i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 56 6- CV IN THE INT EREST OF S.L.M. , a Chi ld Fr om the 166th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-PA-02114 Honora ble L arr y Noll, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 18, 2008 AFF I RMED Gar y and Cindy

B., the adoptive par ents of S.B., appea l the trial court’ s decr ee of adoption g ranting the petition filed by Michelle a

nd J err y S. to adopt S.L .M. S.B. and S.L .M. are biologica l half-sibling s. Gary

and Cindy

B. c ontend the trial c ourt err ed by : (1) de termining they lacke d standing to intervene and re quest to be appointed S.L .M.’s sole manag ing conservators; and ( 2) denying the ir reque st on behalf of S.B. for visitation with S.L .M. We affir m the trial court’ s order
. B ACKG ROUND S.L .M. was b o rn on Oc tober 4, 2005. S.L .M. was re moved from he r par ents’ ca re by the Te xas D e pa

rtme nt o f F a mil y and Pr ote c tiv e Se rv ic e s and wa s pla c e d in a fo ste r h ome wi th M ic he lle
and Jer ry S. on Oc tob e r 28, 20 05
. Th e pa re nts ’ ri g hts to S.L .M . we re te rm inate d in a sep ara te c a us e04
- 07
- 00 56 6- CV

B ec au s e t h i s a ppea l i s n ot f r om t h e or der t er mi n at i n g t h e bi ol og i ca l pa r en t s r i g h t s bu t fr o m t h e dec r ee of 1 adopt i on e n t er ed i n a s epa r at e ca u s e, t h e j u r i s di ct i on al a r g u men t a s s er t ed by M i ch el l e an d J er r y S. ba s ed on s ec t i on 2 6 3
. 4 0 5 of t he T exas Fam i l y C o d e i s unavai l i ng.

- 2- on Oc tob e r 9 , 2 00 6. On

tha t sa me da y , M ic he lle and Jer

ry S. fi le d the ir pe tit ion to a do pt S .L .M . in the under ly ing c ause. Gar y and Cindy

B. f iled a petition in i n t ervention seeking to be appointed 1 S.L .M .’ s so le mana g ing c on se rv a tor s in vie w o f t he bio log ic a l r e la tio ns hip be tw e e n S. B . a nd S.L .M
. The trial c ourt deter

mined that Gar

y and Cindy

B. did not have standing to intervene and did not ent er an y vi si tat io n o rder

on beh alf of S .B. D I S CUS S I ON Gene rally , an interve nor must show standing to maintain a n o r ig in a l s u it

in order to inter

vene. W hit wor th v . W

hit wor th , 222 S.W .3d 616, 621 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2007, no p et.). Howeve r, an inter

venor in a

suit affe cting the par en t -c h i l d re lationship does not need to plead or prove the standing require d to insti tute an orig inal suit because manag ing c onservatorship is already in issue. Id . Be cause the rig hts of S.L .M.’s pare nts were previously terminated, se ction 102.004(b) of the Te x as Family Code permitted Gar y and Cindy B. to inter

vene as an “ other pe rson” if the y had subst an tial past contac t with S.L .M. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . §102.004(b) ( Ver non Supp. 2007); W hit wor th , 2 22 S.W. 3d

a t 62 1; In re N.B.B. , N o . 0 4
- 0 6
- 0 0 3 4 2
- CV , 2 0 0 7 WL 3 1 7 1 2 6 7 , a t * 6 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio Oct. 31, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Althoug h Gary and Cindy

B. a rg ue that section 102.004(b) applies only to interventions seekingpossesso ry conser vatorship, sec tion 102.004(b) a

pplies t o interventions see king both mana g ing a nd possessory

conser vatorship. W hit wor th , 2 22 S.W. 3d

a t 62 1; In re Hidalgo , 938 S
. W.2d 492, 495-95 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, no writ).04
- 07
- 00 56 6- CV

- 3- We reviewa trial court’s determination of standing to intervene under a n abuse of discretion
s ta n d ar d
. In r e N.L.G. , 238 S.W .3d 828, 829-30 (Te x . App.—For th Worth 2007, no pet.); W hit wor th , 222 S .W .3 d at 621. Ga ry and Cin dy B . d o n ot a

rgue that th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion in determining that they did not have substantial past contac t with S.L .M. I nstead, they
argue that th e tr ial c ourt

sh ou ld h a ve pe rm itt e d th e m to int e rv e ne be c a us e the y ha d a jus tic ia ble interest sufficie nt to confe r standing
. I n the alter native, they

argue that the a ctions by

Michelle a

nd Jer ry S. in pre ve nti ng the m fr om havin g su bs tanti a l pas t con ta c t w ithS.L .M . e sta bli sh e s e qu ita

ble
s t an d i n g. Wit h reg ard to their f

irst issue, section 102.004(b) e x plicitly sets fo rt h who may

intervene in a suit seeking t o es t ab l ish manag ing c onservatorship. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 102.004(b) (Ve rnon Supp. 2007)
. Gar y and Cindy B. did not meet that criter ia. I n a similar context involvi ng a step-g randpa

rent, the Te x as Supreme Court r ejec ted a standingargument based on a n asser ted jus tici able i nte re st, ho ldi ng , “ We c ann ot c on c lud e that [th e ste p- g ra nd pa re nt] h a s a

jus tic ia ble interest in the controve rsy sufficie nt to overr ide the statutory text ” that explicitly sets forth who may
s u e for acce ss. In re De rzapf , 2 1 9 S. W. 3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 2
- 3 3 ( T e x. 2 0 0 7 )
. Si mi la r ly , in th is c a s e , we
c ann ot c on c lud e tha

t G ary and Cin dy B . h a ve a

jus tic ia ble int e re st i n th e c on tr ov e rsy su ff ic ie nt t o
overr ide the statutory

text requiring them to ha

ve substantial pa st c ontact in or der to inter vene a s an “other person.” Se e id
. Wit h reg ard to their se cond issue, this court has r ece ntly held that equity

