https://letherstay.com/

This case means that if people divorce and the children spend time with an unrelated caregiver, that caregiver can have as much say in who the child is given custody to as a blood related parent if the parent with custody dies.

While I sympathize with the father, a petiton is not going to hae any effect on a court ruling.

A lower court has ruled the dead mothers fiance of 3 mo can keep the child while a previous court ruled the mothers parents cant keep her as her real father has proven to be a good father.

This is gone to the state supreme court and if the fiance wins her it means any unrelated person in a child's life with divorced parents can possibly get custody though the child may have a related parent with an exemplary record.

Please study the case before replying off the handle. This case is another attempt at destroying the family.

The fiances lowyer claimed since the court had given agreed to custody to mom, that since mom died the child was actually a ward of the court and could be given to anyone with an interest.

The grandparents had already been refused custody by an earlier court because the related father was a good father and the court could find no reason to withhold the mans daughter from him and give her to the grandparents.

Then, the fiances lowyer got involved.

Sounds like the real father needs a better lawyer. Does he have one?

Top Constitutional lawyers of Wallbuilders had this concern on discussion earlier today on their radio program. I would think they have top class people on this case. Thanks.

https://wallbuilders.com/about-us/

There's a lot about this that is either being left out or doesn't make any sense. Texas law requires an unrelated person, such as a step parent, to have custody for 6 months before they can petition a court for custody. It's either going to get reversed pretty quickly on appeal or dad let the kid stay with step-dad for more than 6 months after mom died, which would make me question why that happened.

The constitutional lawyers at Wallbuilders would be aware of that. Fiances lowyer hit the lower court with a novel approach.

I'm sure the lawyer at Wallbuilders would address your call to them.

A friend was divorced in Idaho with a fifteen year old daughter, when her mother died (cancer). The Dad was at the Mom's house within hours of the Mom's death to pick up his daughter. Just to prevent this very scenario.

In this case, the step dad argued a bit. Saying the girl should be left to sleep in her own bed while getting used to the idea that Mom was gone.

Her Dad plainly stated that his daughter had a room and a bed at his house where she spent the weekends anyway. Step dad can get the hell out of the way now, or after the cops are called for interference of custodial rights.

Step dad got the hell out of the way.

In the case of the OP, at five years age, it does not matter much what the girl wants. She belongs with her Dad barring any reasons to legally prevent him as a custodial parent.

Buckshot is always the answer

I was a step dad, starting when my son was five. Fortunately the biological father was never much interested. My Ex was awarded child support but never chased the guy down for it,?planning to use that against him if he ever did show up. He never did.

My son refers to me as his father and I call him my son, could been awkward as Hell if my Ex had passed. On the thread we have a biological Dad shouldering a Step Dad out of the picture. In thirty plus years of teaching I’ve met lots of parents, step and biological, qualitatively no difference between the two.

But in this case the BOYFRIEND had been dating the mom for just six months? Unreal.

The parties to the suit do not agree as to how long the child lived with the boyfriend. He alleges that the child and her mother lived with him for most of her life. He basically alleges that even though father and mother had a 50/50 arrangement, it wasn’t followed and the child was with mother most of the time. Significantly, mom had filed a petition to modify the prior custody order at the time of her death.

Oh, and the child wasn’t taken her dad. There are just temporary orders in place that say boyfriend/stepdad gets visitation.

Signed and sent letter to Governor/Senators etc. etc. .

That's what I'm thinking.

The concern of this case is the implications, besides Anns situation.

If any of you grandparents are across nation and see your grandchild once or twice a year, and a baby sitter or neighbor where your grandchild spends a lot of time, and if both parents died, the folks spending time with your GChild could go to court on equal footing as you, blood relations.

This is an epic case designed to benefit lowyers, not blood relations of a child.

No, it has none of those types of implications. The rule has long been in place in Texas that anyone with whom a child resides for six months or more within 90 days of the commencement of the suit has standing to sue for custody.

In this case, the father hasn’t lost custody and won’t under any conceivable circumstances. The court just found that the step father/boyfriend had enough of a relationship with the child for visitation.

