What is the summary of Grant Hanson v. Tara Louise Nugent?

In this SAPCR appeal, the father challenged a final order appointing the mother sole managing conservator, restricting his possession through a tiered supervised schedule tied to negative drug tests, and excluding evidence he said showed a disability, medication-assisted recovery, and a lawful THC prescription. The court reiterated that conservatorship and possession rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with sufficiency complaints folded into that review. But the excerpted opinion expressly resolved only the evidentiary complaint, holding it was forfeited because the father’s briefing failed to clearly identify the excluded evidence, address the trial objections, or provide supporting legal authority and analysis. The court affirmed the final SAPCR order.

Can a Texas trial court appoint one parent as sole managing conservator instead of ordering joint managing conservatorship in an original SAPCR?

Yes. Although Texas Family Code § 153.131 expresses a preference for appointing parents as joint managing conservators, that preference yields when the evidence shows that joint appointment would not be in the child’s best interest. Here, the court held that evidence of the father’s ongoing illegal drug use, including appearing under the influence around the child, supported appointing the mother sole managing conservator.

Does Texas Family Code § 153.131 require proof of parental unfitness before a court can deny joint managing conservatorship between parents?

No. In an original custody determination between parents, the controlling question is the child’s best interest, not a heightened requirement of clear-and-convincing proof of parental unfitness. The opinion treated § 153.131 as creating a rebuttable preference, and held that the father’s pattern of substance use was legally sufficient to support denying him managing-conservator status.

Can a Texas possession order require a parent to produce negative drug-test results before moving from supervised visitation to expanded possession?

Yes. A trial court has broad discretion to tailor possession terms to protect the child’s best interest, and it may impose a graduated or step-up schedule tied to clean drug tests when the evidence shows a history and pattern of substance use. In this SAPCR, the court upheld a possession schedule requiring negative hair-follicle tests before the father could progress from supervised visits to greater possession.

May a Texas court reset a parent’s visitation to supervised possession after a positive drug test?

Yes. When the record contains substantive and probative evidence of ongoing drug use, a court may condition continued expanded possession on continued negative testing and may return the parent to a more restrictive tier after a positive result. The opinion upheld a provision resetting possession to tier one if the father tested positive during later tiers.

Can a Texas court deny an expanded standard possession order for a very young child and instead use a phased-in schedule?

Yes. Texas courts may depart from a standard or expanded standard possession framework when the child’s age, health needs, and the parent’s conduct show that a more limited schedule better serves the child’s best interest. The court affirmed a phased schedule for a one-year-old child, noting both the child’s breathing condition and the father’s substance-use history.

What is the standard of review for conservatorship and possession rulings in a Texas SAPCR?

Texas appellate courts review conservatorship and possession rulings for abuse of discretion. Under cases like Gillespie v. Gillespie, Worford v. Stamper, and Zeifman v. Michels, legal and factual sufficiency are relevant components of that review, asking whether the trial court had sufficient information and then made a reasonable decision.

Is a complaint about excluded evidence forfeited on appeal if the appellant does not identify the evidence and provide legal analysis?

Yes. A party must identify the excluded evidence, address the trial objections, and support the appellate complaint with authority and substantive analysis. The court held that the father forfeited his evidentiary complaint because his briefing did not specify the excluded evidence or explain, with legal support, why exclusion was erroneous, citing authorities including Bullock and Borusan Mannesmann Pipe US, Inc. v. Hunting Energy Servs., LLC.

Sole Managing Conservator in Texas SAPCR: Hanson v. Nugent

Litigation Takeaway

"In custody appeals, preservation and briefing matter as much as the merits. If you want to complain about excluded evidence, identify the exact testimony or exhibit, make sure it is in the record, address the objection and ruling, and explain with authority why it was admissible. More broadly, trial courts can support sole managing conservatorship and stepped possession restrictions when the record ties a parent’s substance use to the child’s specific best-interest needs."

Grant Hanson v. Tara Louise Nugent, 03-24-00528-CV, June 18, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Williamson County

Synopsis

In the excerpt provided, the Third Court of Appeals expressly resolves one issue: it holds that the Father forfeited his complaint about excluded evidence because his briefing did not identify the excluded evidence with sufficient clarity, did not address the objections made at trial, and did not provide supporting legal analysis. The excerpt also shows that the court affirmed the trial court’s final SAPCR order overall, but the conservatorship and possession merits analysis is not included in the provided text, so any more specific discussion of those holdings must be treated as coming from the full opinion rather than this excerpt alone.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this case is important in two distinct ways. First, it is a reminder that SAPCR appeals remain tightly constrained by abuse-of-discretion review, with sufficiency challenges functioning as components of that review rather than stand-alone grounds. Second, at least from the excerpt provided, it is a sharp briefing case: even in a custody dispute involving drug-use allegations, medical-needs evidence, and contested possession restrictions, an appellate complaint about excluded evidence will not gain traction unless the appellant identifies the evidence, addresses the trial objections, and supplies legal authority and analysis.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This appeal arises from an original child-custody determination in a SAPCR. The Mother initiated the suit to establish conservatorship and possession orders and the Father’s parentage of the child.