“ca nnot confe r jurisdiction whe re none exists.” In re H.G. , N o . 0 4
- 0 7
- 0 0 6 5 6
- CV , 2 0 0 8 WL 2 3 5 5 0 0 8 , a t * 3 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio June 11 , 2 00 8, no pe t. h .) ; but see In reH.G. , 2008 WL 2 3 5 5 008, at *4-604
- 07
- 00 56 6- CV

Se ct i on s 102. 0045 a n d 153. 551 w er e adde d t o t h e T ex as Fa mi l y Code t h r ou g h t h e pas s ag e of H ou s e B i l l 270 2 i n 2005 by t h e T ex as Le g i s l at u r e. Ac t of M ay 25, 20 0 5 , 7 9 t h Le g . , R. S. , c h
. 1191, 2005 T ex . G en . La ws 3906- 07 (c o d ifi e d a t T EX . F AM . C O D E A NN . § § 1 0 2 .0 0 4 5 , 1 5 3 .5 5 1 ). A s intr o d u c e d , H o u se B ill 2 7 0 p ro v id e d sta n d ing fo r a ll si b l i ngs; how ever, t he H o use Co m m i t t ee o n Juveni l e Just i ce & Fa m i l y Is sues m o d i f i ed t he o ri gi nal vers i o n t o requi re a sib l i ng see king a cc ess to b e at lea st 1 8 ye ars o f a ge . H o use C o m m . o n J uv en i l e J usti ce & F am i l y Is sue s, B i l l A na l ysi s, T ex. H
. B
. 27 0 , 29 t h Leg., R
. S. ( 2 0 0 5 ).

- 4- (L opez, C.J ., dissenting) . This court co n cluded, “Whether [a party has] standing unde r the Te x as Family Code must be determined unde r the Te x as F amily Code.” Id . at *4. Acc ording ly , Gar y and C i n dy B. ca n n o tes t ab l i s h eq u i t ab l e s t an d i n g. F ina lly , G ary

and Cin dy

B . c on te nd

the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in de nyingS.B . v isi ta tio n r ig hts
. Although se ction 153.551 establishes a statutory rig ht to seek s i b l i ng acc ess, sec tion 102.0045 requir es t h e s i b ling r equesting acc ess to be at lea st 18 y ear s of ag e. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . 2 § 153.551, 102.0045 (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). Since S.B. is not at least eig hteen y ear s of ag e, she doe s not have standingto seek sibling a cce ss. Id .; but see ge nerally Pa ig e I ng ra m Ca sta ñe da , Co mme nt, O Brother (

or Sister) , W

here Art Thou: Sibling Stan d i n g in Texas , 55 B A Y LOR L. R EV . (2003) (a rguin g le g isl a tur e sh ou ld e xten d s tand ingto bo th a du lt a nd min or sib lin g s and

a llo w t he m to petition court for sibling acc ess or visitation). I n their re ply

brief, G ary

and Cindy B. argue that S.B. is not re quired to establish standing
un de r s e c tio n 1 02 .0 04 5 in or de r to int e rv e ne or , in the a lte rn a tiv e , the statut e re str ic tin g sta nd ingto si bl in gs atlea st 18 y ears of age is unco ns ti tu ti on al. Ev en if we were to so meh ow det erm in e th at S .B. had standing to seek visit ation, howeve r, we would still aff irm the t rial court’s judgme nt. I n order fo r a sib lin g to be g ra

nte d re a so na

ble a c c e ss, the tr ia l court mus t fin d tha t suc h ac c e ss is in the be st interest of the child. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 153.552 (Ve rnon Supp. 2007)
. I n this c ase, the trial court he ard a

g reat deal of evidenc e of the animos ity betwee n Gar y and C indy

B. a nd Michelle a

nd04
- 07
- 00 56 6- CV

- 5- J err y S. Although Miche lle and Jerry S. testified that they wer e in favor of t he si blings visiting e ach oth e r, the tr ia l c ourt no te d a t the mot ion to e nte r jud g me nt, “ I thi nk y ou have c a ug ht t he m by surp ri se with all of these thre ats of appe al, and Ican se e why they would be somewhat conce rned.” The trial court fur ther noted, “ Idon’t think that putting any thing in pla ce by

virtue of a

n order or a dire ctive is goingto do any

thing but complicate the situation.” The tr i al co u rt ag ain expressed its conce rn reg arding the eff

ect the parties’ contention could have on S.L .M.’s best intere st at the hea ring on the
m o t i o nfo r n ew t ri al , s t at i n g: Idon’t think that is – I don’t think any thing is to be served by pursuing [t he sibling visitation] . Irea lly

don’t. I don’t see – That’s just goingto make thing s worse a nd it’s goingto make thing s pos s i b ly more c ontentious, and I

think we ar e g etting f

ar afie ld for what’s best for these children and, in pa rticular, the child that was a llowed to be adopted by

[Mi chelle a

nd J err y S.] . ... I t w ould be my

hope down the r oad that y ’all could put y our di ffe renc es aside and there could be some contac t later on, but Ic e rt a inl y a m no t in

a po sit ion to o rd e r t hat. There fore , even a ssuming S.B. ha d standing to seek a cce ss to S.L .M., g iven the evide nce pr esente d
a t tria l, the tr ia l court

wo uld no t ha ve a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

de te rm ini ngthat or de ri ngre a so na ble
a c c e ss t o S. L .M . b y

S.B . w ou ld n ot b e in S .L .M .’ s b e st i nte re st.

C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d. Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice