Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
After B.M.’s mother died in 2023, the child’s maternal uncle and father each sought appointment as B.M.’s sole managing conservator. The uncle alleged that B.M. and his mother had lived with him for years and that B.M. remained in his care after her death. The father challenged the uncle’s standing and filed a counterpetition seeking sole managing conservatorship.
An associate judge denied the father’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Following temporary-order proceedings and a final trial, the district court found that the uncle had standing, appointed him sole managing conservator, and named the father possessory conservator. The father appealed, arguing that the uncle lacked standing to bring the suit.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying the version of Texas Family Code Section 102.003(a)(11) in effect when the suit was filed in 2023, the court held that the uncle had standing because the child and his deceased mother had resided with him for at least six months, with that period ending no more than 90 days before the petition was filed.
The record showed that B.M. and his mother had lived with the uncle, that the mother died in August 2023, and that B.M. remained in the uncle’s care until suit was filed. The father admitted that he had stopped living with the mother in 2019 and was not living with B.M. as of January 1, 2023. The missing transcript from the standing hearing also required the appellate court to presume that the omitted record supported the trial court’s ruling.
The court rejected the father’s contention that the uncle had to overcome the parental presumption to establish standing. Former Section 102.003(a)(11) imposed no such requirement. To the extent the father attempted to raise a separate challenge concerning the parental presumption, the court concluded that his briefing did not adequately present or analyze that issue.
Key Takeaways
- Standing was governed by the version of Section 102.003(a)(11) in effect when the uncle filed suit in 2023, not the provision enacted in 2025.
- Living in the same household with the child and the child’s now-deceased parent for the statutory period established the uncle’s standing.
- The parental presumption governing conservatorship did not add a standing requirement to former Section 102.003(a)(11).
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the threshold question of statutory standing from the merits of whether a parent or nonparent should be appointed managing conservator. A qualifying nonparent could establish standing under the former statute without first rebutting the parental presumption.
The opinion also underscores two appellate-practice points: the governing standing statute is the one in force when the suit was filed, and an appellant’s failure to supply a necessary hearing transcript can trigger a presumption that the missing record supports the trial court’s ruling.