks lacked standing to intervene in the termination proceeding or to file an original SAPCR regarding K.E. and T.E. After a hearing on the motion to strike, at which evidence was introduced, the district court found that—
• K.E. and T.E. had lived with the Ja-seks between April 2007 and October 13, 2009;
• the Jaseks were “Fietive Kin, not a parent, foster parent, or otherwise” to the children;
• the “[pjarental rights to K.E. and T.E. were terminated on January 10, 2008”;
• DFPS had removed K.E. and T.E. from the Jaseks’ home on October 13, 2009 as a result of Philip Jasek’s positive marijuana test; and
• the Jaseks had filed a “Petition for Intervention in a Suit Affecting Parent-Child Relationship” on December 17, 2009, asserting standing under family code sections 102.004(b), 102.003(a)(9), and 102.005.
However, concluding that the Jaseks lacked standing under section 102.004(b) because their petition was not filed during a pending suit and that they lacked standing under section 102.003(a)(9) because they did not have “control” of the children, the district court granted DFPS’s motion and struck the Jaseks’ petition. The Ja-seks appeal from this judgment.
DISCUSSION
In two issues, the Jaseks assert that the district court erred in granting DFPS’s motion to strike because (1) they had standing to bring an original SAPCR under family code section 102.003(a)(9) and (2) they had standing to intervene in the termination case under family code section 102.004(b).
Standard of review
Standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction and is a constitutional prerequisite to maintaining a lawsuit under Texas law.
Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd.,
“The Texas Legislature has provided a comprehensive statutory framework for standing in the context of suits involving the parent-child relationship.”
In re H.G.,
To the extent that the parties’ issues turn on the construction of a statute, we review these questions de novo.
State v. Shumake,
Standing to intervene under family code section 102.004(b)
We begin by addressing the Jaseks’ second issue, which concerns whether they have standing to intervene in the termination proceeding under family code section 102.004(b). The Jaseks’ pleading, which they titled “Petition in Intervention in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship,” asked the district court to name them KE. and T.E.’s managing conservators. The pleading invokes section 102.004(b) of the family code, which provides as follows:
[T]he court may grant ... a person deemed by the court to have had substantial past contact with the child leave to intervene in a pending suit filed by a person authorized to do so under this subchapter if there is satisfactory proof to the court that appointment of a parent as sole managing conservator or both parents as joint managing conservators would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(b) (emphasis added). Regardless of whether they are persons who “have had substantial past contact” with K.E. and T.E., the Ja-seks cannot establish standing under this provision because there is no “pending suit” in which to intervene.
The district court issued a final order in January 2008 that terminated the biological parents’ parental rights and named DFPS as sole managing conservator.
See
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 105.006 (West 2008) (establishing requirements for contents of final order). A final order in a SAPCR that purports to dispose of all issues and all parties is a final appealable order.
See State ex. rel. Latty v. Owens,
The Jaseks argue that in a proceeding such as this, where parental rights have been terminated and DFPS was named managing conservator, the case remains “pending” until the subject children have been adopted or become adults. They reason that family code section 263.501(b) requires courts in such cases to conduct periodic placement-review hearings after the entry of the final order of termination:
If [DFPS] has been named as a child’s managing conservator in a final order that terminates a parent’s parental rights, the court shall conduct a placement review hearing not later than the *530 90th day after the date the court renders the final order. The court shall conduct additional placement review hearings at least once every six months until the date the child is adopted or the child becomes an adult.
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 263.501(b) (West Supp. 2010). We disagree that the existence of this statutory duty means that the SAPCR remains “pending” in the sense that term is used in family code section 102.004(b). Section 263.501(b)’s reference to “a final order” indicates that the court has already decided the termination suit. The proceeding, therefore, is not “pending” by any ordinary definition of that term. This conclusion is further confirmed by the characterization of the subsequent activities as “review hearings,” denoting supervision with regard to the results of a proceeding that has already been concluded by the “final order.”
Cf. Brines,
We overrule the Jaseks’ second issue.
