### NUM BER 13-09- 0025 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
DA VID GRA

Y, A pp ellan t,
v. A NN W OOD SH OOK , A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 24 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a Opin ion b y

Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Dav id Gray , appeals the tr ial court 's appointmentof appel lee , An n W ood Shook , as so le manag ing co nser v ator of his daug hter , G .W

. By one is sue, Gray

co ntends tha t the trial court abuse d its discretion beca use (1) Sho ok did no t of fer suf f icient evidence of har m t o o v e r c o me t h e p a r e n t a l p r e s u mp t i o n ; ( 2 ) i f t h e p a r e n t a l p r e s u mp t i o n w as ov e r c o me , S h o o k d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h h a r m b y a p r e p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v i d e nce; and (3 ) Sho ok of

fered no evidence of

any specif ic acts or omission s byG ra y t h a t w ould2

si g nific antl y

i mpair the phy si cal heal th or

emoti onal dev elo pment of G. W

. W e rev erse and
re mand. I. B A CKGRO UND Dav id Gray

and L u cy W o od are the bi olo g ic al parents of G.W ., w ho w as bor n on July 9, 20 03. On Janu ary30, 20 07, Gray f iled a suit af

fecting the p aren t-child relation ship sta ti ng , "The be st int erestof [G. W .] w il l be s er ved bythe appoi ntment of [Lucy] as j oin t
ma naging conservator [of G.W .] w ith the ex clusiv e rig ht to designate the primary residen ce of the c hil d .

. . ." Gray als o re q uest ed that "appropr iat e orders be made for acc ess to t he chi l d a n d t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s a n d d u t i e s o f t h e c o n s e r v a t o rs
. " O n J a n u a r

y 23, 2008, Ann W ood Shook , G.W .’ s mater nal g ra ndmother , filed a peti ti o n in i nter v enti on sta ti ng thatsh e "w oul d s how th a t it i s in the besti nterestof [G. W .] that Inter v enor and Res pondent[Lucy] be appoi n te d join t manag ing co nser v ators o f [G.W .]. " Sh ook further requeste d tha t she "b e grant ed the e x clusiv e rig ht to esta blish the primary legal residence of the c hil d" and that Gray be a ppoi nted p o ss e ssor y co nser v ator of G.W

. Gray

then amended hi s peti ti on req uest ing thathe b e appoi nted joi nt manag ing co nser v ator w it h the
ex cl usi v e r ig ht t o des ig nate the p ri mary resi dence of G.W

. On June 30, 2 008, a benc h tr ial
w as hel d at w hic h Shoo k, Gray , Lucy , and C her y l Green t est ified

. Sho ok stat ed th at G.W . has li v ed in her home in Victoria, T exas since she w as bo rn a n d t h a tw h e n L u c y

m o v e d o u to f

S h o o k ' s h o m e a p p ro x i m a t e l y tw o y e a rs e a r l i e r , G

. W. cont inu ed l iv ing w it h Shoo k and her husba nd. Shook tes ti fied th at s he and her hus band hav e been "ra is ing " G. W . for "about a y ear-a nd- a- hal f." Accordin g to Shook , s he has fil led t h e ro le o f c o -p a re n t wit h L u c y, a n d s in c e G

. W

. wa s b o rn , S h o o ka n d h e r h u s b a n d h a ve "ta ken p art in all aspect s of raising [G.W .] togeth er" be cause Lucy "didn't kn ow how much par t [ Gray] w oul d be in her l ife." Shook

tes ti fied th at G .W . s pends more ti me w it h her than3

w it h Lucy

and th a t present ly , s he and her hus band are pr imar il y respon si ble for rais ing G.W

. Shook

ac know led g ed, h ow ev er , t hat L ucy w as sti ll prov iding ca re for G. W . and asked thatLucy be app ointe d joint m ana ging conse rv ato r. Sho ok stat ed th at it w as in G.W .'s best int erest for Grayt o be app ointe d po ssessory conse rv ato r and th at it w ould sig nif ican t ly im p a irG .W .'s physical health if th e trial court appoi nted Gray manag ing cons er v ator

. Shook tes ti fied that she w anted to be appoi nted manag ing co nser

v ator w it h the ri g ht to deter mine the resi dence of the c hil d. Acc ordin g to Sho ok, if

she w ere no t app ointe d ma naging conservator, it w ould sig nif icantly i mp air G.W .'s physical health beca use [i ] f [ G

. W .] w ere to b e take n away f rom h er residen ce, th e on ly hom e she 's ev er kn ow n, an d mov ed ac ro ss the count ry w here s he has no famil y , no su p p o rtsyst e m , I fe e l—a n d as an ed u ca to r an d w it h a d e gre e i n co u n se lin g, I feel that itw oul d be— and her g ra ndmother , I feel t hat i t w oul d be har mf ul t o h e r b e c a u s e sh e h a s a lo to f in s e c u ri t ie s n o w. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Shook sta ted that Gray "ar ri v ed" after G. W .' s b ir

th an d tha t he di d notpar

ti ci pate d u rin g t h e preg nancy and did not pay

for t he medi cal ex pense s re lat ed to G. W 's bi rt h. Acc ordin g to Shook , from the t ime of G.W .' s b ir th un ti l the ti me of tr ial , G ra y

had not h ad c ontac t w it h G.W

. on a monthl y basi s. Shook sta ted that Gray has had app ro x imat ely

three to four v is it s w it h G. W . per y ear i n the l astfiv e ye a rs. Shook t e s t if ie d t h a tG ra y li ve d in Ho u s t o n wh e n G

. W

. wa s b o rn ; h e t h e n m o ve d t o Ne w Je rs e y, t h e n t o D e n v e r , C o l o ra d o , a n d t h e n t o S e a t t l e , Wa s h i n g t o n
. S h o o k s a i d t h a tw h e n G

. W.
wa s b o rn , L u c y m o ve d in t o S h o o k ’s h o m e a n d t h a tfo r a sh o rtt im e , G ra y t o o k a n " a c t ive
rol e" a nd v i s i te d G. W

. atl ea s t ev eryo the r w ee k en d; h ow ev er , th e v i s i ts s oo n be c am e "sporadi c." Sho ok test if ied th at G.W

. has started pre-schoo l and tha t G.W . atte nds gy mn astics, dance cl ass , and play

groups w it h her f ri ends. Acc ordin g to Shook , Lucy us ual ly sp ends4

the n ig ht atShook' s h ouse and doe s n ot t ake G.W . aw ay for o v er nig ht v is it s b ecaus e the y d o n o twa n tt o "je rk[ G

. W

. ] b a c k a n d fo rt h

. " S h o o k s t a t e d t h a tsh e d o e s n o tin t e n d t o m o ve aw ay from Vi cto ri a. Shook tes ti fied th at G ra y

di d notac know le d ge G. W . as hi s c hil d w hil e Lucy w as preg nant, but after G.W

. was b o rn , a pat er nity tes t w as per

formed. Shook

st ated that
w hen Gray

w as transfer re d to New Je rs ey , he did not v is itG. W . "real often" and that dur ing that ti me, G. W . bon ded w it h S h o o k and Lucy ; Sh ook ex pla ine d tha t bon din g means "crea ting a safe place —a place in t he relation ship w here a ch ild feels saf e, un question ably tak en c are of." S hook did not bel iev e that G. W . bon ded w it h Gray dur ing the firs t y ear

of her l ife. She s tated thatafter approx imat ely

tw o y ears i n N ew

Je rs e y, Gr a y m o ved to Denver; during that tim e, he v isited G.W . tw o to three times p er y ear. According to Sh ook,
w hil e Gray

has liv ed in Se attl e, he has v is it ed G. W . t hree to four ti mes pe r y ear and that in the l asty ear , G ra y

had seen G.W . "[ a] l it tl e more reg ula rl y ." W hen as ked, "And if y ou
w ere to define he r w or ld of comfort, w ho a re the peopl e tha t are i nv olv ed i n her w or ld of comfortr ig ht no w ," Sh ook re p lie d , " My h usban d, my sel f[,] .

