## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 7 - 1 8 4 - CV
I N T HE I NT E R E S T OFJ . P . C. , A C HI L D

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 324TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OP I NI ON

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n one i ssue, A ppel l ant D ayna K ay C . ar gues t hatt he t r i al courtabused i t s di sc r et i on w hen i t gr ant ed A ppe l l ee s Ri cha r d and M aur i ne C . ’ s pet i t i on f or g ra n d p a re n t a c c e s s . W e re v e rs e a n d re n d e r. II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry D ayn a a nd Robe rtC. w er e m ar r i ed M ay 20, 199 6. Theyha d onech i l d, J .P .C ., w h o w a s b o r n M a r c h 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 . D a y n a f ile d f o r d iv o r c e f r o m R o b e rtin M ay 20 02 . A f t ert he di vor ce w as f i l ed, R obert w entt o l i ve w i t h hi s par ent s,1 ... W hi l e b ot h pa rt i esass e rt th att he t r i al co urt ’ s det er m i nat i on of

gr and par entacc e s s and pos se ss i on i s r evi ew ed unde ran ab us e o fdi sc r et i on s t a n d a r d , t h e yd o n o tc it e , n o rh a v e w e f o u n d , a n y a u t h o r it ys p e c if ic a lly appl yi ng an abu se ofdi scr et i on r evi ew t o sect i on 1 53 . 43 3 ap peal s. Ther ef or e, w e a d d re s s th e i s s u e a s a th re s h o l d m a tte r h e re . 2 R i c h a rd a n d M a u ri n e C . (“th e g ra n d p a re n ts ” ). S u b s e q u e n tl y , th e tri a l c o u rt e n t e r e d t e m p o r a r yo r d e r s a w a r d in g D a y n a p r im a r ym a n a g in g c o n s e r v a t o r s h ip and aw ar di ng R obertst andar d posse s s io n subj ectt o t he gr andp ar ent s’ s u p e rv i s i o n . In M a rc h o r A p ri l 2 0 0 3 , th e d i v o rc e p ro c e e d i n g s w e re h a l te d w h e n R o b e rt
w a s d i a g n o s e d w i t h a t e r m i n a l d i s e a s e . R o b e rtd i e d o n M a y9 , 20 04 . J . P . C.
w as f i ve year s ol d at th e tim e . O n M ay 18 , 20 04 , t he gr andp ar ent s f i l ed an o ri g i n a l p e ti ti o n fo r g ra n d p a re n t a c c e s s . O n J a n u a ry3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , th e tri a l c o u rt i ss u e d a re n d i ti o n l e tter g ran ti n g the g ran d p a ren ts p o ss e ss i o n o f an d ac c e ss to J. P. C . O n M ay 18, 200 7 , th e t r i al co urts i gne d i t s or dergr ant i ng t he gr andp ar ent s possess i on and access. J. P. C . w as ei ght year s ol d att hatt i m e. D a y n a b r o u g h tt h is a p p e a l. I I I . Standar d ofRev i ew Bef or e w e d et er m i ne t he m er i t s of D ayn a’ s app ea l , w e m us tf i r stde ci de
w hats t and ar d ofr evi ew ap pl i es t o a t r i al cou rt ’ s det er m i nat i on ofgr and par ent access and possess i on und er sect i on 15 3. 43 3 o ft he T exas Fam i l y C ode. T EX . 12 ... Cf . I n reDoe2, 1 9 S .W .3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ) (o b s e r v in g t h a t , in eval uat i ng a m i nor ’ s r equestf o r w ai verofpar ent al not i f i cat i on t o obtai n an abor t i on, t he t r i al court ’ s det er m i nat i on of t he m i nor ’ s besti nt er est s r equi r e t hat t h e t r ia l c o u rtb a la n c e t h e p o s s ib le b e n e f it s a n d d e t r im e n t s t o t h e m in o rin n o ti fy i n g h e r p a re n ts ).

