DALLAS Grandparents Rights Cases

Dallas Court of Appeals

In re M.P.B. No. 05-07-00093-CV (Tex.App.- Dallas June 20, 2008)(primary JMC for grandmother affirmed)
("M.P.B.'s father appeals the trial court's order appointing M.P.B.'s grandmother as the non- parent primary joint managing conservator and Father as a parent joint managing conservator. In three issues, Father contends (1) Grandmother did not have standing to bring suit, (2) the trial court denied him the right to a jury trial, and (3) Grandmother failed to overcome the statutory presumption that it is in a child's best interest to have custody awarded to a parent. We overrule Father's issues and affirm the trial court's order.")

In re B.N.S., No. 05-07-00016-CV, 247 S.W.3d 807 (Tex.App.- Dallas, March 19, 2008)(access denial on appeal) ("This is an appeal from an order granting Kathy Hartzog and Jerry Grills possession of their three grandchildren pursuant to the grandparent access statute. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.433 (Vernon Supp. 2007). The children's father, James Radford Sayman, challenges the trial court's order, asserting (1) Hartzog and Grills failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for such an order, and (2) the order is unconstitutional because Sayman is a fit parent and there is no evidence he would completely deny access to the children or that the children would suffer emotional harm if the trial court deferred to his decision. Because Hartzog and Grills do not meet the statutory requirements of section 153.433 of the family code, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment that their petition is denied.")

In re J.R.D., No. 05-06-01554-CV (Tex.App.- Dallas, December 19, 2007)(trial court order granting access
reversed by court of appeals; grandparent did not meet burden set by statute to rebut that parental presumption ("This is an appeal from an order granting Ted and Anita Dettmer access and visitation with their paternal grandchild, J.R.D. J.R.D.'s mother challenges the trial court's order contending, among other things, that the trial court erred in not granting her motion for judgment because the Dettmers presented no evidence to meet their statutory burden of proof under section 153.433 of the Texas Family Code. We agree the Dettmers failed to meet their statutory burden. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order and render judgment denying the Dettmers' petition for access. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion.")

In re D.R.D., No. 05-06-00666-CV (Tex.App. Dallas August 8, 2007) (grandparent access denied, no evidence to support applicable standard, i.e. that denial of access would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional well-being.)("To prevail on her petition for access, Rushing had to overcome the presumption that Randolph was acting in the best interests of D.R.D. by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that denying Rushing access to D.R.D. would significantly impair the child's physical or emotional health. Id. The record before us contains no evidence from which the trial court could conclude Rushing met her statutory burden. ")