. . her mother [,] and her [mate rn a l] auntand her [mate rn al] unc le. " Sh ook cl aimed that Gray had not c ontac ted G.W . by tel ephone on a re g ula r basi s a n d t h a t to her know led g e, G ra y had onl y

ca ll ed G.W . onc e s inc e s he w as four y ears old

. W hen ask ed w hat the impac t on G.W

. w oul d be if sh e w ere remov ed from S hook' s h ome and mov ed to Seat tl e, S hook sta ted: It w ould be de v asta ting a t this poin t in her life. Her w orld as a f iv e-y ear-old re v olv es around he r safety and her se cur ity . And s he al re ady w or ri es and obses ses ov er

thi ng s b ecaus e of the ins ecur ity of her dad in and out of her li fe. The onl y

thing consta nt in her li fe si nce bir th ha s b een my

hus band an d I and her mother has been there as a presenc e. Shook st ated that her

"pos it ion i s [ Gray] s h o u ld s e e [G.W .] more often, th at he needs to bui ld a rela ti onshi p and be a full par t of he r li fe, not jus t v is itoc cas ion all y " and that5

it w ould be "d evastating to [G.W .]" if Gray w ere allowed to tran sport G.W . to Se attle becau se she had " n e ver been more tha n a n ig ht or tw o w it hout [Lucy], [Shook ,] or [ S h o o k ’s ] h u s b a n d

. " Ac c o rd in g t o S h o o k , n o r e la t io n s h ip e xis t s b e twe e n G

. W

. a n d G ra y; therefo re , Gray 's v is it ati on s houl d be inc re ased g ra dual ly "unti l [G. W .] feels safe and comfort abl e w it h hi m at [ the S hooks ’] home i n Vi cto ri a or othe r pla ces ." On re-direct examin ation , Sho ok stat ed th at alth ough Gray has bee n inte rested in
v is it ing w it h G. W ., "[t] he des ire for seei ng her more than he has been is su dden as of the las t hea ri ng ." Shook

bel ie ved t h a t if

G. W w ere transpo rt ed to Seat tl e, s he c oul d s uff er phy si cal har m, s uch as "sto mach [ aches ], throw ing up, g ri ndi ng her teet h." Shook

tes ti fied that the t ri al cour

t had ordered Gray

to v is itG. W . t hree ti mes b e f o re t h e e n d of the y ear 2007 be caus e Gray

had onl y vi si ted G.W . once that y ear and that Gray

had compl ied w it h the o rd er
. Shook deni ed th at s he and Lucy "resi ste d" al low ing Gray any v is it a tion ti me w it h G.W . and that they had "alw ay s encou ra g ed [G ra y] t o be par t of her l ife." W hen as ked to subs tanti ate h er

opi nio n tha t G .W . w oul d s uff er from phy si cal and emoti onal har m if s he
w ere remov ed from S hook' s h ome, Sh ook sta ted t hat: [c] ounse lors o ther

than my sel f, chi ld couns elo rs that [G. W .] has v is it ed w it h th at[ s i c ] ha s to l d me th i s an d i s w i l l i ng to te s ti fy he r e to da y . I t' s n otj us t my opi nio n, it 's

. . . Any adol esc ent chi ld psy chol og y book that y ou read, w hen y ou ta ke a c hil d's w or ld aw ay from t hem, t he onl y w or ld that they kn ow , and put t hem i n anot her

w or ld has har m f u l e f

fects.

. . . [And G .W .] w oul d not h a ve fa m il y su p p o rt [ if s h e m o ve d t o S e a t t le ]

. . . . [ G ra y] h a s n o to n e re la t ive that li v es in Seatt le. [ G.W .] in Vi cto ri a has a w ide famil y su ppor t s y ste m and that is the most impor

tant thi ng i n her

l ife. The tr ial co urt ask ed Shook sev eral q uest ion s re g ardin g Lucy 's parental inv olv ement. In her ans w ers, Shook

ac know led g ed th at Lu cy does not v is itG. W . ev er y day , does no t pay any ch il d s uppor

t t o Shook , and that Shook sti ll prov ide s financi al suppo rt to Lucy

. W henT her e i s no ev i den c e t ha t G ree n ha d ob t ai ned a m edi cal deg r ee, and she di d no t cl ai m t o be a 1 p s y c h o l o g i s t o r p s y c h i a tri s t. 6 ask ed w hy

Shook had poss ess ion of G.W ., Shook repl ied : Lucy suf fers f rom d epre ss io n , wh ich she is bein g treat ed for and sees a doct or and is t rying to g et he lp. Sh e mai ntai ns a j ob full ti me and s he str ug g les to prov ide a pl ace w here [G .W .] ca n come. S he s tr ug g les to prov i de a c ar
. S he ' s h av i ng a h ard ti me
. A nd she w ant s t o be a ful l ti me mother but she feels— and w e'v e al w ay s d is cus sed [G. W .] openl y betw een oursel v es— and w e f eel toge ther that it' s better

not to d ra g [G .W .] from one p la c e t o t h e o t h e r. Lu c y vis it s h e r a to u r h o m e a n d sh e m a y f in a n c ia ll y h a ve to mov e bac k i nto o ur

home w it h [G .W .]. Sho ok stat ed th at she believes th at G.W

. is sa fer living with h er rathe r than liv ing w ith Lu cy and t hat s he and her

hus band ha v e been the "o nly co nsi ste nt t hin g " i n G. W .' s l ife. Green, a l ic ensed cl ini cal so ci al w orke r, t e sti fied th at s he had been c ounse li ng 1 G.W . for tw o months pri or to the tr ial due to G.W .' s separati on anx iety . Green s tated that : [G. W .] has had s ev eral ins tabi li ti es in her life to date. She' s been back and forth w it h her

bi olo g ic al mother

and is cu rrentl y

resi din g pr imar il y

w it h her bio log ic al g ra ndmother and ste p grandfather . There' s b een i ncons is tenc ies due to the mot her's dif f iculties, w hich ha v e led to som e a n xie t ie s in this chi ld' s l ife. She ha s s ome se parati on anx iety , s he does n'tlik e to be al one, she's very

controlling, she's very

nee dy, need s lo ts of

a tten tion. She w on't s l ee p al on e i n a roo m. Accordin g to Gree n, sta bility and consiste ncy are very i mp ortan t to a child
ex per ien ci ng anx iety . Green ex pla ine d that a chi ld G.W .' s ag e is not abl e to bond w it h a person w ho v is it s ev er

y three to four months and that for bondi ng to occ ur , more freq uent cont acti s n eces sar

y . W hen as ked w hether i t i s d etr iment al to a re lationshi p betw een a chi ld and a p a re n t for

there to be i nfreq uent or l arg e g aps betw een v is it s, Green repl ied tha t it w ould n ot af

fect the rela tionsh ip in a positive m ann er a nd "a s far as the tw o pe ople bondi ng tog ether , i t' s g oin g to keep that from happen ing ." She op ine d tha t for a c hil d to bond t o s omeone, that person must be c onsi ste ntl y i n the ch il d's l ife. Green s tated thatto7

achie v e tha t lev el of

bon ding, the p erson sh ould h ave regular com mu nicatio n w ith the child by ma il, telep hon e, or "face-to -face. " Green testif ied that v isits once every tw o mo nth s are in a d e q u a t e fo r b o n d i n g t o o c c u r a n d t h a t s h e d i d n o t " fe e l " t h a t G