3 ... S e e, e .g ., Worf

ord v. S ta mper, 8 0 1 S .W .2 d 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 (T e x . 1 9 9 0 ); I n reW. E. R. , 6 6 9 S .W .2 d 7 1 6 , 7 1 6 (T e x . 1 9 8 4 ); Gillesp iev. Gillesp ie , 6 44 S .W .2 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 1 (T e x . 1 9 8 2 ). 3 F AM . C ODE A NN . § 153. 433 ( Ver no n Sup p. 2008 ) . Al t ho ug h s e c t i on 153. 433 does not speci f i cal l y i ncl ude a best i nt er est anal ysi s, sect i on 15 3. 00 2 d i ct at es t hatt he bes t i nt er es t of t he chi l d sh al l al w aysbe t he pr i m ary c ons i der at i on of t he cou rti n de t er m i ni ng t he i ss uesofco ns ervat or sh i p a nd po s s e s si on ofan d a c c e s s to th e c h i l d . Id. Th e det er m i nat i on of a m i nor ’ s besti nt er estr equi r es t h e c o u rtt o b a la n c e t h e p o s s ib le b e n e f it s a n d d e t r im e n t s t o t h e m in o rin gr ant i ng gr and par entac ce ssan d pos se ss i on. Thi s t ype ofba l anc i ng 2
necessar i l y i nvol ves t he exer ci se of j udi ci al di scr et i on and shou l d be r evi ew ed o n th a t b a s i s . See I n re Doe 2, 1 9 S. W . 3d a t281 . M or eov er , t hi s t ype of rev i e w i s u se d i n m a n yo th e r fam i l y l a w c o n tex ts; f o r i n sta n c e , i n ch i l d su p p o rt , adop t i on, and cust ody cases t he t r i al court ’ s best i nt er est f i ndi ng i s r evi ew ed f oran ab us e o fdi sc r et i on. Id. Becau se of t he di scr et i onar y nat ur e oft he t r i al 3
c o u rt ’s d e t e r m in a t io n a n d t h e s im ila r it yt o re v ie w o fb e s tin t e r e s tf in d in g s in ot herf am i l y l aw cont ext s, w e hol d th a tabuse ofdi scr et i on i s t he pr oper4

st and ar d ofr evi ew f ora t r i al co urt ’ s det er m i nat i on r ega r di ng gr and par ent a c c e s s a n d p o s s e s s i o n . To det er m i ne w het hera t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on, w e m us tde ci de
w het hert he t r i al co urtac t ed w i t houtr ef er enc e t o a ny g u i d i n g ru l esor pr i nci pl es ; i n ot herw or ds , w e m us tde ci de w het hert he ac t w a s a r bi t r ary or u n re a s o n a b l e . D owner v. A quam ar i ne Operators, I

nc. , 701 S. W . 2d 238, 241- 4 2 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 ), cert. denied, 47 6 U . S . 11 59 ( 19 86 ) . M er el y because a t r i al cour tm ay deci de a m at t erw i t hi n i t s d is c re tio n in a di f f er entm annert han an appel l at e courtw oul d i n a si m i l ar ci r cum st ance does not dem onst r at e t hatan a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n h a s o c c u rre d . Id . A n abu se of di sc r et i on doe s not o c c ur w h e re th e tri a l c o u rt b a s e s i ts d e c i s i o n s o n c o n fl i c ti n g e v i d e n c e . I n re Bar ber, 98 2 S . W . 2d 36 4, 36 6 ( Tex . 19 98 ) ( or i g. pr oceedi ng) . Furt her m or e, an abuse ofdi s c r et i on do esnotoc curasl ong a s so m e e vi den ce ofs ubs t ant i ve and p ro b a ti v e c h a ra c te r e x i s ts to s u p p o rt th e tri a l c o u rt’s d e c i s i o n . Bu tn a ruv. F o rd Motor Co. , 84 S. W . 3d 198 , 211 ( Tex. 200 2) . A t r i al co urtha s no di sc r et i on i n de t er m i ni ng w hatt he l aw i s orap pl yi ng t he l aw t o t he f ac t s, ev en w hen t he l a w i s u n s e ttled . In rePru den ti a l In s . Co . o f A m ., 148 S. W . 3d 124, 135 ( Tex. 2 0 0 4 ). I n D a y n a ’s so l e i ss u e o n a p p e a l , sh e a rgu e s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di sc r e t i o n wh e n i t g r a n t e d t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s a c c e s s t o J . P . C . b e c a us e t he5

