Opinion filed June 29, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00005-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.D.L., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 266th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV 36775

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant is the paternal grandmother of T.D.L. and the Petitioner in this 

lawsuit. Appellee is the biological mother of T.D.L. and the Respondent in this 

lawsuit. Appellant appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her suit affecting the parentchild relationship (SAPCR). We reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural History

Appellant originally filed a SAPCR concerning T.D.L. in Wilson County, 

Texas. See In the Interest of T.D.L., 621 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

2021, no pet.). Ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction, the trial court dismissed the suit 
2

for lack of standing and signed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. at 350.

On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals, in its review and application of TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. §§ 102.003(a) (9), 102.003(b), and 102.004, reversed the trial court’s 

order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with 

their opinion. Id. at 354–55. On remand, the Wilson County trial court transferred 

the case to Erath County. 

In Erath County, the trial court conducted a hearing on a request for temporary 

orders on July 26, 2021. During the hearing, the trial court heard argument for a 

motion to dismiss, filed by Appellee. No additional evidence was presented, and no 

witnesses testified. There was some debate between the parties at this hearing about 

the nature of the prior hearing before the trial court in Wilson County. Appellant 

argued that the Wilson County trial court only conducted a hearing on the plea to the 

jurisdiction issue regarding standing, but Appellee argued that the hearing was more 

than that and amounted to a trial on the merits. The Erath County trial court appeared 

to agree with Appellee, asserting that parts of the Wilson County trial court’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law were “untouched” by the Fourth Court of 

Appeals. The Erath County trial court reviewed a transcript of the hearing from the 

Wilson County proceeding and allowed the parties to submit written briefing for 

review. Following the hearing, the trial court also issued an order appointing an 

amicus attorney. The amicus attorney submitted an answer and report for the trial 

court’s review. After receipt of briefing from the parties and the amicus attorney’s 

report, the trial court signed an order of dismissal without allowing the parties to 

present additional evidence or witnesses.

Issues Before the Court

Appellant alleges four issues on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion 

in relying on prior findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the Wilson 

County trial court; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant the 
3

opportunity to present evidence on the merits of her case; (3) the trial court erred in 

relying on findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the Wilson County trial 

court because they were not temporal enough to be reliable or credible; and (4) the 

trial court improperly relied on an amicus report and denied Appellant the 

opportunity for rebuttal to the report. We address Appellant’s first and second issues 

together, as the substantive question of the issues are essentially the same—whether

the trial court abused its discretion in granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss, denying 

Appellant any hearing or final trial on the merits of her case.

1

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s order on a motion to dismiss under an abuse of 

discretion standard. Maxwell v. Elkins, 197 S.W.3d 858, 861 (Tex. App.—Eastland 

2006, pet. denied) (citing Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 

S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex. 2001)). We must determine whether the trial court acted 

arbitrarily and without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id. (citing 

Walker v. Gutierrez, 111 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex. 2003)). If the matter is subject to a 

trial court’s discretion, we do not substitute our own judgment for that of the trial 

court. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).

Applicable Law and Analysis - A Plea to the Jurisdiction

Standing is a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction, and subject-matter 

jurisdiction determines a trial court’s power to decide a case. Bland Indep. Sch.

Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553–554 (Tex. 2000). During a hearing on a plea to 

the jurisdiction, a trial court may consider issues of standing to determine whether 

subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Id. at 554. During this hearing, a trial court may 

only hear evidence necessary to make a jurisdictional determination. Id. The proper 

function of such a hearing does not authorize the trial court to inquire into the 

1

Appellee filed an objection to Appellant’s reply brief. The objection is overruled.
4

substance of the claims presented by the plaintiff, nor does it require them to put on 

their case to establish jurisdiction. Id.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in this case determined that Appellant did have 

standing to file her lawsuit, and as such, reversed the Wilson County trial court’s 

dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the Interest of T.D.L., 

621 S.W.3d at 354–355. This judgment reversed all rulings and findings made by 

the trial court in their entirety.2

 As noted by the Texas Supreme Court in Bland, the 

hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction is an inappropriate stage of the litigation for 

the trial court to inquire into the substance of the claims presented by the plaintiff. 

Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554. Further, the Wilson County trial court ruled that Appellant 

did not have standing to bring her suit, therefore, the trial court had no authority to 

hear the merits of her claim at that time. See id. at 553–554. Thus, any findings of 

fact or conclusions of law that did not deal with the standing determination would 

have been impermissible. Id. Because the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the 

Wilson County trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that did concern 

the matter of jurisdiction, there was no evidence that the Erath County trial court 

could have considered during the hearing. 

2

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure define the types of judgment that may be entered by 

the courts of appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. The judgment entered by the Fourth Court of 

Appeals was of the type described by Rule 43.2(d) (court of appeals may reverse and remand for 

further proceedings). See In the Interest of T.D.L., 621 S.W.3d at 354–355; see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(d). The entire order of dismissal was reversed by the Fourth Court of Appeals, and 

as a result any findings of fact and conclusions of law were also reversed at that time. In this 

regard, the Fourth Court of Appeals did not limit its remand by special instructions. As we noted 

in Eagle Supply & Mfg. L.P. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 630 S.W.3d 342, 353 (Tex. App.—Eastland 

2021, pet. denied): “Generally, when an appellate court reverses and remands a case for further 

proceedings, and the mandate is not limited by special instructions, the effect is to remand the case 

to the lower court on all issues of fact, and the case is reopened in its entirety.” (quoting Simulis, 

L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 392 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, 

pet. denied) (citing Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986).
5

Appellee argues on appeal that, because the Wilson County trial court ruled 

on standing and on the merits of the case, Appellant waived certain issues on appeal 

by only appealing the standing issue. Appellee is incorrect. First, because the 

Wilson County trial court determined Appellant did not have standing, the trial court 

had no authority to rule on the merits of the case, or to determine whether Appellant 

met her burden of proof. Consequently, there was no valid order on the merits for 

Appellant to appeal. Second, the hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction was an 

inappropriate time for evidence on the merits to be presented or considered by the 

Wilson County trial court. Even if some evidence that was presented for 

jurisdictional purposes could be presented for the merits, the hearing was not meant 

to consider the merits of the case. See Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554. Appellee cites In 

re SSJ-J for the proposition that having standing to file a lawsuit does not mean a 

right to win, and therefore Appellant, during the hearing on the plea to the 

jurisdiction, not only was required to prove she had standing but also needed to 

meet the required burden of proof to overcome the parental presumption. See In re 

SSJ-J, 153 S.W.3d 132, 137 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.). While 

Appellee is technically correct that proving standing is not the “right to win,” a plea 

to the jurisdiction determines Appellant’s “right to be heard in court.” Id. Having 

proven her right to be heard in court, Appellant is then entitled to put on evidence 

and to attempt to overcome the parental presumption. The record reflects that 

Appellant has been given no such opportunity. We sustain Appellant’s first issue.

The Fourth Court of Appeals decided the issue of standing in this case. 

Because of this decision—and the reasons articulated above—the Erath County trial 

court could not rely on any prior findings of fact or conclusions of law entered by 

the Wilson County trial court. As we noted in Eagle Supply, the case was reopened 

in its entirety because the remand from the Fourth Court of Appeals was not limited 

by special instructions. See 630 S.W.3d at 353. Thus, Appellant had a legal right to 
6

present her case to the trial court or a jury for review. Therefore, when the Erath 

County trial court did not permit Appellant to present evidence on the merits of the 

case, the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we also sustain Appellant’s 

second issue. We reverse and remand for further proceedings in the trial court, to 

allow Appellant the opportunity to present evidence on the merits of her claims.

Because our holdings with respect to Appellant’s first and second issues

necessarily dispose of this appeal, we need not reach Appellant’s third or fourth 

issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

This Court’s Ruling

We reverse the order of the trial court and remand the cause for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS

JUSTICE

June 29, 2023

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.