. W

. h a d an a deq uate bond w it h Gray , meaning thatG. W . "w oul d s ense" Gray as a s trang er
. Green opi ned t hat bondi ng co uld oc cur

i f Gray mai ntai ned reg ula r communi cat ion

. Green s tated : Yo u kn o w, f ro m wh a t I u n d e rs t a n d , t h e o n ly t im e [ G

. W

. ] in t e ra c t s wit h [ G ra y] is when he's here

. T here 's n o ph one calls, there's no letters, th ere's no little pictures senti n the mai l, none of those thi ng s t h a t w oul d be appropr iat e com mu ni c at i on w i th a fou r- y ea r- ol d, w hi c h i s freq ue ntw he n pa r en ts a re g eog ra phi cal ly

di sta nced, they

make the effort to hav e reg ula r w eekl y phone cont actor

so me ki nd of i nteract ion w it h a c hil d. Accordin g to Gree n, G.W

. c o n s id e rs Sh ook h er "prim aryparen t" an d she feels "safe" i n Shoo k' s h ome env ironment. Green tes ti fied that becaus e of G.W .' s s eparati on anxiety, a situa tion th at causes more stress, such as allowi ng her to leave her ho me , could
caus e l ong -t er m probl ems s uch as "[p]oo r per formance in sc hool , poo r soc ial iz ati on, difficul ty i n rel ati onshi ps" and more ser iou s prob lems such a s d epress ion and the r is k o f drug use. Green ex plaine d tha t extende d period s o f v isitation w ith Gray in Sea ttle cou ld
caus e G. W . t o "reg re ss , she coul d become increasi ng ly m ore anx iou s a nd more c li ng y ." Green state d, "I und erstan d tha t w hen she's g one on v isits in the pastw ith the fath er she's been t hrow ing up o ut of anx iety , pos si bly , s inc e i t' s b een a re cur ri ng ev ent." Green t est ified thati f G.W . w as re mov ed from Shook 's home, s he w oul d "freak out, " cling to Sh ook, cry , scream , and throw up. Accordin g to Green , if t he visi tatio n sche dule "is too acc ele ra ted," there c oul d be probl ems "s uch as the c onti nued v omit ing duri ng v is it s . . . bed -w ettin g . . . anxiety

. . . . May be even she w ould b ecom e mo re contro lling, mo re boss y , w hic h c oul d c ause probl ems w it h her peer i nteract ion ." Gray testif ied tha t he w orks for Skan sa, USA Bu ilding as an enginee r and his salary8

is $85, 000 a y ear. Accord ing to Gra y , in the p ast, th ere ha s bee n "so me resistance " to h is
v i s i t i n g w i t h G

. W. a n d t h a tt h e r e w a s d i f f i c u l t y i n e x e r c i s i n g h i s l a s tv i s i t a t i o n w i t h G

. W. Gray st ated: The day pr ior to m e m aki ng the tr ip dow n here I cal led Luc y , her mo the r—G.W .'s m oth er, tha t is—and in quired where an d w hen I could pick h e r u p , u n d e rs t a n d in g t h a titwa s n in e , b u t ju s t t o c o n f ir m t h in gs
. A n d [ L u c y] infor med me th at he r daug hter w as out of tow n and did n'tkn ow ex act ly w hen she'd return or w here sh e w as at tha t mo me nt butsh e w ould ca ll and inquire i nt o th at

. A nd I a s k ed h er t o fi na l l y r et ur n my

c al l a nd l etme k no w

w ha t ti me the n ext mor nin g I coul d pi ck her up a nd w here tha t w oul d be. A few hours l ater , s ev en o' cl ock my ti me, ni ne o' cl ock

here, I w as g etti ng read y to boa rd an overnight plane f lig ht do w n he re and I called ba c k

— I ' ve also called [Sho ok's] house at tha t time to see if I could f ind som eon e the re that coul d ans w er

that q uest ion

. Phone ca ll s w ere notans w ered, mes sag es w ere l efta nd I n ev er

h ea rd ba c kfrom t he m. And the next mo rning on my w ay down f rom Houston in a car, af ter f ly ing i n the re, I m a d e a n o t her roun d of calls w ith no answers or return m essages. And t hen l ater

i n tha t mor nin g I g ot a c a ll from [Sh ook] , i nformin g me th at they w ere i n Aus ti n or

so mew here i n tha t a re a and that they w ere thi nki ng abo ut lea v ing relatively soon , tha t the y

w ould be do w n in a few hou rs. Acc ordin g to Gray , t he v is it ati on that w as sc hedul ed to begi n at 9:00 a.m. actual ly beg an at 1: 30 p. m., an d he did not make t hat time up byretur nin g G.W . later

. Gray st ated that his v is it ati on w it h G. W . w ent "e x cept ion all y w ell ," t hey

had a l ot of fun tog ether and that he and G .W . hav e a s trong heal thy bond and rela ti onshi p. Gray testif ied that he liv es w ith his gir lf riend, Allison, in a hou se h e re c e n t ly pur chas ed and that there i s a bedroom for G .W

. Gray st arted a coll eg e f und for G.W . and provides hea lth insuran ce for G.W ., w hich he sta rted do ing "imm edia tely followi ng the f irst month of [ G.W .' s] li fe." Gray cl aimed that at t he ti me of G.W .' s b ir th, itw as "v er

y unc lea r
w ho th e fath er w as" and t h at w as the reason Lucy carr ied he r ow n me dical insuran ce dur ing the preg nancy

and bir th. Gray s ta te d th ath e w as req ue s ti ng c us to dy o f G .W

. be c au s e i t had b ec om e9

inc re asi ng ly

di ff ic ultto be as i nv olv ed in her li fe as he w oul d l ik e to be. Gray tes ti fied th at he had not b een aw are tha t G .W . l ived w it h Shoo k u nti l she filed her peti ti on for int er v enti on; t herefore, w hen he became aw are o f t h e s ituati on, G ra y

dec ide d tha t he shou ld seek cust ody of G.W . Gray

believed tha t G.W .'s liv ing condition s w ere tem pora ry and "evolv ed o ut of

co nvenience almo st in thatLucy w as no t taking care of [G.W .] as m uch
as needed