evi den ce w asbot h l ega l l y a nd f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci entt o s upportt hatde ci si on. In a p p r o p r ia t e c a s e s , le g a l a n d f a c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c ya r e re le v a n tf a c t o r s in a s s e s s i n g w h e th e r th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n . Be a umo n t Ba n k, N. A.
v. Bul ler, 8 0 6 S .W .2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 ); Tex . D ep’t of Health v. Bu ckner, 95 0 S . W . 2d 21 6, 21 8 ( Tex . A pp. — Fort W ort h 19 97 , no w r i t ) . Furt her m or e, w hen an abu se of di sc r et i on st and ar d of r evi ew app l i es t o a t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng, f i ndi ngs off ac tan d con cl us i ons of l aw ai d us i n r evi ew i ng t he pr opr i et y oft he ru l i n g b yp ro v i d i n g u s w i th a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o rth e ru l i n g . Chrysler Cor p. v. Bl ackm on , 8 4 1 S .W .2 d 8 4 4 , 8 5 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 2 ); Sa m u el s o n v. Un ite d

He a lth c a re of Tex ., I nc ., 7 9 S .W .3 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.).4 ... The c ourts hal l or derr ea so nab l e p os se ss i on oforac ce sst o a

g ran d c h i l d b ya g ran d p a ren t i f:

. . . . (2 ) t h e g r a n d p a r e n tre q u e s t in g p o s s e s s io n o f o r a c c e s s t o t h e c h ild over com es t he pr esum pt i on t hata par ent act s i n t he besti nt er est oft he par ent ’ s chi l d by pr ovi ng by a pr epon der ance of t he evi dence t h a t d e n i a l o fp o s s e s s io n o fo ra c c e s s t o t h e c h ild w o u ld si gni f i cant l y i m pai rt he c h il d’ s physi cal heal t h orem ot i onal w el l

- bei ng; an d (3 ) t h e g r a n d p a r e n t r e q u e s t in g p o s s e s s io n o fo ra c c e s s t o t h e c h ild i s a p ar entofa par entoft he chi l d a nd t hatpa r entoft he chi l d: ( A ) ha s bee n i nca r ce r at ed i n j ai l orpr i so n dur i ng t he t hr ee - m ont h pe r i od pr ec edi ng t he f i l i ng oft he pet i t i on; (B ) h a s b e e n fou n d b ya c o u rtto b e i n c o m p e ten t; ( C ) i s dea d; or ( D ) doe s notha v e a ct ual orco urt - or der ed pos se ss i on ofor ac ce sst o t he chi l d. T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 1 5 3 .4 3 3 (2 )– (3 ). 6 I V . G r andp ar ent s A ccess A . A ppl i cabl e Law S e c ti o n 1 5 3 .4 3 3 o f t h e T e x a s F a m i l yC o d e se ts fo rt h the req u i rem e n ts t hatm us tbe m etbe f or e a co urtm ay or dergr and par entac ce ss t o a gr and chi l d. 4 S ee T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 1 5 3 .4 3 3 . T h e sta tu te p res u m e s th a t a p a ren t ac ts i n t he chi l d’ s besti nt er est , and i tper m i t s a gr andp ar entt o obtai n cour t - or der ed7

ac ce ssonl y up on a s how i ng t hat den i al of ac ce ss w i l l “s i gni f i ca nt l y i m pai rt he chi l d’ s physi cal heal t h or e m o tio n a l w el l

- bei ng. ” I n re Der

zapf, 219 S. W . 3d 3 2 7 , 3 3 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 7 ) (o ri g . p ro c e e d i n g ). T he Le gi sl at ur e h ass eta hi gh t hr es hol d f ora gr and par entt o ov er com e t he pr es um pt i on t hata par entac t s i n hi s orhe rch i l d’ s b e s ti nt er es t : t he gr and par entm us tpr ove t hat den i al ofac ce ssw oul d “ sign if ic a n tlyi m pai r ” t he c h i l d ’s p h y s i c a l h e a l th o r e m o ti o n a l w e l l -b e i n g . T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 1 5 3 .4 3 3 (2 ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); se e Der zapf, 219 S. W . 3d at334. Thi s hi gh t hr es hol d e xi st s so t hata cou rtw i l l r ef r ai n f r om i nt er f er i ng w i t h c hi l d- r ea r i ng deci si ons m ade by a par entsi m pl y because t he cour tbel i eves t hata “bet t er dec i si on” co ul d ha ve bee n m ade. S e e D e rzap f, 219 S. W . 3d at334 ( quot i ng T rox el v. Gra n ville , 5 3 0 U .S . 5 7 , 7 3 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 0 5 4 , 2 0 6 4 (2 0 0 0 )). B. O ver com i ng t he St at ut or y Pr es um pt i on W e m ustnow det er m i ne w het her t he gr andp ar ent s i n t hi s case pr esent ed su f f i ci entev i den c e t o ov er com e t he pr es um pt i on e nunc i at ed i n s ec t i on 153 . 433 . To s ucc ee d on t hei rcl ai m , t he gr and par ent s had t o pr ove by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft h e e v id e n c e t h a tt h e d e n ia l o fa c c e s s w o u ld “ s ig n if ic a n t ly i m p a i r” J .P .C .’s p h y s i c a l h e a l th o r e m o ti o n a l w e l l -b e i n g . S e eD erzap f, 219 S .W .3 d a t 3 3 4 .8