Standing to bring original SAPCR under family code section 102.003(a)(9)
Although the Jaseks have styled their pleading as a “Petition in Intervention” in the SAPCR that was concluded by the 2008 final order, this inaccurate nomenclature is not singularly fatal. Texas follows a “fair notice” standard for pleading, which looks to whether the opposing party can ascertain from the pleading the nature and basic issues of the controversy and what testimony will be relevant.
See Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld,
The district court found, and it is undisputed, that the two children lived with the Jaseks for more than two years. Consequently, they would satisfy section 102.003(a)(9)’s requirements if such care and possession constituted “actual care, control, and possession of the child[ren],” as the district court found they were “person[s], other than a foster parent,” the period of care and possession was “at least six months,” and the period ended “not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition.” See id. § 102.003(a)(9). DFPS, while acknowledging that the Jaseks cared for and possessed K.E. and T.E. for more than two years within the relevant time period, argues that the Jaseks failed nonetheless to establish standing under section 102.003(a)(9) because they (1) did not properly plead that they had “care, control, and possession” of K.E. and T.E. and (2) could not establish that they had “actual control” over the children because, at all relevant times, DFPS had sole legal control over the children.
Pleadings
As to DFPS’s challenge to the Jaseks’ pleadings, we note that the Jaseks’ petition asserted that “the Jaseks have general standing under section 102.003(a)(9) to file an original SAPCR.... Therefore, as a matter of law, the Jaseks satisfy the legal requirements to intervene in this case.” As facts in support of their standing, the Jaseks alleged that “[o]n ... April 10, 2007, [K.E. and T.E.] were placed in the Jasek home where they remained for approximately two-[and-a-half] years before the court removed them on ... October 13, 2009.” Although the Jaseks’ petition did not quote the text of section 102.003(a)(9), “actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition” is the only basis for standing provided in that section.
See id.
§ 102.003(a)(9). Thus, by specifically referring to section 102.003, subsection (a)(9), alleging that the children had lived with them for more than two years ending in October 2009, and filing their petition in December 2009, the Jaseks gave DFPS and the district court adequate and fair notice of their contention that they had exercised “actual care, control, and possession” of K.E. and T.E. sufficient to confer standing under family code section 102.003(a)(9).
See Horizon/CMS Healthcare,
Further, DFPS did not file special exceptions to the Jaseks’ petition. When a party fails to specially except to pleadings, we must construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the pleader.
Horizon/CMS Healthcare,
*532 “Actual control”
DFPS contends that regardless of whether the Jaseks properly pleaded standing under section 102.003(a)(9), they could not establish that they had the requisite “actual control” over K.E. and T.E. DFPS does not dispute that Jaseks had “actual care” and “actual possession” of the children for the requisite time period. However, it argues that the Jaseks could not have had “actual control” during that time because that requires having the “authority to make legal decisions, decisions of legal significance and including the responsibilities of a legal parent.” DFPS insists that only DFPS had “actual control” over the children because, as the district court found, DFPS was vested with the ultimate legal authority to make decisions for the children, including the discretion to remove them from the Ja-seks’ home at any time. We disagree that “actual control” under section 102.003(a)(9) hinges on whether a care giver possesses this sort of legal authority.
Our analysis begins with the statutory text, which requires that the person asserting standing have had “actual care, control, and possession of the child.” We observe that the adjective “actual” in the phrase “actual care, control, and possession” modifies each of the three nouns that follows. Thus, a person asserting standing under section 102.003(a)(9) must show actual care, actual control, and actual possession. Here, because DFPS does not contest care and possession, we are concerned only with “actual control,” which the family code does not define.
“Actual” is a commonly used word that means “existing in fact or reality.”
Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary
22 (2002) (contrasting it with “ideal and hypothetical” and distinguishing it from “apparent and nominal”). In legal contexts, the word “actual” is most often used in juxtaposition with the word “constructive”—i.e., something that exists by virtue of a legal imputation or fiction, but not existing in fact.