. . . ." He als o beli ev ed that he coul d prov ide for G .W . and nur ture and lov e her
as much a s S hook has. G ra y st ated: Lucy's interest i n [ G .W .'s] upb ringi ng has notbee n as w e w ould hop e as a parent, and I thinkthat's ev en gone sli g htl y less ov er

the y ears and justki nd of w it hered aw ay
. I thi nk as a y oung mother she' s b een, y ou k now , relu cta nt to g iv e up par

ts of her li fe that, y ou k now , are enj oy ed by si ng le peopl e and it 's put [G. W .] in an unc omfortabl e s it uati on th ere. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , G ra y st ate d thatLuc y

had not b een w il li ng to prov ide f inan cial supp ort and time to G.W . butthathe ha s don e so. G ra y s tate d tha t he liv ed in New Je rs ey for approx imat ely one y ear and that he w oul d be "hard press ed to recal l the
ex ac t n u mb e r " o f t i me s h e v i s i t e d G

. W

. , b u t t h o u g h t h e s a w h e r e v e r y tw o months on av erag e. Gray

cl aimed that at t hat t ime, i t w as difficul t t o c ontac t G .W ., and Lucy made
v is it ati on di ff ic ultfor h im b y onl y al low ing sh ort, super

v is ed v is it s w ith G .W . Gray st ated that w hen he li v ed i n Col o rado, he v is it ed G. W . on av erag e ev er y tw o months

. Gray testif ied th at he w as un able to v isit G.W . on a m ont hly basis be cause his emp loyer only all ow ed te n day s o f v acat ion per y ear and therefore, "[t] here's not tha t m a n y day s i n the y ear v a ca ti onw is e to do th at." On cross ex aminat ion by Shook 's att or ney , G ra y tes ti fied that in order to v is it G.W

. in Vi cto ri a, he is re q uired to tak e at lea st "three day s o f v acat ion
w ra pped around a w eeken d." Therefore, Gray sta ted, "Ten day s of v acat ion means y ou do that three ti mes a y ear , y ou'v e us ed y our v acat ion for t hat y ear ." Gray al so ex pla ine d10

that itw as ex pensi v e to make more v isi ts

. W hen as ked if he h ad "te lep hone v is it s" w it h G.W ., Gray

repl ied , "I hav e in the p asthad many phone conv ersat ion s w it h her

. In recent months phone cal ls are unans w ered, u nretur ned. Phone records coul d eas il y i ndi cat e the hundreds of phone c all s t abbed a nd made. " N o phone records w ere adm it ted i nto t he
re cord. Gray

admi tted that he d eci ded notto loo k for empl oy ment i n Tex as alt houg h he believed th at he could ha v e foun d a job th ere. W hen asked w hy he c h o s e n o t to liv e in T exas if his prima ry

conside ration w as G.W ., Gray respo nde d, "I don 't believe locatio n is exclusiv e of

v isiting my daughte r. T hose tw o things don 't have to contradict each other in any w ay ." Gray

ex pla ine d tha t mov ing to Seatt le w oul d all ow hi m more v is it ati on ti me w it h G.W . bec ause he made more money and he w oul d nev er

be a sk ed to r e loc ate from Seatt le. Ac cordin g to Gray , if G.W

. mov ed to Seatt le to li v e w it h hi m, due to t he flex ibi li ty of his w ork sched ule, he could on certain occasio ns w ork f rom hom e and w ould b e a b le to tran sport G.W . to an d f rom h er schoo l. G ra y st a t e d t h a tt h e re a s o n h e c o u ld n o t vis it wit h G

. W

. m o re t h a n o n c e e ve ry two months i s d ue to her

i nabi li ty to lea v e Vi cto ri a. Gray thou g ht t hat i t w oul d hav e been bette r if G.W

. had been all ow ed to trav el by pl ane t o v is ithi m in addi ti on to hi s v is it s t o Vi cto ri a. Acc ordin g to Gray , for "cl ose to three y ears," he attempted to neg oti ate w it h Lucy a pl an for G.W

. t o visit him. Gray ex plaine d, "I w as ho ping thatw e cou ld eventua lly w ork someth ing out that w as mutual ly ag re eabl e. Eventual ly co mmunic ati ons hav e broken dow n to the p oin t t hat p hone c all s a re unretur ned, unans w ered, and they w ere unben din g in the ir re qu e s t s and dem and s." Gray ackno w ledged th at "[ v ]isitation w as highly
re strain ed, b ut as a mat ure, respon si ble parent [ he] a lw ay s h ope[d] and [hi s] g oal w as that11

[he a nd Lucy] c oul d w or k o ut s ome mutual ly ag re eabl e ter ms and co ndi ti ons of that." Acc ordin g to Gray , hi s b ond w it h G. W . i s "v er y strong ," but b ecaus e of the re cent "extraor d in a rily strain ed" rela ti ons, co ntac t w it h G. W . has not been pe rmi tted. Gray tes ti fied th at w hen he v is it ed w it h G. W ., she did not demonst ra te anybehav iors i ndi cat ing tha t she w as suf

fering f rom sepa ration a nxiety

. Gray state d, "Re garding her g ettin g sick, she's gotte n sick o ne time in m y p resen ce. During my last v isit I picked he r up f rom d ance and s he w as il l on the w ay home in the car and re cov ered w it hin the hour and w as pla y ing ag ain ." Gray

tes ti fied th at he pi ck ed G. W . up at Lu cy 's resi dence "a nu mber of times " and also f rom Sh ook's residen ce for visitation. Gray state d tha t it h ad bee n "less th an a y ear" si nce he pi ck ed G. W . up at Lu cy 's resi dence

. Gray claime d tha t he w as una w are tha t G.W

. resided w ith Sho ok an d tha t his "fam ily [i n Vi cto ri a] di dn'tkn ow ." W hen ask ed, "How hard do y ou thi nk itw oul d hav e been had y ou lo o k e d t o f ig u re o u twh e re t h e ch il d wa s li vin g, " G ra y r e s p o n d e d , " Ho w h a rd wo u ld ith a ve b e e n h a d I lo o k e d ? I l o o k e d a s f a r a s I co u ld ; t h a tis , sh e cl e a rl y m a in t a in e d two re s id e n c e s
. T h a tis , a ll o f h e r t o ys we re b o t h a t[ L u c y' s ] h o u s e a n d s h e h a d a l o to f t o ys at [ Shook 's ] hou se. As recent ly as y est e rd a y, f o r e x ample, [G .W .] sta ted I l iv e w it h [Shook]. Oh, I' m not suppo sed to s ay that ." Shook 's tr ial co unsel as ked Gray i f he ag re ed w it h Green' s tes ti mony that itw as not in G.W .'s b est "int erest to be upro ote d and m oved to Sea ttle." Gray replied , "I don 't sir, in that I bel iev e tha t s he's i n a d amag ing and dest ru ct ive env ironment c ur re ntl y and that currently her care is l oving and nurtu ring but a little bit over cont rolling and posse ssiv e in
a w ay tha t ma y

lead to some of

thes e issues." Duri ng re-cross examina tion, Shoo k's
couns el ask ed, "W oul d tha t be in [G. W .' s] besti nterestto re mov e her thatdi sta nce from12

the p eopl e tha t hav e tak en c are of her dur ing the firs t fiv e y ears o f her li fe," Gray repl ied : T a k e n c a re o f h e r, I d o n ' t re a ll y a c c e p th o w yo u u s e t h e p h ra s e , b u tI b e li e ve it w ou ld b e i n her bestinterest. The y 'v e cared for her and I g reatly appreci ate w hat t hey

hav e done to prov ide the temporar y so lut ion they

hav e. T hatas a mo re perm ane nt solu tion I see her liv ing w ith one of her paren ts, and t hat w o u l d b e my s e l f i f t h e mo t h e r i s n o t t a k i n g c a r e o f h e r , w h i c h has bee n the case. So, I believe tha t it w ould be in mydau ghter's best inte rest to resi de w it h me i n Seattl e. W hen ask e d i f