In a n e f f o rt t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a tt h e d e n ia l o fa c c e s s w o u ld s ig n if ic a n t ly i m pai rJ. P. C . , t he gr and par ent s ur ge us t o c ons i dert hei rs i gni f i ca ntan d l eng t hy p a s t c o n ta c t w i th J .P .C . th a t o c c u rre d i n th e i r h o m e w h i l e th e yc a re d fo r R o b e rt d u r i n g t h e d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s . T h e ya r g u e t h a t si nc e t h e i ra c c e s s t o J . P . C. had been l i m i t ed and r est r i ct ed af t erRo bert ’ s deat h, J. P .C .’s behavi orw as “di f f er ent ” t han i t had been w hen t hey w er e abl e t o see each o t her re g u l a rl y — th a t J .P .C . w a s “ l o n g i n g .” M a u ri n e te s ti fi e d th a t w h e n th e yw e re abl e t o have a super vi sed vi si tatt he par k “[ J. P. C . ] w oul d t ake m e of fand— j ust t ak e m e b y t he han d and w ant t o go of fan d, you kn ow , s i tunde rt he sl i de and j u s t s i t th e re a n d j u s t b e th e re . S h e j u s t w a n t e d t o b e w i th m e .” R i c h a rd tes t i f i ed t hatD ayn a’ s su pervi si on oft hei rvi si t s w i t h J. P. C . “ ca us ed [ J. P. C .] di sc om f ort ” and t hatJ. P. C . ac t ed di f f er ent l y, ap pea r i ng i nhi bi t ed, pen si ve, an d s u p e rfi c i a l w h e n D a y n a w a s p re s e n t. The gr and par ent s al so ar gue t hat a cl ea r vi si t at i on sc hed ul e w as good f or J. P. C . be ca us e i tw asnoti n J. P. C . ’ s bes t i nt er es t t o ha ve t he con st antpul l i ng ba ckan d for t h b etw ee n the m sel ve s an d D ay na as theyt r i ed t o o r ga ni ze vi si t at i ons . They exp r es s t hei r f ea r t hat w i t hout a cou rtor deri tw oul d be com e a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e to e s ta b l i s h re g u l a r v i s i ts , a n d a s a re s u l t, J .P .C .’s m e m o ry ofhe rf at herw oul d dw i ndl e a nd he rf at her ’ s si de oft he f am i l y w o u l d notbe abl e t o be a partofhe rl i f e. Theyar gue t hat t hei r f ea r w as evi den ce d by t he9

