In the Interest of A.T., a Child

In the Interest of A.T., a Child, 05-25-00118-CV, June 12, 2026.

On appeal from 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Synopsis

A litigant invoking grandparent standing under Texas Family Code sections 102.004(a)(2), 102.004(b), or 153.432 must prove the jurisdictional facts establishing that grandparent relationship. Where alleged paternal grandparents offered no evidence that they were the alleged father’s parents, they failed to raise a fact issue on standing, and dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters well beyond grandparent-access disputes because it reinforces a recurring procedural reality in Texas family litigation: standing facts must be proved, not merely pleaded. In modification suits, interventions, conservatorship contests, and access claims arising out of divorce or nonmarital parentage disputes, practitioners must build a jurisdictional record that connects every statutory relationship in the standing chain. If lineage is part of the standing theory, the absence of proof on that link can end the case before the court ever reaches best interest, parental fitness, or the merits of conservatorship and possession.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying SAPCR began when DFPS filed suit involving A.T. in 2016. A 2018 order appointed DFPS permanent managing conservator, appointed the child’s mother possessory conservator, and did not establish paternity. A later modification proceeding was filed in 2019, and two groups intervened, including Willie N. Taylor, III and Terina R. Taylor.

The Taylors filed an amended petition in intervention asserting standing under pre-2025 Texas Family Code sections 102.004(a)(2), 102.004(b), and 153.432. Their theory was that they were A.T.’s paternal grandparents through Brent Taylor, whom they contended was A.T.’s father. Amy Christina Badstubner moved to strike the intervention for lack of standing, challenging both the paternity premise and the Taylors’ entitlement to proceed under the pleaded statutes.

The trial court dismissed the intervention. After final orders were entered in the modification proceeding, the Taylors appealed, arguing the trial court erred in concluding they lacked standing and in excluding them from the merits trial. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on a narrower defect than the paternity debate that occupied much of the parties’ briefing: the record contained no evidence that Willie and Terina Taylor were Brent Taylor’s parents.

Issues Decided

• Whether parties seeking standing as grandparents under Texas Family Code sections 102.004(a)(2), 102.004(b), and 153.432 must present evidence establishing the lineage that makes them the child’s grandparents.
• Whether alleged paternal grandparents raise a fact issue on standing when the jurisdictional record contains no evidence that they are the alleged father’s parents.
• Whether dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is proper when the only pleaded standing theories depend on a grandparent relationship that is unsupported by jurisdictional evidence.

Rules Applied

The court treated standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction and reviewed it de novo. It relied on the familiar principle that in SAPCR litigation a party must both plead and establish standing within the limits set by the Family Code.

The court drew its jurisdictional review framework from these authorities:

• In re H.S., 550 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2018), for the proposition that standing is a threshold jurisdictional inquiry in SAPCR cases and concerns who may file, not who should prevail.
• Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Beasley, 598 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2020), for the rule that courts construe pleadings in the plaintiff’s favor and consider relevant evidence when resolving jurisdictional challenges.
• City of Austin v. Powell, 704 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. 2024), and Town of Shady Shores v. Swanson, 590 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. 2019), for the no-evidence model applicable to jurisdictional fact challenges: once the existence of a required jurisdictional fact is challenged, the party invoking jurisdiction must produce more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.
• Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004), for the rule that if the evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact question, the trial court decides jurisdiction as a matter of law and must dismiss if standing is not shown.

As to the statutory predicates, the court addressed the pre-2025 version of Family Code section 102.004 and section 153.432:

• Section 102.004(a) allowed “a grandparent, or another relative of the child related within the third degree by consanguinity,” to file an original suit seeking managing conservatorship if statutory requirements were met.
• Section 102.004(b) allowed intervention by “a grandparent or other person” deemed to have substantial past contact with the child, though the Taylors invoked it specifically in their alleged capacity as grandparents.
• Section 153.432 authorized a biological or adoptive grandparent to request possession of or access to a grandchild.

Application

The court’s analysis was disciplined and jurisdiction-first. It assumed, without deciding, that the Taylors may have raised some question about Brent Taylor’s relationship to A.T. But that did not solve the standing problem because every theory they pleaded required a second jurisdictional link: proof that Willie and Terina Taylor were Brent’s parents.

That evidentiary link was missing. The materials the Taylors cited addressed Brent’s alleged paternity of A.T., including DFPS pleadings, court orders, a disputed birth certificate attached to their petition, and Brent’s written consent supporting the intervention. None of that evidence established that Brent was the child of Willie or Terina Taylor. The court noted that even Brent’s notarized consent only swore that he was A.T.’s father; it said nothing about his parentage. Likewise, Terina Taylor’s affidavit did not identify herself as Brent’s mother.