G raybel iev ed he had "s tepped up to the pla te an d as sumed the
re spons ibi li ty

a pa re nt s houl d," G ra y respon ded, Y es, I hav e stepped up to the pla te i n tha t I hav e c onsi ste ntl y been in her

l ife. As soon as I had anyindi cat ion she w asn' t l iv ing w it h her bi olo g ic al parent, I p re s s e d fo r th is , ri gh t ? T h a t ' s wh y we ' re h e re t o d a y, is b e c a u s e I h a ve b e e n t r y i n g t o s t e p u p t o t h e p l a t e a n d s e e km o r e a n d m o r e t i m e w i t h G

. W. since th e day she w as bo rn, w hile the y have pushe d v eryhard ba ck against that. Gray claime d tha t imm edia tely af ter G.W . w as bo rn, he initia ted some action , w hich he di d notex pla in, i n order to ass ert hi s p are n ta l rights. Shook 's att or ney st ated, "Y ou hav en'tdone anythi ng to est abl is h ri g hts to poss ess ion and acc ess to medic al records and to scho ol records, yo u hav en'tdone any of those thin g s unti l y ou f il ed this l aw sui t." Gray replied , "T hat 's n o tt ru e i n t hat , as state d, right af ter she was born w e sou ght all those things w hich you just discusse d and

. . . ." W hen Shoo k's counse l asked Gray to produ ce the court orde rs establishin g tho se rig hts, Gray said, "W e could p ull them up. T here w ere court ord ers, the re w ere att orne y s inv olved the m ont h after she was born in vo lvi ng just
w hat y ou're di sc uss ing , s ir ." Lucy 's tr ial couns el then ask ed th e tr ial co urt t o tak e j udi ci al not ice of t h e f a c tthatthe pe ndin g action w as the only suit af fecting the paren t-child
re lat ion shi p tha t had been ini ti ated and t hat i t w as not fil ed one month after G. W . w as bor n. Gray then stated, "T hat' s cor re ct, it nev er reach ed—i t nev er

reache d the co urt atthatpoi nt,
w e w ere ne gotiating between th e att orne y s and it w as, like I sa id, a stan dard paren tal—I13

forg et t he r ig ht ter m for it ri g ht now —butacknow led g ment of parent, thatso rtof thi ng that
w e w ent t hroug h at that ti me." Lucy tes ti fied th at G.W

. li v es w it h Shook and has li v ed at the S hook re si dence for
a p p ro xim a tel y

one y ear
. Lucy

st ated that she and Sh ook deci ded t o s hare the parental
re spons ibi li ti es becau se Lucy "needed hel p rais ing " G. W

. Acc ordin g to Lucy , s he w as dia g nosed w it h depress ion w hen she w as in eig hth g ra de, a nd s inc e the n, s he has been tak ing m edi cat ion for

that disea se. After G.W . w as bor n, Lucy mov ed i n w it h Shoo k a nd liv ed th ere two or three y ears. Lu cy state d tha t she be liev es t h a ti ti s i n G .W .'s best i n t e r e s tt o c o n t i n u e l i v i n g w i t h S h o o ka n d t h a ts h e i s a v a i l a b l e t o p a rt i c i p a t e i n ra i s i n g G

. W. Lucy deni ed that she ev er prev ented Gray from v is it ing w it h G. W . and cl aimed that she "encou ra g ed" hi m to v is itreg ula rl y and more often. L ucy

st ated that itw oul d be bette r for G.W . if

Gray had more conta ct w ith he r. Lucyalso d e n ie d tha t she ignored Gray 's telep hon e calls. Lucy ex plaine d tha t the "sup erv ised" v isits occurred w hen she w as brea st feeding G.W ., w hic h she did for "a l it tl e ov er

a y ear ." Therefore, i t w as "neces sar y " for h er to be present dur ing thos e v is it ati ons. Lucy tes ti fied that she did not w ant t o prev ent G ra y f rom havi ng v isits w ith G.W

. and tha t she believes it is "very imp ortan t" fo r G.W

. t o v isit G ra y. Lucy

st ated that G.W . w as "aro und" tw o w hen Gray mov ed to N ew

Je rs ey and that she was not aware of

any requ e s t s f ro m G rayfor G.W . to be f low n to New Jersey for a
v isit. Lucy testif ied th at she has con cerns ab outallow ing G. W . to f ly to Sea ttle be cause she su f fers f rom se para tion anxiety and she w ould be scared due to her young age. Lucy agreed th at she w ould work w ith G.W

. to help h er o v ercom e he r anxi ety. H owev er, Lucy did no t believe thatit w ould be in G.W .'s best i n t e re s t for Grayto be a ppo inted sole14

ma naging conservator and thatit was i n G.W .'s best int erest to contin ue liv ing w ith Sho ok. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Lucy sa id that itw as not tr ue that Gray had pl aced hundreds of tele phone c all s t o G. W

. Rat her , s he te sti fied th at be fore t he s uitw as filed , G ra y ca ll ed approx imat ely

tw ic e a mont h to tal k t o G. W

. Lucy st ated that Gray

v is it ed G. W . tw o or three ti mes per y ear , usual ly dur ing a hol ida y l ik e C hr is tmas or

Thanks g iv ing

. W hen as ked
w hy Gray di d notv is itmore often, L u cyrepl ied , "I g uess numerous re asons , bei ng the expense , the trav el expense . Other pl a n s
. F o r exam ple, h e ha d a four-or f iv e-da y trip dow n to Tex as ov er

N e w Yea r's E ve once and w as onl y i n Vi cto ri a two day s o ut of tha t ti me, th e oth er

three day s h e s pent in Aust in or D all as w it h fri ends. " Lucy bel iev ed th at G ra y ' s i n f r e q u e n tv i s i t s h a v e " d a m a g e d " h i s re l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G

. W. The tr ial co urt app oin ted S hook manag ing conser v ator w it h the r ig ht t o det er mine G.W .'s residen ce an d app ointe d Gray and Lucy posse ssory conse rv ato rs. Th e trial court
ordered th at ne it her

pos ses sor

y co nser v ator l iv e i n the sa me resi dence w it h G. W . and Sho ok. T he trial cou rt ente red f in d in gs o f fact an d con clusions o f law , w hich sta ted in per ti nent par

t: 4. The Cou rt finds that at the ti me of fili ng of the Peti ti on i n Int er v enti on, Inter v enor [Sh ook] had act ual ca re , c ontrol, and poss ess ion of the chi ld made the subj ect of t his sui t for more than si x months endi ng no mo re than 90 da y s preced ing the dat e of f iling of t h e P e t ition in Inter v enti on. 5. The Co urt finds thati t i s i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d made t he subj ectof thi s s uitthat[Sh ook] be a p p o int ed Sol e M anag ing Con ser v ator of the c hil d made t he s ubj ectof thi s s uit

. 6. The Co urt finds thati t i s i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d made t he subj ectof thi s s uitthat[G ra y] be appoi nted poss ess or y co nser v ator of the c hil d made t he s ubj ectof thi s s uit

. 7. T he C our

t finds thatappoi ntment of [Gray] as j oin t manag ing conse rv ato r of the child ma de th e subject of this suit w ould not be in15 the b esti nterestof

the chi ld made the subject of this suitbecause the appoi ntment w oul d s ig nific antl y i mpair the chi ld' s p hy si cal heal th or emoti onal dev elo pment. Gray req uest ed addi ti onal f ind ing s of fact "on how appointmentof

a parent or the pare nts as sole or joint ma naging conservator in the insta nt case w ould sig nif icantly i mp air the c hild's p h ysica l heal th or emoti onal dev elo pment, inc lud ing , w hat fact s, if any , i n the
re cord, s uppor

t s aid findi ng s." The tr ial cour t did not make any addi ti onal findi ng s o f fact , and t his appeal ens ued.