fac t t h a t J.P .C . th rew p i c tu res o f he r f a th e r i n to the tr a sh . T h e g ran d p a ren ts al so poi ntt o a l et t ert hat D ayna w r ot e t o J. P. C . ’ s ki nder gart en t eacheri n w hi ch D ayna descr i bed R ober t ’ s i l l ness and hi s “abnor m al behavi or s and v er bal abusi veness” asan exam pl e of how D ayna w as, accor di ng t o t he gr andp ar ent s, “m aki ng ever y ef f ortt o contr ol [ J. P. C . ’ s] m em or [ y] ofherf at her . ” W e have cl osel y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d i n t hi s case f or evi dence t hatdeni al o f a c c e s s w o u ld s ig n if ic a n t ly im p a ir J .P .C .’ s p h y s ic a l h e a lt h o re m o t io n a l w e llbei ng, and w e ar e unp er suaded byt he gr andp ar ent s’ ar gum ent s. O urr evi ew oft he rec or d s how s t hatt he gr and par ent s hav e n otpr es ent ed anypr oba t i ve evi den ce t o s how t hatJ. P. C . ’ s phys i ca l orem ot i ona l he al t h w oul d be s i g n i fi c a n tl yi m p a i re d b yth e d e n i a l o f a c c e s s . S e eBu tn a ru , 84 S. W . 3d a t211. I nst ead, t he gr andp ar ent s have of f er ed onl y bar e, unsupp ort ed al l egat i ons t hat th e d e n i a l o f a c c e s s w o u l d s i g n i fi c a n tl yi m p a i r J .P .C . F o r i n sta n c e , a l th o u g h the y a rgu e tha t l i m i ted an d res tr i c ted ac c e ss to J. P. C . w as, i n t hei r o p in ion, causi ng herdi st r ess and causi ng hert o act “d i fferen t, i n h i b i ted , p e n sive , a n d su p e rf i c i a l ,” the o n l yev i d e n c e the yo ffer t o show th a t J .P. C . w as di st r essed w as M aur i ne’ s t est i m ony r egar di ng her i n te ra c ti o n w i th J .P .C . a t th e p a rk . H o w e v e r, th e y d o n o t e x p l a i n h o w J .P .C .’s al l ege d “ di sc om f ort ” am ount s t o s i gni f i ca nti m pai r m ent , nordo t heyof f eran y e v id e n c e c o n n e c t in g J .P .C .’ s “ d if f e r e n t , in h ib it e d , p e n s iv e , a n d s u p e r f ic ia l”10

behavi ort o t he vi si t at i on schedu l e orD ayna’ s super vis ion oft hei rvi si t s. I ns t ea d, t he “e vi den ce ” t heyr ai sei s m er el y th ei row n c har ac t er i z at i on of J. P. C . ’ s beh avi or , an d t hei rco ncl us i on t hat su ch beh avi orw ast he r es ul toft he l i m i te d a n d re s tri c te d a c c e s s . Furt her , w hi l e t he gr andp ar ent s ar gue t hatw i t hou tr egul ar , court - or der ed vi si t s, J. P. C . w oul d be si gni f i cant l y i m pai r ed because herm em or y ofherf at her
w o u l d d w i n d l e , th e g ran d p a ren ts h a v e n o t pre se n ted an yp rob a ti v e ev i d e n c e to supp o rtt h e i rb e l i e f . F o ri n s t a n c e , a l t h o u g h t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s r e l yo n t h e f act th a t J .P .C . th re w p i c tu re s o f h e r fa th e r i n to th e tra s h a s e v i d e n c e th a t J .P .C .’s
m em or y ofhe rf at herw asdw i ndl i ng, t he r ec or d c l ea r l y s how s t hatt hi s eve nt occur r ed dur i ng D ayna and Ro be rt ’ s di vor ce pr oceedi ngs, w hi l e J. P. C . w as r egu l ar l y vi si t i ng t hei rho us e d ur i ng Robe rt ’ s per i odsofvi si t at i on, an d not subsequen tt o R obert ’ s deat h. Th us, t he gr andp ar ent s’ r el i ance on t hi s pi ece ofev i den ce i s m i sp l ac ed. Si m i l ar l y, t he gr a n d p a re nt s’ ch ar ac t er i z at i on of D ayna’ s l et t ert o J. P. C . ’ s ki nder gart en t eacheras evi dence th atD ayna w as at t em pt i ng t o “ con t r ol [ J. P. C . ’ s] m em or [ y] ofhe r fa ther ” i s al so unf ounde d. R a th e r, th e re c o rd s h o w s th a t th e l e tte r w a s D a y n a ’s a tte m p t to e a s e J .P .C .’s t r ansi t i on af t ert he l oss of her f at her by i nf or m i ng her t eacher oft he di f f i cul t i es th a t J .P .C . h a d fa c e d a n d i s s u e s th a t m a y a ri s e a s a re s u l t. In d e e d , J . P .C .’s t e a c h e rt e s t i f i e d t h a tt h e le t t e rD a y n a g a v e h e r“ w a s e x t r e m e lyh e lp f u l” in5 ... Th e t est i m ony r egar di ng J. P. C . ’ s i nt er act i on w i t h herf at her ’ s pi ct ur es