According to the opinion excerpt, the parents dated during the COVID-19 pandemic, ended their romantic relationship by spring 2022, and later learned that the Mother was pregnant. The opinion states that the Mother wanted a sober household for the child, while the Father used illegal substances, including marijuana and mushrooms, sometimes mixing one or more of them with alcohol, and refused to stop. The court’s factual recitation further states that, at the child’s birth and at later doctor visits, the Father arrived obviously under the influence of marijuana.

The trial court’s temporary orders granted the Mother temporary sole managing conservatorship and provided that, because of the child’s age and the Father’s “substance use and abuse,” it was in the child’s best interest for the Father’s visits to be supervised, for him to abstain from illegal drugs, and for him to undergo drug testing before each supervised visit.

At final bench trial, the excerpt states that the Father’s drug use remained central. The Mother offered her own testimony and the testimony of the professional who supervised visits. She also offered evidence both about difficulties caused by the Father’s drug use and about the child’s diagnosed breathing condition, which required a caregiver to be regularly alert to the child’s condition. The Father sought, among other things, to offer evidence of what the opinion describes as “a prescription that he had been given for low-dose THC use.”

The final order appointed the Mother sole managing conservator and the Father possessory conservator. The order imposed a tiered step-up possession schedule based on the trial court’s finding that, “based on the credible evidence and testimony presented . . . there is a history and pattern of drug use by” the Father. Under the order described in the excerpt, the Father began with supervised possession on designated weekends, could progress to higher tiers only after presenting specified clean hair-follicle test results negative for illegal substances including marijuana, and would revert to tier one upon a positive test during later tiers. The fourth tier provided the rights in a standard possession order, but only after the Father had progressed through tier three and the child had turned three years old.

Issues Decided

Based on the excerpt provided, the court decided at least the following issue:

Whether the Father preserved and adequately briefed his complaint that the trial court improperly excluded evidence concerning what he described as his disability, medication-assisted recovery, and a “legitimate THC prescription under the Texas Compassionate Use Program.”

The excerpt also identifies additional appellate complaints raised by the Father, including challenges to:

the trial court’s refusal to appoint him as a managing conservator,
the appointment of the Mother as sole managing conservator,
the conditioning of his possession rights on clean drug-test results, and
the entry of a possession order that gave him fewer rights than an expanded standard possession order.

But the excerpt does not include the court’s merits analysis of those latter issues.

Rules Applied

The excerpt applies the following review standards and authorities:

SAPCR custody and possession issues are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The opinion cites Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982), and Doyle v. Doyle, 955 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.).
The abuse-of-discretion test asks whether the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules or principles, meaning whether the action was arbitrary or unreasonable. The opinion cites Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam).
No abuse of discretion occurs when some evidence of a substantive and probative character supports the trial court’s decision. The opinion cites Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied).
In this context, legal- and factual-sufficiency challenges are not independent grounds of error but are relevant to the abuse-of-discretion inquiry. The opinion again cites Zeifman, including the two-pronged inquiry: whether the trial court had sufficient information on which to exercise discretion and whether it erred in applying that discretion.
On briefing, the court states it has “no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error,” and it treats inadequate briefing as forfeiture. For that proposition, the excerpt cites J.W. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-23-00151-CV, 2023 WL 5208035, at 2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 15, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Rader v. Berry*, No. 03-11-00810-CV, 2013 WL 6665075, at* 1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 11, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bullock v. American Heart Ass’n, 360 S.W.3d 661, 665 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied); and Borusan Mannesmann Pipe US, Inc. v. Hunting Energy Servs., LLC, 716 S.W.3d 572, 574 n.1 (Tex. 2025), citing Bertucci v. Watkins, 709 S.W.3d 534, 541 n.5 (Tex. 2025).

The excerpt also notes that the case is a SAPCR involving an original child-custody determination and cites Texas Family Code sections 153.001–.709 and In re C.J.C., 603 S.W.3d 804, 807–08 (Tex. 2020). In the portion provided, the Father is described as relying on Family Code section 153.131 in his conservatorship arguments. The excerpt provided does not mention section 153.134.

Application

On the evidentiary issue, the court did not reach the substance of whether the trial court should have admitted the Father’s evidence regarding his asserted disability, medication-assisted recovery, or claimed THC prescription. Instead, the court focused on the adequacy of the appellate briefing.

The court explained that the Father’s brief did not identify what excluded evidence was actually at issue, whether testimony or exhibits. As to exhibits, the court noted that they were absent from the appellate record and that the Father’s brief did not address the objections the Mother made at trial. The court further stated that the brief offered no developed legal analysis for why the evidence should have been admitted, beyond asserting that exclusion “violat[ed] ADA protections and unfairly stigmatiz[ed]” him. The court found that assertion insufficient because it lacked supporting authority and did not explain whether or how the ADA affected the Rules of Evidence in this setting. On that basis, the court held the issue forfeited.