II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW An app ell ate cour

t re v iews t he det er minat ion of cons er v atorshi p under

an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. W

hit wort h v . Whit wort

h , 222 S.W .3d 6 16, 6 22- 23 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 stDist .] 20 0 7 , n o pe t. ) (o p . o n reh 'g) (c it in g Gillespie v. Gillespie , 644 S.W .2d 4 49, 4 51 (Te x . 198 2)). "Und er an abuse -of-discretion stand ard, leg al and factu al insuf f iciency are not i ndependen t grounds of error , but rather

are rel ev ant fact ors in ass ess ing w hether the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on." Baltzer v. Me din a , 2 4 0 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 5 (T e x. App.- Hou sto n [14 th D is t.] 2007, no p et.) ; see also Morris v. Morris , No. 13- 05- 00297- CV , 2007 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 878, at * *6- 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch risti Ju ly 26, 2007, no pet .) (mem. op.)

. The tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on i f it s deci si on is ar bit ra ry or unreason abl e. W hit wort h , 222 S.W .3d a t 623

. A tr ial co urt may al so abuse i ts di sc re ti on i f it fails to
a n a lyze o r a p p ly t h e la w co rr e c t ly. In the In terest of C.A.M.M. , 2 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] 20 0 7 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 840 (Tex. 1992 ) ( orig. proceed ing)) . Th e trial court does not abu se its discretion if th ere is so me ev ide nce of a subs tanti v e and probati v e c haracte r to s uppor t t he dec is ion

. W hit wort h , 222 S.W .3d a t 623

.16

"The presumpt ion thatthe besti nterestof a c hil d i s s er v ed by aw ardin g cu sto dy

to a natura l parent is deepl y embedded in Tex as law ." Lewell ing v. Lewel

li ng , 796 S.W .2d 164, 166 (T e x. 1 9 9 0 ). Therefore, sec ti on 153. 131 of the family co de req uires that the parent b e appoi nted sol e manag ing c o n serv ator or both parents be a ppoi nted joi nt
ma naging conservators unle ss the non pare nt prov es by a prep ond eran ce of the cred ible
ev ide nce that "appoi ntment of the pare nt or parents w oul d not be in the besti nterestof the chi ld becau se the a ppoi ntment w oul d s ig n ific antl y i mpair the chi ld' s p hy si cal heal th or emoti onal dev elo pment .

. . . " T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 153.131 (V er non 200 8) ; In re De La Pena , 999 S.W .2d 521 , 5 2 7 (Te x . App .–E l Paso 19 99, no pe t.). Th e fam ily code 's presumpt ion i n fav or

of parental cu sto dy

places a "he avy

burden on a nonpa re nt s eeki ng cus tody ." Ma y v

. M ay , 829 S.W .2d 373 , 376 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 2, w rit denied ). To r eb utt he p r es um pt i on , "t he evide nc e mu s t s up po rt a l og i c al i nfe r en c e th ats om e spec ific , ide nti fiabl e behav ior or condu ct of t he parent w il l probabl y caus e sig nific ant phy si cal or emotional har m to t he c hil d." Id

. at 377. Any “close call” mu st be reso lv ed in fav or of the p arent o v er

the nonparent. Cha ve z v. Ch a vez , 1 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 9 (T e x. App.–E l Paso 2004, no p et.)

. III . A N AL Y S IS Shook reli es heav il y

on G re en’ s tes ti mony that G.W

. had suffered from se parati on anxiety and tha t beca use she had not bo nde d w ith Gray, i t w ould not be in her best int erest to m ove to Sea ttle. If

the evident iary

burd en o n a no npa rent was any e v i d e n c e o f any har m to the chil d, w e w oul d be re q uired to find t hat t he tr ial co urt ac ted w it hin i ts dis creti on in t h is ca s e
. Ho we ve r, a s we d is c u s s b e lo w, t h e l a w r e qu ir e s t h e e vid e n c e t o ri s e a b o ve me re specu lation of

harm , and f u rther requires the ha rm to be attribut able to a spe cif ic,T he d i ssent ci t es t hr ee ca ses f r om oursi st er cour t s t o sup por t t he pr oposi t i on t hat a nonpa r ent m ay 2 b e a wa r d e d c u st ody e v e n w ith o u t a b la m e w o r th y a c t o fth e p a r e n t. E a c h o fth o s e c a s e s is d is tin g u is h a b le fr o m th e p re s e n t c a s e , a n d m o re o v e r, th e p re c e d e n t i n th o s e c a s e s i s n o t b i n d i n g o n th i s C o u rt.

Fi r st , i n In re G .R .W

. , t he T exar k ana C our t was de al i ng wi t h ci r cum st ances m uch d i ff er ent f r om t hose i n t hi s case. 1 91 S. W

. 3d 8 96, 898
- 900 ( T ex. App. –T exar k ana 2006, no pet

. )

. I n t hat case, t he f at her of t he chi l d ha d be en i ndi ct ed f or sexual assau l t of t he m ot her f or t he v er y sexua l enco unt er t hat l ed t o t he b i r t h of th e c h i l d , a n d th e fa th e r w a s c o n v i c te d o f th e l e s s e r o ff e n s e o f c h i l d e n d a n g e rm e n t. Id

. at 89 8. M ore ove r, t he co ur t poi nt ed t o t he f act t hat t he f at her w as a sm oker and t hat t he ch i l d ha d sev er e r espi r at or y pr obl em s. Id

. at 900
- 01. T hese f act s est abl i sh spe ci f i c, i dent i f i abl e act s of t he p ar ent t hat woul d be l i k el y t o i m pai r t he ph y s i c al he al t h o r em oti on al de vel op m en t of t he ch i l d. F urt he r, the re i s no i nd i c ati on t ha t t he T ex ark an a C ou rt r el i ed o n t he p r oposi t i on t hat a nonpa r ent m ay be awar ded cust ody of a chi l d wi t hout a bl am ewor t hy act of t he p a re n t; th e o p i n i o n s e e m s to m e re l y s ta te th i s p ro p o s i ti o n i n d i c ta

. See i d. Second, i n I n r

e Rodr i guez , t he f act s ar e ag ai n di st i ngui shabl e i n a m eani ngf ul way f r om t he p r esent case. 9 40 S. W

. 2d 2 65 , 266- 70 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o 19 97, wr i t den i ed)

. I n t hat case, t he b i r t h m ot her gav e t he ch i l d up f or ado pt i on a nd r el i nqui shed al l par ent al ri ght s, and t he f at her had m et t he chi l d on l y t wi ce i n th e c h i l d ’ s l i fe