a fte r h i s d e a th w a s c o n fu s i n g , a t b e s t. Q: C a n y o u t e l l t h e C o u rt wh e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e a r e a n y p h o t os of your deceased husban d i n you rhom e? A : Y e s , th e re a re . Q : A r e t h e r e a n yi n y o u rd a u g h t e r ’ s r o o m? A : Y e s , th e re a re . Q : A nd w hatha s sh e d one w i t h t he phot os i n he rr oom ofhe rda d? A : She w oul d do di ffe rentt hi ngsatdi f f er entt i m es . Dur i ng t he d i v or c e p r o c e e d i n g s . . . . T h e p h o t o g r a p h s t h a th a d b e e n i n my r oom , she had put t hem aw ay. Fort unatel y, f i shed som e oft hem o u t o f th e tra s h c a n a n d ta k e th e m a n d h i d e th o s e . Q : S i n c e [ R o b e rt ’ s ] d e a t h , h a s t h e r e b e e n a n y a c t i v i t y ofyou r daug ht erw i t h herdad’ s pi ct ur es? A : Y e s . T h e re ’s s ti l l a c ti v i tyto w h e re s h e ’l l h a v e t h e m u p fo r a w hi l e. Then s he’ l l t ak e t hem dow n. 11 l e ttin g h e r k n o w w h a t s h e m i g h t b e d e a l i n g w i th i n re g a rd s to J .P .C . M o re o v e r, t he gr andp ar ent s have notpr esent ed any evi dence show i ng t hatJ. P.C . has been un abl e t o r em em berherf at her . I n contr ast , t he r ecor d show s t hataf t er Robert ’ s dea t h, J. P. C . ha d pi ct ur esofhi m i n he rr oom an d t ha t “ sh e [ w oul d] h a v e th e m u p fo r a w h i l e . . . a n d th e n s h e [w o u l d ] ta k e th e m d o w n .” 5 Furt her m or e, t he gr andp ar ent s’ posi t i on t hatt he deni al ofcourt - or der ed
v is it a t io n w o u ld s ig n if ic a n t lyim p a irJ .P .C . is b a s e d c o m p l e t e l y o n t h e ir12

exp r es se d f ee l i ng t hati tw asnoti n J. P. C . ’ s bes ti nt er es tt o ha ve t he con st ant p u l l i n g b a c k a n d f o rt h b e t we e n t h e ms e l v e s a n d Da y n a , a n d t h e i r f e art hat
w i t hou tt he cour tor deri t w oul d becom e i m possi bl e t o est abl i sh r egul arvi si t s. H ow eve r , t her e i s no e vi den ce t hatt he sc hed ul e t hatex i st ed bef or e l i t i gat i on, al t h o u g h n o ta s f r e q u e n ta s t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s wo u l d h a v e l i k e d , wa s h a r mi ng J .P .C .; a g a i n , th i s i s j u s t M a u ri n e a n d R i c h a rd ’s o p i n i o n th a t re g u l a r, u n su p e rvi se d v i sit s w o u ld b e b e tter. W i th n o o th e r ev i d e n c e to d e m o n strate how J. P. C . w oul d bes i gni f i ca nt l y i m pai r ed, t hes e a r gum ent s, i n a nd of t hem se l ves , ar e o nl y r ef l ec t i onsoft he gr and par ent s’ f ea r s and sp ec ul at i onsan d do no ts upportt he t r i al co urt ’ s f i ndi ng th a tt he gr and par ent s ove r ca m e t he s ta tu to ryp re s u m p ti o n . Si gni fi c a n t l y, t he onl y t es t i m ony pr es ent ed by t he gr and par ent s on t he i ssue ofw het herJ. P. C . w as si gni f i cant l y i m pai r ed by t he deni al of access w as t hei row n t es t i m ony and t he t es t i m ony ofKar e n , J. P. C . ’ s pat er nal au nt , w ho t est i f i ed t hati f t he gr andp ar ent s w er e notgi ven access, J. P. C . w oul d have a l otofque st i ons ast o w hy. But“ que st i ons ” ar e n o t e v i d e nceofs i gni f i ca nt i m pai rm e n t . O nce agai n, ot hert han t hei row n opi ni ons and t hatofan i nt er est ed, nonex pertw i t ness, t he gr andp ar ent s pr o d u c e d no evi dence t hat J. P. C . w oul d be si gni f i cant l y i m pai r ed i n t he absence of court - or der ed access. I n c ont r as t , D ayn a pr es ent ed evi den ce de m ons t r at i ng t hatJ. P. C . w asnot13