See Black’s Law Dictionary
40 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “actual” as “existing in fact; real” and comparing it with “constructive”). For example, in the context of premises-liability cases, the law distinguishes between actual knowledge of a dangerous condition—i.e., when a person directly knows of the dangerous condition,
see Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Jaquez,
Similarly, the law distinguishes between constructive and actual notice. “Actual notice rests on personal information or knowledge.... Constructive notice is notice that the law imputes to a person not having personal information or knowledge.”
Madison v. Gordon,
We need not further belabor the point— the law uses the term “actual” to indicate something that exists in fact, as opposed to something that is a function of legal duties or imputation. And we are to presume that the Legislature was aware of such usage and connotation, and deliberately intended that meaning, when it made “actual” care, control, and possession the basis for standing under family code section 102.003(a)(9).
See State v. Young,
As for “control” — a word which the Legislature included in seventy-three provisions of the family code but did not specifically define — it means the “power or authority to guide or manage: directing or restraining domination.”
Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary
496 (2002);
see Black’s Law Dictionary
378 (9th ed. 2009) (defining control as the “power to govern the management and policies of a person”);
see also American Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Traders & Gen. Ins. Co.,
Several courts, including this Court, have previously addressed section 102.003(a)(9)’s requirement that a person have “actual care, control, and possession” of the child to have standing to bring an original SAPOR. But in doing so, most of these courts considered all three elements — care, control, and possession — collectively, without distinguishing them.
2
Some of these cases define or identify the elements only in terms of what they do not mean.
See, e.g., id.
at 634 (holding that “[ojccasional visitation with or possession of a child ... is not ‘actual care, control, and possession’ under the statute”);
In re J.J.J.,
No. 14-08-01015-CV,
In contrast, we found only two cases that have addressed “actual control” separately in this context.
See In re K.K.C.,
In
In re Kelso,
the court held that a child’s paternal grandmother and step-grandfather lacked standing under section 102.003(a)(9) on the basis that the evidence failed to show that the mother had “voluntarily relinquished permanent care, control, and possession of [the child] to the [grandparents] for the six months preceding their filing of the suit.”
See In re Kelso,
In
In re K.K.C.,
on which DFPS relies heavily in its brief to this Court, the court of appeals held that an ex-boyfriend of the child’s mother, who had previously lived with the mother and child for approximately seven years, lacked standing under section 102.003(a)(9) to seek appointment as a joint managing conservator of the child. The evidence in the case showed that the ex-boyfriend, in addition to residing in the same home as the child, had attended the child’s school functions, been responsible for picking up the child from day care, disciplined the child, generally served as caretaker for the child, provided financial support, and was called “daddy” by the child. The court held that the ex-boyfriend lacked standing because the ex-boyfriend “had no legal right of control over the child and no authority to make decisions on behalf of the child,” and because the child’s mother had also “lived with the
*535
child, adequately cared for the child, and did not relinquish to petitioner or abdicate her parental rights, duties, and responsibilities.”
In re K.K.C.,
To the extent that these two cases construe section 102.003(a)(9) to require that either (1) a parent or conservator have relinquished rights over a child or (2) that the person seeking standing have ultimate legal authority to control a child, we respectfully disagree. First, nothing in section 102.003(a) requires that a parent or other conservator have “voluntarily relinquished permanent care, control, and possession” or that the person seeking standing have legal control over the child.
See
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.003(a)(9);
see also Smith,
Second, requiring that the person seeking standing under section 102.003(a)(9) have the ultimate legal right to control a child, in addition to reading words into the text that are not there, would render the word “actual” superfluous at best and meaningless at worst. As discussed, “actual” is used in legal contexts to distinguish between something that exists in fact rather than as a function of legal implication. If the Legislature wanted to tie standing to persons with the legal right to control a child, it would have either omitted the word “actual” or included the word “legal.” But by using “actual” to modify “care, control, and possession,” the Legislature manifested its intent to confer standing on a person who had developed and maintained a relationship, of at least six months duration, with the child by virtue of that person’s actual care, control, and possession of the child, as distinguished from a bare legal right of care, control, and possession.