. Id

. at 267- 69. M or eov er , t her e was ev i dence pr esent ed t hat al l i nt er act i ons a nd v i si t at i ons wer e i ni t i at ed a nd f aci l i t at ed b y t he ch i l d’ s pat er nal gr andm ot her , not by t he f at her hi m sel fi ndi cat i ng a l ack ofconce r n f or t he ch i l d, espe ci al l y i n t he chi l d’ s ear l y l i f e, w hi ch t he ev i dence does not suppor t i n t hi s case. Id

. at 269
- 70. A ddi t i onal l y , t he m aj or i t y f or t he San Ant oni o Cour t wr ot e t hat i t di dn’ t bel i ev e t hat “ [ sect i on] 1 5 3 .1 3 1 , T e x a s F a m il y C o d e c o n te m p la te s t h a t th e e n v iro n m e n t w h ic h ‘ s ig n ific a n tly i m p a irs th e c h il d 's phy si cal hea l t h orem ot i onal dev el opm ent ’ m ust be t he p r oduc t o f s om e act orom i ssi on o n t he p ar t of t he n a tu r a l p a r e n t, ” w h ic h w e c o n s id e r t o b e a b l a ta n t m is s ta te m e n t o fth e la w . W e c o n c u r w ith J u s tic e C a r r ’s d i s s e n t i n s o fa r a s i t a p p l i e s to th i s c a s e
. In re s p o n s e to th e m a jo rit y , J u s ti c e C a rr w ro te : 17 ide nti fiabl e ac t or

omi ss ion of the p arent. The tria l cour t abu sed it s d is creti on, a nd the refore, we sustain Gray’s sole issue, beca use: (1) Sh ook failed to of fer any ev iden ce of a spec ific , i denti fiabl e ac t or omiss ion byGray

thatw oul d be li kel y

to har m G.W ; and ( 2) the e v ide nce of the g eneral har m caus ed by “uprooti ng ” in this ca se is onl y sp ecul ati v e and therefore c oul d notrebut the p arental presumpt ion

. A . Spec ific, Ide ntifiable Act or Omissi on Gray co ntends thatthe tr ial courtabus ed i ts dis creti on bec ause the record does not leg all y —or ev en factua ll y

—demons trate s peci fic a cts or omi ss ions by Gray tha t w ould si g nific antl y

i mpair the phy si cal heal th or

emoti onal dev elo pment of G. W

. W e ag re e. In orde r fo r a nonp aren t t o o ve rc o m e t he p resum ption thatit is in the child’s best int erestto be i n the cu sto dy of a parent, there mustbe e v ide nce of “ spec ific , i denti fiabl e” condu ct by the p arent that is lik ely to caus e harm to the chi ld’ s phy si cal heal th or emoti onal dev elo pment. I n Ma y v . M ay , t his C our

t w ro te t hat t he famil y

co de 2[ W ] hi l e I agr ee wi t h t he m aj or i t y t hat ourr ecor d r ef l ect s " t hat t her e i s no ev i dence t hat any a c t o r o m is s io n , b e h a v io r , o r c o n d u c t b y [t h e f a th e r ] w ill i m p a ir [t h e c h ild ] ," I r e s p e c tf u lly di ssent beca use, unl i k e t he m aj or i t y , I do not agr ee t hat t hi s case i s a case o ff i r st i m pr essi on nor di st i ngui shabl e f r om Lew el ling v. Lewelling , 7 9 6 S .W .2 d 1 6 4 ( T e x . 1 9 9 0 )

. I w o u ld h o ld o n th i s l e g a l i s s u e th a t Lew el ling i s cont r ol l i ng; and, t hat at t he pr esent t i m e [ and] und er t he cur r ent st at e ofT exas l aws, t he Lew el ling stan da rd t ha t no n-p are nts s ee k i ng cu s t od y he re cannot ben ef i t f r om t hei r bon di ng or at t achm ent wi t h t he ch i l d by" off er i ng i t as som e e v i d e n c e o f s i g n i fic a n t i m p a i rm e n t t o [t h e c h i l d ]." Id

. at 168. Accor di ngl y , bec au s e [ t he nonpa r ent ’ s] si gni f i cant i m pact ar gum ent was r ej ect ed by our Supr em e Cour t i n Lew el ling , we ar e r equi r ed t o r ej ect t he sa m e ar gum ent her e. Id

. at 27 5 (C arr, J., di s s en t i ng ). T hi r d, i n C havezv. C havez , t he m ot her who was s ee k i ng to reacqui r e cust ody was sho wn t o be a dr ug u ser and t her e was ev i dence t hat she was phy si cal l y abu si v e. 1 48 S. W

. 3d 4 49, 453 ( T ex. App. –El Paso 2004, no pet

. )

. T he El Paso Cour t over t ur ned t he t r i al cour t ’ s ru l i ng agai nst t he m ot her on ot her gr ounds and n e v e r a c tu a lly r e a c h e d th e is s u e o fw h e th e r th e s e s p e c if ic , id e n t i f ia b le a c ts o r s o m e o th e r r e a s o n w o u ld p re v e n t t h e m o th e r fr o m m a i n ta i n i n g c u s to d y o f th e c h i l d re n
. Id

. a t 4 5 9

. I f t h e d i s s e n t a g r e e s wi t h t he r easoni ng i n C havez , it s h o u ld a t le a s t re c o g n iz e th e p r e s e n t c a s e a s a “ c lo s e c a ll,” a n d s e tt le a n y d o u b t in fa v o r o f th e p a re n t, a s th e E l P a s o C o u rt re q u i re d

. S e e id

. 18 re q uires e vide nce of spec ificac ti ons or omi ss ion s o f the parent t hat demonst ra te an aw ard of cus tody to the p arent w oul d resul t i n signific ant phy si cal or

emoti onal har m to the chil d .

. . . In other w ords, the nonparent m u st usual ly

presentev ide nce aff ir mati v ely sh ow ing co nductof the p arent w hic h w il l hav e a detr iment al eff ectupon the chi ld, su ch as phy si cal abus e, sev ere neg lect, a b a n donment, dr ug or al cohol icabus e or

v er y i mmoral behav ior on t he par

t of the parent. 8 2 9 S. W .2 d 37 3 , 3 7 6 -7 7 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 19 9 2 , writde n ie d ) (ci ti n g Lewelling v. Lewell ing , 796 S.W .2d 1 64, 1 67 ( Tex . 199 0) ). In Ma y , w e ul ti matel y hel d tha t t he father coul d notretai n c ust ody of the c hil dren, b ut t hat h old ing w as based on the fact t hat t he fath er had bee n a drug user in the recent p ast, a nd th e ho lding w as on ly ma d e a f

ter a caref ul and delibe rate f inding of a specif ic, ident if iable a ct of t h e p a re n tt hatw ould si g nific antl y

i mpair the chi ld’ s p hy si cal heal th or emoti onal dev elo pment. See i d. at 377- 79. In Lewell ing , t he Tex as Supreme Cour t emphasi z ed th e por

ti on of the sta tute under
w hic h a n onparent may obta in cus tody

i f “the co urt finds thatappoi ntment of the p arent o r p a rents w oul d notbe i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d bec ause the app ointment would si gni ficant ly i m pai r the child's

phy sical health or

em oti onal dev elopm ent .” Lewel

li ng , 79619

S.W .2d at 166 (em pha sis in origi nal). Af ter em pha siz ing th is sp ecif ic language, the court ins tr uct ed th at: The [st atuto ry] lan g uag e re q uir ing a show ing that appoi ntment of the parent w oul d s ig nific antl y

i mpair the chi ld' s ph ysical or emoti onal dev elo pment create s a strong presum ption in fa v or of p a re n t al custo dy and impo ses a heavy burden on a nonparent. Iti s n o l ong er adeq uate to offer ev ide nce that the nonparent w oul d be a bette r cus todi an of the chi ld