si gni f i ca nt l y i m pai r ed by t he den i al ofac ce ss . W hi l e t he gr and par ent s al l ege th a t t h e l i m i ted a n d res tr i c ted v i sit s w e re c a u sing J .P.C . d i stres s, D a y n a p o i n ts o u tt h a tb o t h t h e g r a n d f a t h e ra n d t h e p a t e r n a l a u n ta c t u a l l yt e s t i f i e d t h a tJ . P . C.
w as a h a p p yl i t t l e g i r l . S i mi l a r l y , J . P . C. ’ s k i n d e r g a rt e n t e a c h e rt e s t i f i e d t hat J .P.C . w a s a lo v i n g , sw e e t ch i l d w h o w a s v e ry s o c i a l an d i n tera c ti v e w i th ot her s. M or eover , D ayna po i nt s out t hat al t hou gh t he gr andp ar ent s cl ai m t hat t he den i al of vi si t at i on w oul d s i gni f i ca nt l y i m pai rJ. P. C . , t heyac t ual l y m adeno ef f ortt o c ont ac tD ayn a t o s etup a vi s i ta ti o n s che dul e a f t erRobert ’ s dea t h; i ns t ea d, t heyi m m edi at el y f i l ed a p et i t i on f orgr and par enta c c e ss . L as t l y, Da y n a a r g u e s t h a tt h e i m p o s i t i o n o fv i s i t a t i o n w o u l d s e r v e o n l yt o m a k e J . P . C. l i v e u n d e r th e c o n s tra i n t o f a c o u rt o rd e r, a n a c t i o n t h a t w a s u n n e c e s s a ry b e c a u se D a y n a w a s a l rea d yo fferi n g t h e g ran d p a ren ts su p e rvi se d v i sit s w i th J .P .C . A f t err evi ew i ng t he r ec or d, w e det er m i ne t hat t he evi den ce pr oduc ed by t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s , la r g e ly c o n s is t in g o ft h e iro w n f e e lin g s a n d s p e c u la t io n s , d id not r i se t o t he l evel of pr ovi ng by a pr epon der ance of t he evi dence t hatdeni al ofac ce ssw oul d s i gni f i ca nt l y i m pai rt he phys i ca l he al t h orem ot i ona l w el l

- bei ng o f J .P .C . The m er e o pi ni on of t he gr and par ent s t hem se l vesan d a n i nt er es t ed, none xpe rtw i t nes s t hatt he gr and par en ts sh oul d begr ant ed ac ce ssdoe s not o v e rc o m e th e s t a t u to ryp re s u m p ti o n , n o r d o e s i t s u p p o rt th e c o u rt’s14

i n terfere n c e w i th D a y n a ’s p a ren tal ri g h ts b y a w a rding th e g ran d p a ren ts c o u rt or der ed ac ce sst o J. P. C . Thus , t he gr and par ent s hav e f ai l ed t o s how t hatt he d e n ia l o fa c c e s s w o u ld s ig n if ic a n t lyim p a ir J .P .C .’ s p h y s ic a l o re m o t io n a l w e llbei ng. Because a t r i al courthas no di scr et i on i n appl yi ng t he l aw t o t he f act s, t he t r i al co urt ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatt he st at ut or y pr es um p ti on w asove r com e w a s a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . S e e I n rePru den ti

a l I n s . Co . o f

Am. , 148 S . W . 3d a t 1 3 5 . V . Concl us i on H a v i n g d e te rm i n e d th a t th e g ra n d p a re n ts fa i l e d to o v e rc o m e th e s ta tu to ry pr es um pt i on bypr ovi ng bya pr epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den ce t hatt he den i al of a c c e s s w o u ld s ig n if ic a n t lyim p a irJ .P .C .’ s p h y s ic a l h e a l t h o re m o t io n a l w e llbei ng, w e h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on i n a w a rdi ng t he gr andp ar ent s accesst o J. P. C . A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever se t he t r i al court ’ s or der a n d re n d e r j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g th e g ra n d p a re n ts ’ p e ti ti o n fo r a c c e s s .

B OB M CC OY J U S T I C E
PA N EL B: LI V I N G STO N , W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. W A LKER, J. co ncu r s w i t houtopi ni on.15

DEL I VERE D: J ul y 17, 2008