The opinion is particularly important for its treatment of bare allegations. The Taylors repeatedly alleged that they were A.T.’s paternal grandparents, but once that jurisdictional fact was challenged, allegations alone were not evidence and did not amount to more than a scintilla under Powell and Swanson. The appellate court also emphasized that when asked at oral argument, the Taylors could not identify any place in the record where evidence of their relationship to Brent appeared.

Because all pleaded standing theories depended on the same relational chain, the failure of proof on one link defeated every theory at once. The court therefore did not need to resolve the larger dispute over whether Brent had been legally established as A.T.’s father. Even if that question favored the Taylors, the absence of proof that they were Brent’s parents was independently fatal.

Holding

The court held that a party seeking to invoke grandparent standing under Texas Family Code sections 102.004(a)(2), 102.004(b), or 153.432 must establish the jurisdictional facts showing the claimed grandparent relationship. In practical terms, the litigant must produce evidence supporting each required familial link, not simply the child’s relationship to an alleged parent.

The court further held that alleged paternal grandparents lack standing when the jurisdictional record contains no evidence that they are the alleged father’s parents. Because the Taylors produced no evidence raising a fact issue on that lineage element, the trial court correctly dismissed their intervention for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also made clear that this evidentiary failure disposed of all appellate complaints, including the argument that the Taylors were improperly excluded from the merits proceedings. Without standing, they were not entitled to participate as parties in the merits trial.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, this case is a reminder that standing in SAPCR practice is often won or lost on record assembly, not legal rhetoric. Grandparent intervenors and original filers must be prepared to prove the biological or adoptive pathway that gives them statutory status. If the theory is “paternal grandparents through father,” counsel should expect a challenge to every jurisdictional step: the child-to-father relationship, the father-to-grandparent relationship, and, depending on the statute invoked, any additional elements such as significant impairment or access prerequisites.

The opinion also has consequences in modification practice involving foster placements, kinship disputes, and contested conservatorship interventions. Many practitioners focus on best-interest facts and assume relational status will be inferred from names, pleadings, or informal references in prior orders. This case shows that appellate courts will not make those inferences when standing is challenged with a no-evidence jurisdictional attack.

The strategic lesson is straightforward: if your client’s standing depends on consanguinity, put on competent proof of consanguinity. That may include birth records, adoption records, judicial admissions, stipulations, affidavits with admissible factual content, or testimony expressly establishing the lineage. If you represent the party opposing intervention, this case provides a clean roadmap for narrowing the fight to an omitted jurisdictional link and seeking dismissal before the case reaches the merits.

This opinion is also useful in divorce and post-divorce litigation where nonparents attempt to enter an already-pending conservatorship dispute. Standing challenges remain one of the most efficient procedural tools available. If the intervenor’s statutory footing depends on a family relationship that has not been proved, counsel should consider a focused no-evidence jurisdictional challenge rather than litigating best interest prematurely.

Checklists

Building a Grandparent Standing Record

• Identify the precise statutory basis for standing before filing.
• Map every required family relationship in the standing chain.
• Obtain admissible evidence proving each link in that chain.
• Confirm whether the client claims standing as a biological grandparent, adoptive grandparent, or under another relative-based provision.
• If the theory runs through an alleged father, gather evidence establishing both paternity and the client’s parent-child relationship to that father.
• Use affidavits that expressly state the relevant lineage facts, rather than assuming the court will infer them.
• Include authenticated records where possible, such as birth certificates, adoption decrees, or prior adjudications.
• Make sure the evidence is actually filed or admitted so it becomes part of the jurisdictional record.

Responding to a Standing Challenge

• Treat the challenge like a no-evidence attack on jurisdictional facts.
• Do not rely on pleadings alone once the opposing party contests lineage.
• Cite the exact record location for each piece of jurisdictional evidence.
• Address every attacked element separately.
• If the court can decide standing on a narrower missing link, do not assume proof on other links will save the case.
• Preserve your evidentiary presentation at the standing hearing with exhibits, testimony, or stipulations.
• If necessary, seek leave to amend or supplement the record before dismissal is entered.

Opposing a Grandparent Intervention

• Isolate the exact statute the intervenor relies on.
• Identify each jurisdictional fact required under that statute.
• Challenge missing lineage proof directly and specifically.
• Frame the motion as a jurisdictional fact challenge under the Powell/Swanson no-evidence model.
• Emphasize that allegations are not evidence.
• Argue that failure of any required relationship link defeats standing without reaching the merits.
• Press for a ruling before trial to avoid unnecessary best-interest litigation.

Drafting Practice for Intervenors and Petitioners

• Plead the standing statute with specificity.
• Plead the lineage chain in clear factual terms.
• Attach supporting documents only if they actually prove the pleaded relationship.
• Review every affidavit to ensure it states the jurisdictional facts expressly.
• Avoid assuming that a person with the same surname will be understood to be related.
• Anticipate an appellate record review and build the file accordingly.

Citation

In the Interest of A.T., a Child, No. 05-25-00118-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas June 12, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~203d71c5-d809-49a7-bca0-68695efd4ac6~~