. . . . [T]he no nparent must aff ir mati v ely

prov e by

a preponderance of the ev ide nce that app ointm e n to f

the pa rent as m ana ging conse rv ato r w ould sig nif icantly impai r the c hil d , eit her

phy si cal ly

or emoti onal ly

. Thi

s s tatute thu s r

equi re s the n onpar

ent to off er eviden ce of s

peci fic a cti ons or om is si ons of t he par ent that dem onst

ra te an award of cus tody to the par ent would re sult in phys ic al or em oti onal har mto the child. Id . (i nte rnal citation s omitt ed) (em pha sis adde d). Absen t evi den ce of some specif ic act
or omi ss ion by

Gray t h at w oul d c ause G.W . har m, the parental presumpt ion ca n notbe
ov er come. W e find no s uch ev ide nce in the record. The e vide n ce i n thi s c ase show s t hat t he onl y pos si ble har m to t he c hil d i s t he “u prooti ng ” it sel f—not any sp eci fic, ide nti fiabl e ac t or omi ss ion , c onduc t or

behav ior

of Gray
. Therefore, i t w as an abus e of di sc re ti on for the t ri al co u rt t o n a me Shook , a
n o n p a r e n t , s o l e m a n a g i n g c o n s e r v a t o r o f G

. W. B. Spe cul at iv e H arm Fur ther more, ev en i f w e l ook at g eneral har m, not attri butabl e to Gray ’s sp eci fic a cts
or omi ss ion s, Shook

fail ed to presentany e vide n ce thatco uld ov er come t he parental pres um pt i on b ec au s e th e ev i de nc e pres en te d rai s es o nl y s pe c ul at i v e ha r m. In Ma y , t his C our

t w ro te t hat “ [the] har m to the chi ld

. . . maynot be bas ed on evidence w hich raises a me re surmise or specu lation of possib le harm .” Ma y , 829 S.W .2d
a t 3 7 7 (cit in g Ki

ndr ed v . C on/Chem , Inc ., 650 S. W .2d 61, 63 ( Tex . 198 3) ; Brione s v. Levi ne's D ept. Stor

e, Inc ., 446 S. W .2d 7 , 10 (Tex . 196 9) ).20

Sho oke s s e n t ia ll y relies on one theo ry of harm in order to justif y the trial court’s jud g ment t hat S hook had ov er come t he parental presumpt ion

. That the or y ca n be
summar iz ed as foll ow s: (1 ) Green t est ified thatG. W . s uff ers fro m “ so me” separati on anx iety ; ( 2) thi s a nx iety has ca used “recur ri ng v omit ing ” in the past , coul d eff ecther peer
r el at i on s hi ps i n th e fut ure, a nd ma y l ea d to o th er

l on g - te r m p rob l em s ; an d ( 3) t he s e ha r ms can be prev ented if G. W . remains w it h S h o o k becau se G.W . feels sa fe w it h Shoo k a nd G

. W

. h a s n o tb o n d e d wit h G ra y. Ev ide nce of sporadi c, pastv omit ing and the poss ibi lity of neg ati v e effect s o n peer relation ships is in suf

f icient evidence to rise a bove a me re sp ecula tion of h arm. T he reco rd ind ic ates thatv omit ing had occ ur re d on onl y one or tw o oc cas ion s o ut of the doz ens of ti mes G .W . has met w it h her father , and on cl oser

rev iew of the record, G re en te sti fied th at the v omit ing w as “p oss ibl y ” caus ed byanx iety . Moreov er , t here i s n o ev ide nce that all of the oth er alleged dangers to G.W .’s em otion al developm ent w ere more tha n a mere possib ili t y. F or example , on directex am inatio n, w hen asked , “Can y ou giv e the Court
some e x ample[ s] o f

w hat s ome of thos e addi ti onal probl ems mi g ht be [?], ” Green re spond ed, “ som eti

m es depress ion dev elo ps, som eti m es they ’re at ri sk

for d ru g us e,” and further respon ded, “ often ti

m es w e see lon g- term problem s.” (Emph asis add ed). T hese are the e x actty pes of spec ula ti v e har ms t hat w e prohi b ited from c onsi derati on i n Ma y . See Ma y , 829 S.W .2d a t 377

. W it hout consi derati on of thi s s pecul ati v e har m, the re i s n o
ev ide nce w hats oev er

to re but the parent al presumpt ion

. Therefore, ag ain , w e hol d tha t t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n appoi nti ng Shook , a nonpa re nt, as G.W .’ s s ole manag ing
conse rv ato r.21 IV. C ONCL US I ON Beca use w e hol d that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by appoi nti ng Shook

to be G.W .’ s s ole m a n a gin g co nser v ator , w e s ust ain Gray ’s so le is sue. H av ing fail ed to meet her bu rden , Sh o ok ma y not m ainta in any leg al custo dial rig hts over G.W . “In most cir cu m st a n ce s, a ju d gm e n t is reve rse d an d ren d e re d w h e n a le gal su f f i c i e n c y cha lle n ge is sustaine d.” Chavez , 148 S.W .3d at 461. How ever, w e are permitte d to rem and a case such as this “w hen t he intere st of ju stice so requires.” Id . (c it in g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 3.3)

. In thi s c ase, the tr ial co urt hel d i n Shoo k’ s fav or , mak ing i t unn eces sar y for t hat c our

t t o det ermin e G.W .’s best inte rest as it related to the custo dial or v isitation rig hts th at sho uld
ex is t betw een G ra y

and Lucy

onl y . Beca use of t his , and becau se w e hav e ov ertur ned t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng desig nati ng Shook as sole m anag ing conser v ator , w e f ind i t t o be in the int erestof jus ti ce not t o s impl y render j udg ment i n Gray ’s fav or
. F urther , more tha n a y ear ha s p as s ed s i nc e th e c us to di al h ea r i ng ; c i r c um s ta nc es ma y h av e c ha ng ed d ur i ng t hi s t i me suc h tha t i t w oul d notbe i n G. W .’ s b esti nterestto a p p o int Gray as her so le manag ing
cons er v ator , and w e hav e no abi li ty to deter mine the present ci rc umstan ces of an y of the p a rt ie s , n o r d o we h a ve t h e lu xu ry o f s it t in g a s a f a c t -f in d e r. F o r t h e fo rg o in g re a s o n s , we re mand thi s c ase to t he tr ial co urt for cus todi al hear ing s t o det er mine the r ig hts as betw een G ra y a n d L u c y o n ly.

_________ _________

_________

___ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Di ss enti ng Opi nio n by J u s t ic e L in d a Re yn a Ya ñ e z.
Del iv ered and filed the 30th day of Nov ember , 201 0.