What court? The Texas Supreme Court? If not, why have they agreed to hear the case?

Judgement supposed to come in about 3 months.

No court. The Texas legislature via the Texas Family Code. Dad is the one trying to make new law, not the boyfriend.

But mainly to me, it looks like dad wants to try to use the parental presumption as a bludgeon.

The Texas Family Code gave the boyfriend standing because the child had been with him long enough. At that point, he was entitled to present his case. At a temporary hearing, he did and so did dad. The Court judged the facts as presented and gave the boyfriend visitation...not custody.

Dad’s argument might have more weight if he had lost custody. But he didn’t and he won’t. All the court did was decide that it was in the child’s best interest FOR THE TIME BEING for boyfriend to get visitation. This was done because boyfriend was a big part of the kid’s life most likely.

Now that is a whole different story. I am sure that the child can benefit from continuing a relationship with a man who has for years filled in as the father figure.

If the natural father has not been exercising his full custodial rights prior to the mother's death, he might be little more than a stranger to a five year old girl. As per JoeBob's statements, I'd say the court got it right.

Speaking as a man who raised a little girl from the time I met her when she was five, and speaking as the grandfather of a girl who's father died when she was fourteen. Her step dad has legally adopted her now.

Appears in 2016 the trial court gave deceased mother the right to designate the little girl’s primary residence.

In Sept 2017, deceased mother designated the little girl’s primary residence to be at boyfriend’s home and lived there for 10 months, which was more than the required 6 months (before the mother’s untimely July 2018 death).

Deceased mother was exercising her right under the agreed custody order. Mother chose to set up house with boyfriend, and boyfriend provided for girl’s daily physical and psychological needs and exercised guidance, governance, and direction.

Boyfriend proved he could co-parent for 10 months in a primary residence in a permanent home. Boyfriend produced his preponderance of evidence (apparently). He met his burden of proof under Texas Family Code 102.003(a)(9).

Texas Supreme Court ruled:

“Parental rights are fundamental, but neither the Texas Family Code nor the Constitution treats them as plenary and unchecked. The Family Code in section 102.003(a)(9) recognizes that a narrow class of non parents , who have served in a parent-like role to a child over an extended period of time, may come to court and seek to preserve that relationship, over parent’s objections...”

Deceased mother also left a $400,000 life insurance policy with little girl as beneficiary. So plot thickens. Who to blame for this mess? The law, the courts, deceased mother. Chit happens when grownups play “house” at the expense of small children. Too bad for that young girl.

The courts have watered down a child's right to their bio mother and father too much already.

This is what the insanity of sperm donors and homosexual "parents" gets you.

I personally think Texas has it about right. I practice in Texas and a few other states. In one state, if you’re not the parent, you’re pretty much screwed no matter what. I’ve seen some pretty terrible situations of parents more or less abandoning their kids for months, even years, to show back up take the kid with the non parent who has been footing the bill and providing the parenting all that time not having much recourse. Texas on the other hand, allows anyone who has possessed the child and provided care and support for at least six months to have a say. And basically, the rational behind it is that if you let your kid live with someone else for that long, you’ve kind of waived your right to object to them getting involved.

Now, in the present case, I can see that being a little problematic because mom went and lived with boyfriend and he is getting his standing based on the fact that she and the kid lived with him for more than six months. That is a little different than you letting your child go live with someone else for that long. But then it just becomes a question of facts. That is to say, that just because the boyfriend has standing to bring a case and be heard, doesn’t mean that he has a good case.

Another thing is that for the uninitiated Texas jargon is a little confusing. Custody is called “conservatorship”. Sole custody is called “sole managing conservatorship”. A parent or person with just visitation rights is called a “possessory conservator”. The default position for parents is Joint Managing Conservatorship which is joint legal custody. But joint legal custody is not 50/50 split time. It just means that the parents have the same rights. One parent will still usually be granted the right to “choose the geographic location of the child” while the other JMC will get standard visitation.

In this instance, the boyfriend is a nonparent possessory conservator which means he gets visitation. That’s pretty much it. It is also TEMPORARY it is entirely possible that after a final hearing, he gets nothing.

Thanks for that info, JB.