As to the conservatorship and possession disputes, the excerpt lays out the factual and procedural setting in detail, including the trial court’s tiered possession structure, the negative-test prerequisites for progression, and the trial court’s finding of a history and pattern of drug use. It also recounts the Father’s appellate arguments attacking sole managing conservatorship and the restrictions on his possession. But the excerpt stops before the appellate court’s merits analysis of those issues. So while the excerpt confirms the overall affirmance and gives practitioners a useful picture of the trial court record and order, it does not itself show the reasoning the court used to dispose of those merits complaints.

Holding

The excerpt expressly holds that the Father’s issue complaining about excluded evidence was forfeited because his briefing was inadequate. The court’s reasoning was that he failed to identify the excluded evidence with specificity, failed to address trial objections, and failed to provide legal authority and substantive analysis supporting admission.

The excerpt also reflects that the court affirmed the trial court’s final SAPCR order. However, because the provided text does not include the appellate court’s merits discussion of the conservatorship and possession issues, this excerpt alone does not support a more detailed statement of the court’s holding on those points beyond noting that those complaints were part of the appeal and that the judgment was affirmed.

Practical Application

For family-law trial lawyers, the immediate lesson is appellate-proofing. If a parent wants to defend contested evidence relating to drug use, treatment, medical authorization, or disability-based explanations, the record must clearly show what was offered, why it was admissible, and why exclusion was harmful. If that issue later goes up on appeal, the appellant must identify the specific testimony or exhibit, tie the complaint to the actual objection and ruling, and present real authority rather than broad fairness assertions.

For lawyers trying custody and possession issues, the excerpt also shows the importance of building a fact record that connects conduct evidence to child-specific concerns. Here, the trial court order described in the opinion tied supervision and testing requirements to the child’s age, the Father’s substance use, and the child’s breathing condition requiring alert caregiving. Even though the provided excerpt does not include the appellate merits analysis on conservatorship and possession, it does show the kind of record the trial court had before it.

Strategically, practitioners should keep these points in mind:

Preserve exhibits and offers of proof meticulously when exclusion is likely to become an appellate issue.
Make the nexus between parental conduct and the child’s needs explicit in the evidence.
When defending a stepped possession structure, ensure the order states the progression mechanics and reset triggers with precision.
When attacking such an order on appeal, do not assume generalized objections about fairness, stigma, or statutory preference will suffice without developed legal analysis.

As an analytical matter—not as a stated appellate holding in the excerpt—family-law lawyers should recognize that this record was framed around more than abstract drug-use allegations. The opinion’s factual summary emphasizes alleged observed impairment, the child’s very young age, supervised visitation history, and the child’s breathing condition. Those are the kinds of facts that often shape best-interest findings at the trial level.

Checklists

Preserving an Excluded-Evidence Issue for Appeal

Identify exactly what evidence is being offered: testimony, exhibit, or both.
Obtain a clear ruling from the trial court.
Make an offer of proof or bill of exception if the evidence is excluded.
Ensure excluded exhibits are included in the appellate record where possible.
Address the specific objection made by the opposing party.
On appeal, explain why the evidence was admissible under identified rules or authority.
Do not rely on conclusory assertions of unfairness without supporting analysis.

Building a Record for Conservatorship and Possession Restrictions

Present evidence tying the disputed conduct to child-specific best-interest concerns.
Develop testimony regarding the child’s age, needs, medical conditions, and supervision requirements.
Use third-party witnesses when available, such as supervisors, providers, or other neutral observers.
Request findings in the order that explain the factual basis for restrictions.
Draft possession provisions with clear testing requirements, progression standards, and reset conditions.

Challenging a Tiered Possession Order

Analyze whether the appellate record contains the evidence necessary to challenge the factual basis for each restriction.
Isolate the exact findings or order language being challenged.
Tie legal arguments to the abuse-of-discretion framework, including sufficiency as part of that review.
Cite the Family Code provisions actually raised by the record and opinion.
Avoid overreliance on undeveloped statutory-preference arguments without engaging the specific facts found by the trial court.

Defending the Judgment on Appeal

Lead with the abuse-of-discretion standard and the “some evidence of a substantive and probative character” formulation cited by the court.
Emphasize any deficiencies in the appellant’s preservation or briefing.
Point out omissions in the appellate record, including absent exhibits.
Frame sufficiency arguments within the two-pronged Zeifman inquiry.
Where appropriate, argue forfeiture before reaching the merits.

Citation

Hanson v. Nugent, No. 03-24-00528-CV (Tex. App.—Austin June 18, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~2e6eb676-866d-4d9a-89ad-3aa650272e83~~

Grant Hanson v. Tara Louise Nugent