In holding that standing under section 102.003(a)(9) turns on a legal right to make decisions of legal significance for the child and that the child’s parent have abdicated parental rights, duties, and responsibilities, the
In re K.K.C.
court relied on
In re
As for
In re
K.K.C.’s reliance on
Troxel
and a parent’s constitutional “liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children,”
see In re K.K.C.,
Regardless, however,
Troxel
involved a standing statute that the Supreme Court determined was “breathtakingly broad” because it allowed “
‘[a]ny person
[to] petition the court for visitation rights
at any time
’ ” and “failed to provide any protection for the parent’s fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her own [children].”
Id.
at 67-70,
We also differ with
In re K.K.C.’s
reasoning that construing section 102.003(a)(9) to apply to someone who lacks a legal right to control a child would create an “end-run” around the other standing provisions of the family code.
See In re K.K.C.,
Regardless of whether [the step-grandparent] satisfied section 102.003(a)(9)’s general standing requirements for filing a SAPCR — an issue we do not reach— the trial court awarded access based on the standards set forth in section 153.433, the grandparent access statute. As set forth above, [the step-grandparent] does not meet the more specific standing requirements to pursue a claim under that section. Concluding that [the step-grandparent seeking standing] had standing under section 102.003(a)(9) when access was granted based on chapter 153 would permit an end run around the requirements of section 153.432(a), a result the Legislature cannot have intended.
In re Derzapf,
Based on the statutory text and the foregoing analysis, we hold that to establish standing under section 102.003(a)(9), the Jaseks had to show that they had actual control over K.E. and T.E. — meaning the actual power or authority to guide or manage K.E. and T.E. without regard to whether they had the legal or constructive power or authority to guide or manage K.E. and T.E. — for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of their petition. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.003(a)(9). The Jaseks’ pleadings and the evidence introduced at the hearing on DFPS’s motion to dismiss established that they did. Among other facts, the unchallenged pleadings and the undisputed evidence showed:
• K.E. and T.E. lived with the Jaseks continuously between April 2007 and October 13, 2009.
• The Jaseks filed their petition on December 17, 2009.
• The Jaseks were obligated, under the terms of the Placement Authorization, to provide for K.E. and T.E.’s “daily care, protection, control, and reasonable discipline,” and to enroll them in school.
• DFPS does not contend that the Jaseks violated the terms of the Placement Authorization.
• The Jaseks provided K.E. and T.E.’s “basic needs for food, shelter, medical care, and therapeutic needs” and “structure, nurturing and therapeutic interventions,” as well as offering the girls time for recreational activities.
• The Jaseks provided “the structure, love and support necessary for [K.E. and T.E.] to be successful.”
• K.E. and T.E. “are very bonded with Mr. and Mrs. Jasek” and “happy in their home.”
• The Jaseks complied with the children’s doctors’ plan of medical treatment.
• The Jaseks enrolled K.E. and T.E. in school.
• The Jaseks were not the foster parents of K.E. and T.E.
We hold that, as a matter of law, the Jaseks had standing under family code section 102.003(a)(9) to file a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
Finally, in its brief to this Court, DFPS emphasizes various unflattering facts and accusations regarding the Jaseks, including Philip Jasek’s positive marijuana test and alleged instances where the Jaseks subjected K.E. and T.E. to “extreme forms of punishment.” While these allegations *538 may prove to be relevant to the district court’s ultimate decision on the merits of their petition to modify managing conser-vatorship, they are not relevant to whether the Legislature has given the Jaseks standing to bring their petition in the first place. Likewise, our holding that the Ja-seks have standing to bring a case does not mean or imply that they will ultimately prevail.
We sustain the Jaseks’ first issue.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the district court’s judgment striking the Jaseks’ petition and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. Pronounced "Ya-shek.”
. See, e.g., In re M.K.S.-V.,